Supermarket Refund Policies

43722

Again, to be clear. This started from an error by store staff or systems. It was not a conspiracy, it was the other one. I have no axe to grind against supermarkets. Again, for clarity, i was not overcharged and not refunded. I acted before any transaction was finalised. I have already suggested what more stores could do. Indeed I can mention two supermarkets where i have not encountered a price discrepancy. It seems that they have managed to put systems in place to maintain accurate pricing.

sheramber

Maybe you did not buy a mis priced product in the other supermarkets and no doubt there are many who could say they have never hd a problem in the supermarket you are talking about.

RefluentBeans

43722 said:

Again, to be clear. This started from an error by store staff or systems. It was not a conspiracy, it was the other one. I have no axe to grind against supermarkets. Again, for clarity, i was not overcharged and not refunded. I acted before any transaction was finalised. I have already suggested what more stores could do. Indeed I can mention two supermarkets where i have not encountered a price discrepancy. It seems that they have managed to put systems in place to maintain accurate pricing.

I feel supermarkets are like courier companies - some people love certain supermarkets and swear by them, others will not touch them with a barge pole because of previous issues. 

‘I wouldn’t ever use Asda because <insert complaint>’
‘Well I think Asda is great and always felt they’ve gone above and beyond because of <insert compliment>’. 

I appreciate it appears that is should be simple to implement a refund all affected people - but it would have to be developed and looked at to prevent any issues and legalities of refunds. And it simply doesn’t affect enough people to be a priority for supermarkets, and the unintended consequences. 

43722

Please be assured that I am basing my comments on my experiences and mine alone.   Two supermarket chains that i use seem to have worked out a synchronised, accurate pricing regime. If they can do this, then others should be able to achieve this also. It is clearly not rocket science. And, if pricing is accurate, then the potential issues that you highlight do not occur. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

Customers are engaging in a contract, and so should actually make sure they get charged for the right amount! It's literally the bare minimum to expect customers to do.

Out of interest what about those who are vulnerable, a bit further ahead in life and not as sharp as they once were, have diminished eye sight and find it difficult to scrutinise a receipt, or the mum or dad with 3 kids and a receipt as long as their arm whilst the 3 young kids, who may be looking after you in your old age, before anyone is bashed for having 3 kids acting like young kids, who want to go off in 3 different directions. 

Or myself as a 30 something bloke on my own who buys a Kinder egg for my kid and doesn't want to hold up the others waiting for the till to have a discussion about 20 pence because they are the only staff in sight.

It's often forgotten that life is relative and what one may find easy as pie might be very difficult for another. 

RefluentBeans said:

In this case:

• Retailer advertises a product for the wrong price
• Customer buys the product for the higher price
• Customer notices they've been overcharged & informs retailer
• Retailer honours the advertised price, and refunds customer for that purchase

What law did they break?

You seem to be implying that if a trader does something wrong, gets pulled up on it and then does something positive they should be forgiven by law?

As explained the CPRs are looking at a practice, not necessarily a single instance, which is likely to alter the consumer's behaviour, it's as broad as that. If this kind of thing never happened then it would be written off as a mistake, however the fact you say we should all check our receipts as a bare minimum highlights by your own argument this isn't a once in a blue moon problem but a systematic issue that occurs.  

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

Customers are engaging in a contract, and so should actually make sure they get charged for the right amount! It's literally the bare minimum to expect customers to do.

Out of interest what about those who are vulnerable, a bit further ahead in life and not as sharp as they once were, have diminished eye sight and find it difficult to scrutinise a receipt, or the mum or dad with 3 kids and a receipt as long as their arm whilst the 3 young kids, who may be looking after you in your old age, before anyone is bashed for having 3 kids acting like young kids, who want to go off in 3 different directions. 

Or myself as a 30 something bloke on my own who buys a Kinder egg for my kid and doesn't want to hold up the others waiting for the till to have a discussion about 20 pence because they are the only staff in sight.

