Opt-out selling. A shady affair!

BinnBags

Hi all! Long-time lurker, first-time poster.

I have one of those grey area moral questions for you all. I have worked as an optician in a high street store for five years. In that time I have had to come to terms with a few of the slightly shady practices of sales.

One that cropped up recently have me pause for thought. We sell a loyalty/ insurance type card that covers some of the cost of replacement due to personal accidental damage that also gives you a small discount on future purchases.

To sell this product we are encouraged to add it onto the sale and use an "opt-out" selling method. It feels a bit shifty to me but the management assure me it's above board. I know how I'd feel if I discovered this being done to me, but I'd value your thoughts too!

Thanks all!

frugal_mike

That just seems wrong, and if that happened to me it would probably make me distrust the shop and not want to shop there.

How exactly is the opt-out option given to the consumer? If they really do get more uptake using this method then it will probably be down to people being confused or unaware of what has happened.

sinizterguy

Sounds wrong - as business owner.

As a customer I would not accept random stuff added on.

ConsumerGuy0016

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/11/fca-bans-opt-out-insurance

- anyone know if this has actually been implemented yet, or if there is a date set?

hollydays

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/general-insurance-add-ons-market-study

unholyangel

Would possibly be covered under CCRs and if not them, then the CPRs (which focus around unfair trading, where a trader/his practice is misleading -whether by omission or action - that causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision about any products - including cancellation).

But the CCRs say:

Additional payments under a contract

40.—(1) Under a contract between a trader and a consumer, no payment is payable in addition to the remuneration agreed for the trader’s main obligation unless, before the consumer became bound by the contract, the trader obtained the consumer’s express consent.

(2) There is no express consent (if there would otherwise be) for the purposes of this paragraph if consent is inferred from the consumer not changing a default option (such as a pre-ticked box on a website).

(3) This regulation does not apply if the trader’s main obligation is to supply services within regulation 6(1)(b), but in any other case it applies even if an additional payment is for such services.

(4) Where a trader receives an additional payment which, under this regulation, is not payable under a contract, the contract is to be treated as providing for the trader to reimburse the payment to the consumer.

Some websites (prior to CCRs being implemented - at the time the EU had announced the changes the member states were to make) focused on online sales when going over the additional charges info but there doesnt seem to be any exclusions in the legislation itself and several other websites expressly state this for on-premises sales also.

dacouch

I can see why they push you to sell it as it's not very good value for the customer and good profits for the retailer.

I'm guessing you don't go through "Demands and Needs" to ensure the product is needed and appropriate.

http://www.visionexpress.com/glasses/buyers-guide/breakage-protection/

cookie365

BinnBags wrote: »

Hi all! Long-time lurker, first-time poster.

I have one of those grey area moral questions for you all. I have worked as an optician in a high street store for five years. In that time I have had to come to terms with a few of the slightly shady practices of sales.

One that cropped up recently have me pause for thought. We sell a loyalty/ insurance type card that covers some of the cost of replacement due to personal accidental damage that also gives you a small discount on future purchases.

To sell this product we are encouraged to add it onto the sale and use an "opt-out" selling method. It feels a bit shifty to me but the management assure me it's above board. I know how I'd feel if I discovered this being done to me, but I'd value your thoughts too!

Thanks all!

I can't think of a better way to ensure that customers don't come back to the shop a second time once they realise what's happened.

halibut2209

Doesn't seem any different to restaurants automatically adding an "optional" 10% for service. I would say it's legal as long as it is clearly stated. But not a good practice and would certainly be a shop I would avoid.

BinnBags

dacouch wrote: »

I can see why they push you to sell it as it's not very good value for the customer and good profits for the retailer.

I'm guessing you don't go through "Demands and Needs" to ensure the product is needed and appropriate.

That's actually a better deal than the one we do! we offer 50% replacement cost and money off the next pair after expiry. We're an independent though and the owners are often trying to knock off the chain stores.

Thanks for your thoughts all!