Currys being very naughty

bullinn1

Don't know if this the correct forum, just venting my spleen really. I saw on Monday a Hob I wanted on the Currys site £329 ... looked around a bit and decided to buy today, went back to the site and saw a 10% Black Tag discount which I was pleased about but then noticed that the base price had increased by 30% to £399 ... is this legal, ie offer a 10% disount on an item that you've increased the price on at the same time ... hardly a coincidence !

I've emailed them and had a chap phone me who had no explanation and have sent the 'Resolver' form .... anyone any thoughts please ? (btw I have since bought from John Lewis who had not increased their price)

marliepanda

Not sure thats a 30% rise, more like a little over 20%...

Anyway it depends if theyve had it for sale for £399 for a certain amount of days etc. There are laws around this type of thing.

naedanger

rogertb wrote: »

Don't know if this the correct forum, just venting my spleen really. I saw on Monday a Hob I wanted on the Currys site £329 ... looked around a bit and decided to buy today, went back to the site and saw a 10% Black Tag discount which I was pleased about but then noticed that the base price had increased by 30% to £399 ... is this legal, ie offer a 10% disount on an item that you've increased the price on at the same time ... hardly a coincidence !

I've emailed them and had a chap phone me who had no explanation and have sent the 'Resolver' form .... anyone any thoughts please ? (btw I have since bought from John Lewis who had not increased their price)

It certainly sounds very naughty.

The following is a link to an explanation of promotional pricing, in particular see page 5.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31900/10-1312-pricing-practices-guidance-for-traders.pdf

1.1 Price comparisons generally
1.1.1 The CPRs prohibit traders from giving false or misleading information, or
omitting material information, about price or the manner of calculation of the price for
a product, where this causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a
transactional decision he would not otherwise have taken. If you choose to make
price comparisons, you should therefore be able to justify them, and to show that any
claims you make are accurate and valid – in particular, that any price advantage
claimed is real.
1.1.2. In general you should compare like with like. This implies that the products
compared should be the same, or very similar; and should have been on offer in the
same outlet. Also, the basis of the price comparison should be reasonable in terms
of time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances.
1.1.3 If your comparison is made on a basis which differs on any point from the
practice recommended in this Part of the Guide, you should make the basis of the
comparison explicit, so far as it differs. Any such explanation should be clear, and
easily accessible to the consumer: it should be unambiguous, easily identifiable and
(except where this is impractical, for instance, in distance contracts that are
concluded orally), easily legible by the consumer. It should set out positively what
comparison is being made, rather than vague negative disclaimers (e.g., “price
compared may not have been on offer for 28 consecutive days”).

I suspect Currys may have some small print and that they will argue this makes the comparison clear. However I suspect others would argue otherwise.

You could speak to trading standards.

pendragon_arther

It's supposed to be on sale at the higher price for 28 consecutive days before it's offered at a 'sale' lower price, but this is different. They had it at the lower price then decided to increase it but offer a discount off the higher price. It's probably legal but is it ethical?

naedanger

pendragon_arther wrote: »

It's supposed to be on sale at the higher price for 28 consecutive days before it's offered at a 'sale' lower price, but this is different. They had it at the lower price then decided to increase it but offer a discount off the higher price. It's probably legal but is it ethical?

So it has not been at the higher price for 28 consecutive days (it was at a lower price on Monday i.e. around 4 days ago). If that was all there was to the rule then they would have broken it.

However I think if they make clear the "sale" is against some other price they can do so provided they meet the requirements I quoted. Personally I suspect they have not met those requirements but they can probably argue they have, and unless someone takes them to court the matter will not be settled legally.

[Deleted User]

Amazon do it all the time. Offer a product at a 'sure to beat all competitors price' then put it on a daily deal showing the RRP, say X percent off, and quite often its more than it was originally showing for on Amazon, even with the reduction. Shops do it all the time too. You have to have a good memory. I stay away from those 'deals' that aren't.

bullinn1

In rough terms; they increased the price by 30% of the original price (added £74 to £225) then 'offered' 10% (£40) discount off that final price. This happened over 4 days or so ... I am sure they've broken the rules.

Of course I cannot take them to court - I've contacted them through 'Resolver' but heard nothing (does anyone have any experience of 'Resolver)?

I'll try 'Trading Standards' which is now CAB I think ...

Good of you all to take the time to respond.

Roger

CoolHotCold

You need to be careful.

Currys can for example offer it at £279 at a sale price.

Then increase the price to £399, UNLESS you apply a discount code. that's totally within the law.

A "Black Tag Event" isn't a sale, it's not reporting a sale, only a event.


So if you need to apply a discount code in order to drop the price by 10% then they're not doing anything wrong.