It's often forgotten that life is relative and what one may find easy as pie might be very difficult for another. 

RefluentBeans said:

In this case:

• Retailer advertises a product for the wrong price
• Customer buys the product for the higher price
• Customer notices they've been overcharged & informs retailer
• Retailer honours the advertised price, and refunds customer for that purchase

What law did they break?

You seem to be implying that if a trader does something wrong, gets pulled up on it and then does something positive they should be forgiven by law?

As explained the CPRs are looking at a practice, not necessarily a single instance, which is likely to alter the consumer's behaviour, it's as broad as that. If this kind of thing never happened then it would be written off as a mistake, however the fact you say we should all check our receipts as a bare minimum highlights by your own argument this isn't a once in a blue moon problem but a systematic issue that occurs.  

With respect to the vulnerable and old people - that goes for ANY purchase made online or in person. If someone can’t read a receipt then I dread to think how they deal with a block of legalese to accept to sign up for an account, or reading the terms and conditions of online services. 

Again with the busy parents - more sympathetic scenario than a banker on the way to an important meeting, but same exact root cause - not enough time to check the receipt. To me, that’s not really an excuse. If you’re signing up to a credit card - and don’t check the terms and then get hit with a penalty - can’t use the excuse of ‘it was a summer holiday and kids were running round - how could I possibly read the terms’. Checking a receipt is literally less than 30 seconds in most cases.

You seem to be implying that if a trader does something wrong, gets pulled up on it and then does something positive they should be forgiven by law?

No - but I am asking in this case, where the price was modified before purchase, what law was actually broken? 

Consumers do need protections. But mistakes do happen. In the same way that mistakes happen from consumers all the time. It is good practice to check the price of items on your receipt, and indeed should be expected of customers. I don’t think the ‘too busy’ argument would work in agreeing to terms you haven’t read in any other context and so why should they work here! 

43722

I used to yet receipts longer that a cricket pitch, there is no way you would check this in 30 seconds.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

With respect to the vulnerable and old people - that goes for ANY purchase made online or in person. If someone can’t read a receipt then I dread to think how they deal with a block of legalese to accept to sign up for an account, or reading the terms and conditions of online services. 

Again with the busy parents - more sympathetic scenario than a banker on the way to an important meeting, but same exact root cause - not enough time to check the receipt. To me, that’s not really an excuse. If you’re signing up to a credit card - and don’t check the terms and then get hit with a penalty - can’t use the excuse of ‘it was a summer holiday and kids were running round - how could I possibly read the terms’. Checking a receipt is literally less than 30 seconds in most cases.

Yes very true that it does go for any purchase and that is exactly why such protections exists, even if you're the high flying banker, because consumers who are not confident spend less. 

These laws don't particularly exist because the government cares whether you as an individual have cover when your washing machine breaks down or cover if you get fooled when spending £6 on cereal instead of £4, they exist to ensure that in the main confident consumers spend thus ensuring the the economy performs which, in a capitalist society based on growth, is required.

The legislation means all these people with various reasons why they might not be able to fend for themselves in cut throat world we live in have a little bit of protection in various circumstances. 

RefluentBeans said:

No - but I am asking in this case, where the price was modified before purchase, what law was actually broken? 

Again the CPRs are not looking at the transaction, they are looking at the practice which would be one of how prices are managed and displayed whilst considering due diligence  

diinozzo

43722 said:

I used to yet receipts longer that a cricket pitch, there is no way you would check this in 30 seconds.

What?.........

born_again

43722 said:

Please be assured that I am basing my comments on my experiences and mine alone.   Two supermarket chains that i use seem to have worked out a synchronised, accurate pricing regime. If they can do this, then others should be able to achieve this also. It is clearly not rocket science. And, if pricing is accurate, then the potential issues that you highlight do not occur. 

Yet you would have been overcharged had you not noticed at the till that the price was wrong.

That says to me they still have human error involved, as the event happened. If they had as you say "have worked out a synchronised, accurate pricing regime" then it would not have happened.