Supermarket Refund Policies

SteveJW

Happens frequently at a supermarket near me, part of a large chain
I always check my receipt before leaving the store, if I think something is wrong I will go round the store and check the price. If I have been incorectly charged I take a photograph and go to customer services, refunded no bother.
They are bad at removing the offending price label, sometimes still there next week

born_again

I would imagine that what Op is talking about to happen more often, now some supermarkets have offers for holders of their cards.
So part of the problem, is people see the offer, fail to notice they have to scan store card if they have one. Then complain the price charged is wrong.

pushpull

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

All display prices (eg shelf edge / banner) are merely "invitation to treat".
Price is only agreed when paying.

This is correct but had someone made a purchase due to seeing a poster about a promotional offer and that offer not being available they'd very likely have a right to redress under the CPRs. Same could apply if the ticket on the shelf is incorrect. 

Not going to happen for a box of Weetabix obviously  

Incorrect.

The customer was offered an alternative price which they then accepted

Unsurprisingly the "CPRs" don't exist. Do you mean CCR or CRA? Because neither of those protect consumers against genuine mistakes.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

pushpull said:

Do you mean CCR or CRA? 

No.

pushpull said:

Unsurprisingly the "CPRs" don't exist. 

They don't? 

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

pushpull said:

Do you mean CCR or CRA? 

No.

pushpull said:

Unsurprisingly the "CPRs" don't exist. 

They don't? 

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

I’m not sure it rises to the level that is needed for those regs? I always thought those were for bad faith acting - not just mistakes? Looking at the supercomplaint from Which? in 2015, they made few references to the incorrect signage being displayed rather focussing on the unit pricing (per 100g vs per unit for the same category of product); misleading ‘was’ prices; shrinkflation etc.

This was the first thing I said - Hanlons razor springs to mind - I don’t think that companies are in bad faith (to trick consumers) putting up erroneous special offers. Of course, if they’re notified about it, and then still take no action then you have a fair criticism but the OP stated they took the sign down when they were there! 

I’m also not saying that retailers act perfectly in terms of their signage. Shrinkflation and arbitrary unit pricing still go on a lot, with the latter affecting basic foods like vegetables (prepackaged vs unpackaged often use per unit and per 100g respectively). But this is off topic.

The original question is, paraphrased, do companies need to do more to refund customers given the shift from cash to card transactions? I still have seen no compelling, realistic suggestions that could be implemented by the retailers to auto-refund. I question it’s legality as the receipt would need to be reissued and at least offered to the consumer - which would require contacting the customer, and potentially breach GDPR if you didn’t consent to contact for that reason. Additionally, should your personal details be available to all of the branches of a said supermarket?

Additionally, the consumer can check their receipt themselves, or check as they scan on a self check out, or check on a scan as you go device/app, or check when it gets scanned at a staffed checkout. There’s multiple instances where a consumer can choose to check the price of something, and I think that asking consumers to check to make sure everything is correctly priced is a fair ask. Again if it’s not fair to ask consumers to check their receipt, why is it unfair?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

I’m not sure it rises to the level that is needed for those regs? I always thought those were for bad faith acting - not just mistakes? 

It's a question of contravening the requirements of professional diligence  

Whether that occurrs would depend upon the opinion of a court ultimately. 

The issue in the OP's case is not just the ticket on the shelf but the poster drawing them into store, there was marketing of a product which contained false information* that would be likely to alter the economic activity of the average consumer. 

The purpose of the poster is not to encourage you to come in and look at Weetabix, these offers you see outside shops are to draw you through the doors in the knowledge that the average person will do a shop rather than just buy the offer item on the poster. 

Should promotional advertising remain present after the promotion has expired? I think most people would expect it not to. 

The supermarkets have demonstrated they can adhere to the strict requirements of regulation, for example the bakery section will have strict food preparation requirements which if aren't met will face enforcement action, them not bothering to have correct pricing on the shelves, or in this case leaving up a poster, is merely a lackadaisical attitude due to a lack of consequences. 

*Edited to add, even if the information were correct by, for example, including a promo expiry date, the overall presentation of the marketing (the act of marketing of an expired promotion) is likely to deceive the average consumer with regards to the the price.

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

I’m not sure it rises to the level that is needed for those regs? I always thought those were for bad faith acting - not just mistakes? 

It's a question of contravening the requirements of professional diligence  

Whether that occurrs would depend upon the opinion of a court ultimately. 

The issue in the OP's case is not just the ticket on the shelf but the poster drawing them into store, there was marketing of a product which contained false information* that would be likely to alter the economic activity of the average consumer. 