Save 10% off marked price - enter code INTB12. Offer also available in store and for reserve and collect orders (discount applied in store)
Save 10% off the marked price on all built-in hobs and gas ovens over £299. Enter code INTB12 at checkout for home delivery orders only. Offer also available in store. For reserve & collect please ask in store for the discount to be applied at payment. Not available in conjunction with any other offer. Hurry, ends 30/11/2015.

That looks to be fine, it's not item specific, it's offering a 10% discount off all their built-in hobs and gas ovens over £299. They're not saying it's a sale, only a saving IF you use the discount code, sans discount code you pay full price. Within the law.

naedanger

CoolHotCold wrote: »

You need to be careful.

Currys can for example offer it at £279 at a sale price.

Then increase the price to £399, UNLESS you apply a discount code. that's totally within the law.

A "Black Tag Event" isn't a sale, it's not reporting a sale, only a event.


So if you need to apply a discount code in order to drop the price by 10% then they're not doing anything wrong.




That looks to be fine, it's not item specific, it's offering a 10% discount off all their built-in hobs and gas ovens over £299. They're not saying it's a sale, only a saving IF you use the discount code, sans discount code you pay full price. Within the law.

The CPR does not apply to "sales" but price comparisons. The CPRs "prohibit traders from giving false or misleading information, or omitting material information, about price or the manner of calculation of the price for a product, where this causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not otherwise have taken. "

If the discount applied only to those customers that quote a code (e.g. given in the press) then I think they could argue the price comparison is clear (i.e. the comparison is with the price other customers pay i.e. those that don't have a right to a discount). But if there are signs up in the store, or the discount is promoted by staff in store so that all customers get the discount, then I think it is not clear what they are comparing the discount to. Surely the average consumer would think they are comparing the price with a previous price, yet as that previous price has not applied for 28 consecutive days they should be making that clear. I mean putting the price up before marking it as 10% off in store, albeit with a code, seems self evidently designed to mislead. Why are they doing it otherwise?

That said I suspect the matter has not been tested in court, so Curry's will argue it is legal.

CoolHotCold

Naedanger

I believe what you advocate would set a dangerous precedent for retailers.(In regards to opening them up to legal action for price misleading)

So, say a iPad was on promotion sale price for £375 instead of £399 for one week, which was previously £399 for the 5 months before the promotion started.

The promotion ended and the price (because either the supplier/manufacturer pulled funding, or the sale ended it's run) went back to it's normal price of £399. BUT the retailer is running a "All Tablets over £250, 10% with code" discount.

I believe that's fair, the price is still £399 unless you apply a discount code.


This happens plenty of times in physical and online shops, and I believe it only has to be advertised for 4 weeks at the "full" price if there was a part of a sale or if the price paid was discounted in basket without any user interaction.

Applying discount codes and manufacture coupons, non-item specific codes are exempt from the "Must be advertised 28 days prior" rule.


*Edit*

From https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31900/10-1312-pricing-practices-guidance-for-traders.pdf part 1.2

It appears discount codes and such are excluded from the price compares, so long as the retail price is not being discounted or appears to be sold at a discount, it's fine to have codes and vouchers to bring the price down, so long as it's not advertised as making a saving on the RRP.

naedanger

CoolHotCold wrote: »

Naedanger

I believe what you advocate would set a dangerous precedent for retailers.(In regards to opening them up to legal action for price misleading)

So, say a iPad was on promotion sale price for £375 instead of £399 for one week, which was previously £399 for the 5 months before the promotion started.

The promotion ended and the price (because either the supplier/manufacturer pulled funding, or the sale ended it's run) went back to it's normal price of £399. BUT the retailer is running a "All Tablets over £250, 10% with code" discount.

I believe that's fair, the price is still £399 unless you apply a discount code.


This happens plenty of times in physical and online shops, and I believe it only has to be advertised for 4 weeks at the "full" price if there was a part of a sale or if the price paid was discounted in basket without any user interaction.

Applying discount codes and manufacture coupons, non-item specific codes are exempt from the "Must be advertised 28 days prior" rule.


*Edit*

From https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31900/10-1312-pricing-practices-guidance-for-traders.pdf part 1.2

It appears discount codes and such are excluded from the price compares, so long as the retail price is not being discounted or appears to be sold at a discount, it's fine to have codes and vouchers to bring the price down, so long as it's not advertised as making a saving on the RRP.

I am not advocating anything. I am just quoting the same guidance that you have linked to, and saying how I think it may be interpreted. However, as I have said, it is a court that would actually decide.

I cannot actually find the reference in part 1.2 to discount codes being excluded, can you give me a page number. I would be surprised if they were excluded in all cases, as that would seem to open a very large loophole in the rules.