Mcdonald's Voucher not honoured

AhsenShah

bris said:

Why not just pay the extra 50p and be done with it, it's a burger !!!!!! what exactly are you hoping to achieve? You want someone to help you? Please pick your battles.

I ordered 8, we have a big family. If you don't have anything worthwhile to say then it would be better not to reply.  

KatrinaWaves

https://www.savethestudent.org/student-deals/food-and-drink/how-to-get-a-1-99-mcds-meal-deal-without-a-voucher.html
(I realise its old but its something which has been going on a while)

Is it this? If so, it does state that officially the terms require a physical voucher, which you do not have. 

AhsenShah

Undervalued said:

powerful_Rogue said:

ThumbRemote said:

steampowered said:

Did you intentionally try to use a voucher you  knew you weren't entitled to use?

If so, that's fraud. The manager could have called the police if he was so inclined.

Please do tell us what criminal law has been broken by someone attempting to use a discount code to which they are not entitled?

What are the punishments, 3 months inside for sharing a Meerkat code; 6 months for getting a student discount after you've graduated?

Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 springs to mind.

Indeed!
It was once called "attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception"!

6 months for a fillet and fries .... ha ha ha ha lol. I can see the judge right now.

BillTrac

AhsenShah,

No, I think giving six months to anyone ordering a filet and fries in a McDonalds is about right :-)

eddddy

ThumbRemote said:

Please do tell us what criminal law has been broken by someone attempting to use a discount code to which they are not entitled?

I suspect that the OP would have clicked on a button labelled "I have a voucher", when they didn't really have a voucher - and then manually entered a code that they found on the internet.

That would be "Fraud by False Representation" - a criminal offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
   (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
   (b) intends, by making the representation—
      (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
      (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
   (a)it is untrue or misleading, and
   (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
Link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

i.e. The OP made a false representation the he/she had a voucher, in order to make a gain for himself/herself (and cause a loss to McDonalds) by getting a cheaper meal.

 (But realistically, I doubt the police would be interested in fraud where the amount involved is this small.)

Fosterdog

The other option would be that the voucher was intended for a single item purchase only but OP applied it to 8 items

DoaM

Perhaps the OP tried to take advantage, but the fault lies with McDs ... if they didn't want people taking advantage then they should ensure that their ordering system is suitably robust to prevent this.

baza52

My son was arrested and charged a few years ago for using a voucher in nando's to get a free meal.
He lost his job at the bank he worked at and ended up with a fraud conviction, a fine and community service for it.

Aylesbury_Duck

baza52 said:

My son was arrested and charged a few years ago for using a voucher in nando's to get a free meal.
He lost his job at the bank he worked at and ended up with a fraud conviction, a fine and community service for it.

Was the fine a poultry one?

Kingsd316

baza52 said:

My son was arrested and charged a few years ago for using a voucher in nando's to get a free meal.
He lost his job at the bank he worked at and ended up with a fraud conviction, a fine and community service for it.

Did he buy a stamper online and self stamp loyalty cards?  If so i think that is a little different