New justification for refusing to pay foisted restaurant "service charges" without feeling guilty

NFH

A misleading indication of price is a form of dishonesty. A business deceives a consumer into believing that they will pay a lower price in order to entice the consumer into choosing a product, but the business subsequently charges a higher price. Many UK restaurants carry out this malpractice, particularly in London. For example, they show a price of £16 for a dish in a menu, but subsequently ask diners to pay £18 for the dish, because they later add a so-called "service charge" of typically 12.5%, which is foisted on to the bill.

These so-called "service charges" are not gratuities or tips, because their amounts are determined by restaurants and they are foisted on to restaurant bills without diners' express consent. In contrast with a gratuity or tip, it is determined by a diner and it is added voluntarily by a diner, not automatically by a restaurant.

This nonsense almost never happens in restaurants in most other European countries, only in the UK. There is nothing different or special about the UK that justifies this malpractice. It is an unwelcome import of pricing culture from the United States where the price you see is rarely the price you pay.

Since 6th April 2025, Section 230(2) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024  requires an "invitation to purchase", such as a restaurant menu, to indicate:

(b) the total price of the product (so far as paragraph (c) does not apply);

(c) if, owing to the nature of the product, the whole or any part of the total price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, how the price (or that part of it) will be calculated.

The intention of this new legislation is to outlaw misleading indications of price whereby unavoidable additional charges are added later on top of an initially quoted price, for example mandatory booking fees and service fees. The price quoted at the beginning of the purchase process must now be the total price of the product.

The Competition and Markets Authority's guidance confirms that an "invitation to purchase" includes a restaurant menu, which must include "the total price of the product (including any mandatory fees, taxes, charges or other payments that the consumer must pay if they purchase the product)". Clearly a "total price" means the total including all elements of the purchased service including any specific charge for the "service".

Therefore please refuse to pay these so-called "service charges", citing the new legislation which took effect on 6th April 2025. Many restaurant staff will not know that the legislation cannot be enforced on purportedly-optional service charges, even if they are involuntarily foisted. If restaurant staff do know, there's a strong argument that, now that mandatory service charges are outlawed, it follows that optional service charges are similarly unmerited by being against the spirit of the new legislation, and consequently they should be neither charged nor paid.

flaneurs_lobster

To be clear, are you asserting that if a restaurant menu states "A x% service charge will be added to your bill" then the customer can insist that this charge be removed?

Can they so insist a) before the meal is ordered, or b) on presentation of the bill?

Hoenir

Frequently encountered minimum per head spend or table charges in European restaurants. Then there's the bread trick. Human ingenuity knows no bounds in pickpocketing money out of punters. 

NFH

flaneurs_lobster said:

To be clear, are you asserting that if a restaurant menu states "A x% service charge will be added to your bill" then the customer can insist that this charge be removed?

Can they so insist a) before the meal is ordered, or b) on presentation of the bill?

Either. Although I would recommend that you choose option (b) to avoid the risk of restaurant staff spitting in your food.

Alderbank

NFH said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

To be clear, are you asserting that if a restaurant menu states "A x% service charge will be added to your bill" then the customer can insist that this charge be removed?

Can they so insist a) before the meal is ordered, or b) on presentation of the bill?

Either. Although I would recommend that you choose option (b) to avoid the risk of restaurant staff spitting in your food.

How does that work with a restaurant that you wish to eat again at?

Do you go in disguise?

NFH

Alderbank said:

NFH said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

To be clear, are you asserting that if a restaurant menu states "A x% service charge will be added to your bill" then the customer can insist that this charge be removed?

Can they so insist a) before the meal is ordered, or b) on presentation of the bill?

Either. Although I would recommend that you choose option (b) to avoid the risk of restaurant staff spitting in your food.

How does that work with a restaurant that you wish to eat again at?

Do you go in disguise?

That's a fair point. But in many cases, the staff will be different on subsequent visits and staff's memories will fade over time anyway. I just don't see any upside in stating one's objection upfront at the time of ordering.

Grumpy_chap

Hoenir said:

 Then there's the bread trick.

What is the bread trick please?

I actually like some freshly baked bread with my meal and, even though it is not a menu option, will often request it when at my favourite local restaurant.  They always serve nice bread, but it is always different.  Recently, I decided to ask how come the bread choice was always different?  The response was that I was the only customer who ever requested a side order or bread and they don't really have bread but because I am a good and regular customer, they will go out and buy the bread when I request it, so the bread depends on what the Waitress decides to buy from what the Bakers has available at the time of day that I am dining.

Certainly a level of service that warrants the tip I chose to give.

armistice

OP:   The act relates to digital activities, it doesn't apply to Restaurants (unless your ordering via the internet)

Digital activities

(1)For the purposes of this Part, the following are “digital activities”—

(a)the provision of a service by means of the internet, whether for consideration or otherwise;

(b)the provision of one or more pieces of digital content, whether for consideration or otherwise;

(c)any other activity carried out for the purposes of an activity within paragraph (a) or (b).

(2)For the purposes of this section, a service is provided by means of the internet even where it is provided by means of a combination of—

(a)the internet, and

(b)an electronic communications service (within the meaning given by section 32(2) of the Communications Act 2003).

NFH

armistice said:

OP:   The act relates to digital activities, it doesn't apply to Restaurants (unless your ordering via the internet)

Why are you focussing on Part 1, which relates to digital markets? As the name of the legislation implies, it covers multiple topics:

• Digital Markets
• Competition
• Consumers

This thread is about Part 4 (consumer rights and disputes) which includes Section 230. Please stay on topic.

sheramber

Why not just avoid such a restaurant if you don’t want to pay the charges?

NFH

sheramber said:

Why not just avoid such a restaurant if you don’t want to pay the charges?

That's easier said that done. In London, a majority of restaurants have introduced this malpractice in recent years.