Overcharged at the pub

uktim29

The labels most likely corrected by now anyway so Trading Standards will not be happy having to look for one label.

I know this from experience. A few years back when I worked in a shop I had one come in. He said to me "there are grannys being ripped off thousands of pounds & I've got to look at a sign". The customer was wrong in this case anyway.

Trading Standards don't have a party whenever someones phones up and says they've seen an incorrect price label and get ready to take them to court. I think the lack of Tescos being taken to court which we've found the other day proves that.

I think that also if the label was incorrect and was corrected to the till price which it more than likely has been Trading Standards wouldn't view that as wrong. There is no law saying an incorrect marked price is the one that has to be charged (It is no where in the consumer protection act as it is not a permanant (assuming some action has been taken to correct it) therefore misleading price but a mistake).

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

The labels most likely corrected by now anyway so Trading Standards will not be happy having to look for one label.

You know, I was going to write "but check it's still wrong first" but for whatever reason decided not to. Thanks for saying that because I reckon it should have been said.

Trading Standards don't have a party whenever someones phones up and says they've seen an incorrect price label and get ready to take them to court. I think the lack of Tescos being taken to court which we've found the other day proves that.

No one suggested TS would be interested in court case in the short term. You like inventing things eh. And the only thing we found the other day was that you were wrong, Tescos, in having misleading prices are breaking the law (you said they were not), and after having the misleading price pointed out to them and still not changing it (time taken to do so, 3 minutes) they are evading a legal duty to correct it...(another point you said was incorrect). Just shows how much you know doesn't it.

I think that also if the label was incorrect and was corrected to the till price which it more than likely has been Trading Standards wouldn't view that as wrong. There is no law saying an incorrect marked price is the one that has to be charged

No one said it was... where are you getting your ideas about what's been said on this thread from?

(It is no where in the consumer protection act as it is not a permanant (assuming some action has been taken to correct it) therefore misleading price but a mistake).

Absolute rubbish, for the time that it is misleading, it is a misleading price. After being corrected it is no longer misleading. You are yet to quote the consumer protection act where it says something like

"Section 15 does not apply if the price discrepancy is a mistake"

Or what was better was your first line of argument where you suggested the act would say something like this

"Section 15 will not apply if the store refunds the price difference when asked to do so by the customer"

Hey, I know, let me use some of those rofl gifs that you like using so much
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You know what Tim, I realised t'other day where I'd met you before. I seem to recall confirming to someone in a thread that if they felt unhappy with a restaurant meal they could leave contact details and pay what they felt was appropriate, you are the guy who chose to pick an argument about what I'd said, you said something like the person doing so would get arrested. When I challenged your funny idea, it eventually became clear that you had chosen to ignore that I had said "leave your contact details" you were talking as though I had suggested the customer should just get up and walk out. You like ignoring pertinent information in peoples posts don't you, and inventing other information that doesn't exist.

hartcjhart

Ok some of you say its only a £1 accept it what if it was a £100/£1000,

where do you draw the line,
OP I would write to the pub company stating that you were unhappy about the service and ask them to explain the price differential,

also send a copy of the letter to the manager of the pub.

If something is wrong complain, BUT there are ways to do it,

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

You are yet to quote the consumer protection act where it says something like

"Section 15 does not apply if the price discrepancy is a mistake"

I'm yet to see you quote a specific piece of text as well. Your extract the other day was not the actual Consumer Protection Act but a piece of text about misleading prices being an offence. But it was very vague, had no reference to the act which means that we don't know how the law defines misleading in this case.

As far as I'm concerned misleading would also have an element on intent and no will for correction. An incorrect price that gets changed would not be in my opinion and also it seems in the laws eyes due to complete lack of prosecutions for incorrect sel's would not be counted as misleading. The Somerfield case the other day was for many in one single store that had not been corrected, this is completely different. My argument is for single prices that were wrong then get changed, I don't believe that counts as misleading. With no cases of a retailer being prosecuted for a single sel being wrong then it would seem I'm right.

