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

sheramber

As long as people pay they will continue to charge it. 

How many people want to spoil a meal out by arguing about the charge at the end of it?

Pollycat

NFH said:

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.

I've only ever eaten in one restaurant that applies a service charge and that is clearly stated on the menu (and on their website).

When they bring the bill, they point that out and ask if that's OK.

As I've always left a good tip (the food and service are outstanding) I'm happy for them to apply the service charge and not leave a tip.

No 'deceit' there.
No 'malpractice' there.
No 'foisting' there.

Another reason I'm glad I live further North.

NFH

Pollycat said:

NFH said:

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.

I've only ever eaten in one restaurant that applies a service charge and that is clearly stated on the menu (and on their website).

When they bring the bill, they point that out and ask if that's OK.

As I've always left a good tip (the food and service are outstanding) I'm happy for them to apply the service charge and not leave a tip.

No 'deceit' there.
No 'malpractice' there.
No 'foisting' there.

Another reason I'm glad I live further North.

If a restaurant automatically adds an additional percentage without diners' express consent, then it is foisted. Prices in a menu ought to be total prices, including any automatic additional percentage, as required by the new legislation. Doing otherwise, with the effect of making menu prices appear lower than diners will be asked to pay, is a deceptive malpractice.

NFH

sheramber said:

As long as people pay they will continue to charge it. 

How many people want to spoil a meal out by arguing about the charge at the end of it?

Yes, this is part of the problem. Many diners just pay it, particularly after drinks with their meal cause them to feel more complacent. I would like to see this malpractice become socially unacceptable.

Pollycat

NFH said:

Pollycat said:

NFH said:

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.

I've only ever eaten in one restaurant that applies a service charge and that is clearly stated on the menu (and on their website).

When they bring the bill, they point that out and ask if that's OK.

As I've always left a good tip (the food and service are outstanding) I'm happy for them to apply the service charge and not leave a tip.

No 'deceit' there.
No 'malpractice' there.
No 'foisting' there.

Another reason I'm glad I live further North.

If a restaurant automatically adds an additional percentage without diners' express consent, then it is foisted. Prices in a menu ought to be total prices, including any automatic additional percentage, as required by the new legislation. Doing otherwise, with the effect of making menu prices appear lower than diners will be asked to pay, is a deceptive malpractice.

I've read the definition of 'foisted'.
I don't agree with you - based on my own experience.
The service charge is not 'foisted' on me.

I don't agree it's a deceptive malpractice. 
It is not improper.
It is not illegal.
It is not negligent.

NFH said:

sheramber said:

As long as people pay they will continue to charge it. 

How many people want to spoil a meal out by arguing about the charge at the end of it?

Yes, this is part of the problem. Many diners just pay it, particularly after drinks with their meal cause them to feel more complacent. I would like to see this malpractice become socially unacceptable.

I'm never too inebriated not to notice what's on my bill.

Perhaps you should approach your MP to bring up this 'malpractice' in parliament.

NFH

Pollycat said:

Perhaps you should approach your MP to bring up this 'malpractice' in parliament.

Why? Parliament legislated and the new legislation took effect on 6th April 2025.

booneruk

Is this you, OP?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67ee5b159eae202448299c3b/Anonymous_6.pdf

Did you get a reply?

Pollycat

NFH said:

Pollycat said:

Perhaps you should approach your MP to bring up this 'malpractice' in parliament.

Why? Parliament legislated and the new legislation took effect on 6th April 2025.

Because you're clearly unhappy with the status quo. 

Or you could vote with your feet.

And you've posted this on the wrong board. 
It's nothing to do with 'going out deals'.
It's a vent.

NFH

Pollycat said:

NFH said:

Pollycat said:

Perhaps you should approach your MP to bring up this 'malpractice' in parliament.

Why? Parliament legislated and the new legislation took effect on 6th April 2025.

Because you're clearly unhappy with the status quo. 

It's no longer an issue for law makers, who have done their job. It's now an issue of public awareness.

Pollycat said:
And you've posted this on the wrong board. 
It's nothing to do with 'going out deals'.
It's a vent.

Fair point. I chose this board because this issue is discussed more here than elsewhere. On which board do you suggest that I should have posted this?

Pollycat

NFH said:

Pollycat said:

NFH said:

Pollycat said:

Perhaps you should approach your MP to bring up this 'malpractice' in parliament.

Why? Parliament legislated and the new legislation took effect on 6th April 2025.

Because you're clearly unhappy with the status quo. 

It's no longer an issue for law makers, who have done their job. It's now an issue of public awareness.

I doubt that whinging about it on here will do much for public awareness.

NFH said:

Pollycat said:

NFH said:

Pollycat said:

Perhaps you should approach your MP to bring up this 'malpractice' in parliament.

Why? Parliament legislated and the new legislation took effect on 6th April 2025.

Because you're clearly unhappy with the status quo. 

It's no longer an issue for law makers, who have done their job. It's now an issue of public awareness.

Pollycat said:
And you've posted this on the wrong board. 
It's nothing to do with 'going out deals'.
It's a vent.

Fair point. I chose this board because this issue is discussed more here than elsewhere. On which board do you suggest that I should have posted this?

The clue is in the bit in bold i.e. vent.