The purpose of the poster is not to encourage you to come in and look at Weetabix, these offers you see outside shops are to draw you through the doors in the knowledge that the average person will do a shop rather than just buy the offer item on the poster. 

Should promotional advertising remain present after the promotion has expired? I think most people would expect it not to. 

I agree - marketing materials should not knowingly be left in windows in order to incentivise customers for non-existent offers. However, the supermarket did honor the price - so there wasn't false advertising in this case. Assuming the promotion had ended, the OP is suggesting that there should be an automatic refund for the customers who bought the item between the end of the promotion and the OP purchasing the product. I don't disagree that those customers should get a refund, and I'm sure if they went in they would get a refund if they went back and asked.

The issue is with automatic refunds is that it change the price you paid. If this was online (whether a grocery delivery or other e-commerce), it's easy to modify prices on an order - you just reissue an invoice/receipt, and assuming there is a price reduction you can just refund that, and I doubt that any consumer would have an issue with that. In stores, it's trickier - without telling the customer they've had a refund and what for you will just end up with a few extra pounds in your account. Nothing to then stop you from looking at your receipt and going 'I was overcharged for my Weetabix - I'm going to complain' - as they haven't issued you another receipt you don't know what you've been charged for goods. That causes all sorts of issues. 

I think the bar for consumer protection from unfair trading regulations has a relatively high bar to show that there was unfair advertising. And I think it's fair that this is the case. There are a lot of protections in there, but it doesn't say that retailers have to be perfect at pricing. Indeed, when there are 40,000 product lines in a store, even if 0.005% are wrong, then that's 200 products with incorrect pricing. I acknowledge that marketing used outside should be accurate, but again there's a difference between a promotion ending at 23:59 on Sunday, and a customer coming in at 06:00 Monday vs coming in the following Sunday. The former means that the store hasn't had a chance to change promotional signage yet, whilst the following Sunday should have had its signage changed and that probably is a failing at being professionally diligent. 

The supermarkets have demonstrated they can adhere to the strict requirements of regulation, for example the bakery section will have strict food preparation requirements which if aren't met will face enforcement action, them not bothering to have correct pricing on the shelves, or in this case leaving up a poster, is merely a lackadaisical attitude due to a lack of consequences. 

I think this is a strange comparison in all honesty - bakery and fresh food items should be held to a far greater standard than sticking a sign up. One can cause an allergic reaction and kill someone, and one inadvertently misprice items, and if the customer wants to, walk away from the entire shop. To compare advertising to food preparation is a bit disingenuous. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

The supermarkets have demonstrated they can adhere to the strict requirements of regulation, for example the bakery section will have strict food preparation requirements which if aren't met will face enforcement action, them not bothering to have correct pricing on the shelves, or in this case leaving up a poster, is merely a lackadaisical attitude due to a lack of consequences. 

I think this is a strange comparison in all honesty - bakery and fresh food items should be held to a far greater standard than sticking a sign up. One can cause an allergic reaction and kill someone, and one inadvertently misprice items, and if the customer wants to, walk away from the entire shop. To compare advertising to food preparation is a bit disingenuous. 

The point with this is that is shows how efficient a business can be when they have to be. 

It's not as if they are a bit rubbish at everything, instead when strict regulation is there the incentive (enforcement) is present forcing performance, which they manage to achieve, ergo the reason that high level of performance isn't present with correct pricing on the selves is not because of a lack of ability. 

RefluentBeans said:

The issue is with automatic refunds

I haven't commented on that as far as I can tell there isn't any right to such. 

The regulations have 2 aspects, one is redress for the consumer which is for them to pursue, the other is the committing of an offence which is for the appropriate bodies to pursue. 

The regulations are designed to be preventive in nature, aiming to stop unfair practices occurring before they harm the consumer. Again we go back to a lack of enforcement resulting in the regulations failing to achieve their goal. In the main, there shouldn't be a need for consumers to seek redress or for traders to be prosecuted because the threat of both should prevent the breach in the first instance.

RefluentBeans said:

it doesn't say that retailers have to be perfect 

A incident being a "mistake" is a defence for an offence if he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

As I say down to a court to decide.

RefluentBeans said:

I think the bar for consumer protection from unfair trading regulations has a relatively high bar to show that there was unfair advertising. And I think it's fair that this is the case. There are a lot of protections in there, but it doesn't say that retailers have to be perfect at pricing. Indeed, when there are 40,000 product lines in a store, even if 0.005% are wrong, then that's 200 products with incorrect pricing. I acknowledge that marketing used outside should be accurate, but again there's a difference between a promotion ending at 23:59 on Sunday, and a customer coming in at 06:00 Monday vs coming in the following Sunday. The former means that the store hasn't had a chance to change promotional signage yet, whilst the following Sunday should have had its signage changed and that probably is a failing at being professionally diligent. 