You say I'm inventing things but you must have had something in mind, so what would your motive for contacting Trading Standards be then? Surely not a chat

:rotfl:

Trading Standards would not be impressed having to chase this up. They actually feel sorry for retailers that some of the public will actually contact them for things like this. As I said I know this from experience, they have actually told me this.

zfrl

hartcjhart wrote: »

Ok some of you say its only a £1 accept it what if it was a £100/£1000

Well I would have hoped if that was the case the OP would have handed the wine back & asked for the money back. The OP accepted the transaction.

Wig

uktim29 wrote:

I'm yet to see you quote a specific piece of text as well. Your extract the other day was not the actual Consumer Protection Act but a piece of text about misleading prices being an offence. But it was very vague, had no reference to the act which means that we don't know how the law defines misleading in this case.

Now you admit it, you don't know what you're talking about. It did of course mention the act which is referencing the act.

As far as I'm concerned misleading would also have an element on intent and no will for correction. An incorrect price that gets changed would not be in my opinion and also it seems in the laws eyes due to complete lack of prosecutions for incorrect sel's would not be counted as misleading. The Somerfield case the other day was for many in one single store that had not been corrected, this is completely different. My argument is for single prices that were wrong then get changed, I don't believe that counts as misleading. With no cases of a retailer being prosecuted for a single sel being wrong then it would seem I'm right.

No, it just means TS prefer dialogue to prosecution we all know that to be true anyway. If your simple "mistake"/"oh we'll correct that now" theory was true the case of Tesco case wine would not have been succesful.

You say I'm inventing things but you must have had something in mind, so what would your motive for contacting Trading Standards be then? Surely not a chat

Why not read #32 again

Trading Standards would not be impressed having to chase this up. They actually feel sorry for retailers that some of the public will actually contact them for things like this. As I said I know this from experience, they have actually told me this.

If the pub is still doing it it has become more serious as it has been undeniably brought to their attention. All that is required of trading standards in the first instance is a quick phonecall to set them straight.

uktim29

Tescos couldn't have changed the wine label price! Otherwide no-one would have had any evidence!

Wig wrote: »

Why not read #32 again

What? Phone them to get them to have a go at someone ("scrote who served you and the manager to realise they are wrong"), your exactly the sort of person that makes Trading Standards officers feel sorry for retailers.

Brooke_Daver

mogoot wrote: »

Is it right to claim the full £15.50 through the bank?

Would that not be fraud?

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

Tescos couldn't have changed the wine label price! Otherwide no-one would have had any evidence!

Your train of thoughts are really warped IMHO. First you are saying if it is a mistake (no intent) there is no offence comitted. Now you seem to be saying, in the event that a TS officer spots a misleading price but does not give Tesco a chance to remove the misleading price then an offence has been committed. What are you smoking?

I just read your post in a different way, and think you might be assuming someone complained to Tesco first about the misleading price on wines. Nowhere does it say that Tesco were challenged by a customer and chose to ignore the customer who then complained to TS. You're assuming stuff that is not there again.
But to be honest I don't know where you're coming from because you don't make yourself clear. You think using exclamation marks makes your point for you - but it doesn't.

What? Phone them to get them to have a go at someone ("scrote who served you and the manager to realise they are wrong"), your exactly the sort of person that makes Trading Standards officers feel sorry for retailers.

Just phone them to ask if they have a price saying 14.50 for a bottle they charge 15.50 for and they have had a complaint about it, and seeing as they (the pub) are still doing it (if they admit it on the phone) then to politely remind them of their responsibilities about price indicators. There's no need to blow this out of all proportion as you are doing.

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

think you might be assuming someone complained to Tesco first about the misleading price on wines. Nowhere does it say that Tesco were challenged by a customer and chose to ignore the customer who then complained to TS. You're assuming stuff that is not there again.

Where does it say that they weren't? Or are you assuming that. So why have you just written "You're assuming stuff that is not there again". How would have TS known about it their not psychic.