Tesco banned me!

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

if a company doesn't intend to charge an incorrect price (meaning they have a policy that corrects the mistake).

Care to validate this? - if such an exemption exists it will be printed in the same act I referred to earlier.

This is why you cannot find any examples for Tescos being fined for an incorrect sel!

The words misleading and incorrect have different meanings.

Tesco has been prosecuted for misleading prices, I have so far only found one example, but still looking.
Cornwall Trading Standards wine Tesco - should find the case for you.

uktim29

I haven't got the time to find Tescos current poilcy on incorrect sels but I know one exists.

The Cornwall case wasn't a single sel, it was a promo advert for the price of a case! I did mention sel's & adverts (promo pos) are not the same thing!

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

I haven't got the time to find Tescos current poilcy on incorrect sels but I know one exists.

The Cornwall case wasn't a single sel, it was a promo advert for the price of a case! I did mention sel's & adverts (promo pos) are not the same thing!

I'm not asking you to verify Tesco policy, we all know they have one. I'm asking you to verify your assertion that just because a company has a refund policy they are exempt from misleading price legislation, as I said if there is such an exception it will be highlighted within the legislation.

What I said earlier was that "Tesco had been found guilty of misleading prices". And they have - so I was right.

You want to narrow down the argument as to whether incorrect sels are included in the legislation of misleading prices. The DTi link I gave you earlier suggests that they are.

Then you say just because they refund the 5% of people (or whatever portion it is) who notice they have been misled they are not guilty. I ask you to verify that. To me, your idea sounds ludicrous. Next you'll be saying a shoplifter who has a personal policy of returning goods stolen if challenged by a store detective is not guilty of the crime.

uktim29

Wig I mentioned in an earlier post about you having to have the last word, always being right & love of correcting others so theres no point in answering you ask. You won't listen.

Wig

Ahh right, you challenge me because I say misleading prices are against the law, you respond with lots of rofl gifs in an attempt to humiliate me because you think I'm wrong and you're right, you accuse me of saying things I don't know to be true - making it up as I go along (in truth I was repeating what I have read elsewhere from what I consider to be trusted sources).

Then I show that I am right. And you make what appears to be a rediculous claim. Now the shoe is on the other foot, I ask of you what you asked of me, and you turn and run.

Ok then have it your way. You won't do what you expect others do for you. bye.

codger

If uktim takes his posts back, he may get a refund.

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

Wig I mentioned in an earlier post about you having to have the last word, always being right & love of correcting others so theres no point in answering you ask. You won't listen.

Wig will listen if you can back up your assertion that incorrect SELs fall outside the remit of the Consumer Protection Act, or are somehow mitigated by the store later giving a refund if customers notice they've been overcharged. For a start the latter assertion is plain nonsense - a crime is not rescinded by a thief later giving back money when asked to do so!

Where did you get this strange notion that POS material is covered by the Act of Law, but SELs aren't? Again, this is plain nonsense. Wig has already given a link to the Act of Law which states that SELs are included.

A quick Google reveals numerous cases of supermarkets being prosecuted for SELs that do not match the price charged at the till.

Here is a recent case involving Somerfield being fined £2,000:

http://www.carmarthenshire.gov.uk/eng/index.asp?locID=3451&docID=15482

Wig

Nice one Phil.

uktim29

I can't believe I'm writing this, this will be definately the last time I write in this thread.

Wig, you still have not managed to find a sentence anywhere saying a single incorrect sel is illegal. Phils case isn't applicable as mutible price labels with no robust system of correction then could be branded as miss-leading, but not a single price label! Phil, pos is advertising and comes under seperate acts.

All I asked Wig was for you to find a link to Tescos being finned for an incorrect sel or sel's. Phil, a well know Tescos hater should have been able to find one but could only come up with that Somerfield case.

Wig

You do realise that throughout this thread, I was referring to Tescos ignoring the fact that they just refunded a customer and refused to take 3minutes out of their time to do their legal duty and go and remove the incorrect SEL. <<< does that ring any bells?

At that point it becomes willful, and then when "hordes" of other customers come along to get the same refund, it becomes undeniable. IMO it would not matter if it involved 100s of stores because Tesco would have been well aware of the problem, if the customers are well aware of the problem, then Tescos would also be. The problem though occurs even within a single store, where many customers come to claim their refund on a particular item, and yet the incorrect price is allowed to remain. There are threads on MSE which showed people spreading the news and other MSEs going to the same store to get the same refund, thus spurring even more MSEs to go to the store.

What you were saying before about the store offering to refund the customer about the misleading price (and yes a single incorrect SEL is a misleading price) and then being not guilty. You obviously meant it gives them a defence that it was not their intention to decieve. But what you failed to add on to your crteria/remark was that some sort of remedial action would be needed aswell..... such as the CS person taking 3 minutes out of their time to go and remove the SEL.

So if the same customer returned to the store later, got the same refund after the same complaint, and then informed trading standards, who then visited the store themselves and obtained the same misleading price, there would be grounds for a prosecution.