A commercial practice:

means any act, omission, course of conduct, representation or commercial communication (including advertising and marketing) by a trader, which is directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to or from consumers, whether occurring before, during or after a commercial transaction (if any) in relation to a product;

Therefore a transaction doesn't have to occur, but rather, in this instance an act or course of conduct which stipulates the legislation may be used to focus on either an individual situation or the systematic operation of the business (at least that's my understanding of it based on the 2013 case involving X Ltd).

It could focus on the single act of the poster or the course of conduct in which the company handles it's pricing display or advertising materials. 

In terms of the height of the bar, the regulations do not require proof of actual loss or damage or of intention or negligence on the part of the trader and are generally to be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly meaning specific interpretation will evolve through case law over time, I'm not sure what there is to imply the bar is high, I would say the bar is potentially broad.   

jon81uk

43722 said:

Yes, I am not suggesting that this was anything other than a mistake. But I was wondering, now that transactions are cashless, whether more could be done, via technology, to refund overpayments when the store has erred. I am not sure that you would need to contact each customer to do this. I know they debit £99 when I fill  up the fuel, but adjust the amount afterwards,  and they have made adjustments to online shopping bills too.

I always check my receipts, and inaccurate charging happens a lot.  I was also overcharged at a garden centre this week, and had to get a refund. 

But the automated system wouldn't know that someone forgot to change a poster in the frame outside the store. If the offer is meant to be running, 99% of the time it is running and the price at the till is correct. Where things more often go wrong is the human changing the signage on time.

diinozzo

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

I’m not sure it rises to the level that is needed for those regs? I always thought those were for bad faith acting - not just mistakes? 

It's a question of contravening the requirements of professional diligence  

Whether that occurrs would depend upon the opinion of a court ultimately. 

The issue in the OP's case is not just the ticket on the shelf but the poster drawing them into store, there was marketing of a product which contained false information* that would be likely to alter the economic activity of the average consumer. 

The purpose of the poster is not to encourage you to come in and look at Weetabix, these offers you see outside shops are to draw you through the doors in the knowledge that the average person will do a shop rather than just buy the offer item on the poster. 

Should promotional advertising remain present after the promotion has expired? I think most people would expect it not to. 

I agree - marketing materials should not knowingly be left in windows in order to incentivise customers for non-existent offers. However, the supermarket did honor the price - so there wasn't false advertising in this case. Assuming the promotion had ended, the OP is suggesting that there should be an automatic refund for the customers who bought the item between the end of the promotion and the OP purchasing the product. I don't disagree that those customers should get a refund, and I'm sure if they went in they would get a refund if they went back and asked.

The issue is with automatic refunds is that it change the price you paid. If this was online (whether a grocery delivery or other e-commerce), it's easy to modify prices on an order - you just reissue an invoice/receipt, and assuming there is a price reduction you can just refund that, and I doubt that any consumer would have an issue with that. In stores, it's trickier - without telling the customer they've had a refund and what for you will just end up with a few extra pounds in your account. Nothing to then stop you from looking at your receipt and going 'I was overcharged for my Weetabix - I'm going to complain' - as they haven't issued you another receipt you don't know what you've been charged for goods. That causes all sorts of issues. 

I think the bar for consumer protection from unfair trading regulations has a relatively high bar to show that there was unfair advertising. And I think it's fair that this is the case. There are a lot of protections in there, but it doesn't say that retailers have to be perfect at pricing. Indeed, when there are 40,000 product lines in a store, even if 0.005% are wrong, then that's 200 products with incorrect pricing. I acknowledge that marketing used outside should be accurate, but again there's a difference between a promotion ending at 23:59 on Sunday, and a customer coming in at 06:00 Monday vs coming in the following Sunday. The former means that the store hasn't had a chance to change promotional signage yet, whilst the following Sunday should have had its signage changed and that probably is a failing at being professionally diligent. 

The supermarkets have demonstrated they can adhere to the strict requirements of regulation, for example the bakery section will have strict food preparation requirements which if aren't met will face enforcement action, them not bothering to have correct pricing on the shelves, or in this case leaving up a poster, is merely a lackadaisical attitude due to a lack of consequences. 

I think this is a strange comparison in all honesty - bakery and fresh food items should be held to a far greater standard than sticking a sign up. One can cause an allergic reaction and kill someone, and one inadvertently misprice items, and if the customer wants to, walk away from the entire shop. To compare advertising to food preparation is a bit disingenuous. 

BiB....no it's not.