Co-op grocery delivery T&Cs - are they lawful?

learnandshare

Hi all, I'm a co-op member and have been regularly ordering grocery deliveries online and through the app.

Generally satisfied but they have a clause in their T&Cs that says, roughly speaking, if an item that is part of a meal deal offer is unavailable then you have to pay full price for the other items.

Today I ordered a member price deal deal (one main and two sides) for £8 but the store didn't have one of the sides. Importantly, even though they charge a substitute price, they "couldn't find a suitable substitute". Seriously? - just put a different side in the deal! I'm out of pocket by about £4.

Of course I got onto customer service but they refused to resolve it, quoting the T&Cs.

I will be escalating this but my question is are those T&Cs even lawful? Seems like an unfair contract clause to me if they don't even attempt to provide a substitute?

Thanks for any replies.

RefluentBeans

Did you have the opportunity to refuse delivery of the items that were now priced at full price? If so, then I believe that would be the way to resolve the situation - as they are entitled to not offer substitutes; and if the terms of the special offer aren’t met based on availability then the special offer isn’t valid.

user1977

I can't see it specifically covered in their terms, but I would have thought it should be treated as a substitution, with an option for you to reject the remaining items.

tacpot12

I believe a court would find them lawful. The T&Cs would be unfair to the Co-op if it required them to honour a meal deal where they could not supply one of the items; they would potentially be losing money. The meal deal is effectively a discount if you spend enough. If you aren't being charged for the item they can't supply, you aren't spending enough to qualify for the discount. A court might consider the fact that you don't know whether you are spending enough to qualify, because you aren't told that items aren't in stock when you place the order, but you do agree to their T&Cs when placing an order, so I don't think a court would uphold your complaint that the term is an unfair one. Sorry.

mta999

Are you able to refuse or return the items and get your money back ?

Aylesbury_Duck

I would think it's the same as if it were in-store. If one item of a meal deal were not available in store, you'd have to pay full price for any items you did purchase. For me, it all comes down to whether or not you're able to reject or return the other items in the case where they're delivered. If you are, then I don't think the policy is unlawful. Even if you're not, I agree with tacpot12. If the terms are available to you ahead of purchase, I think that's fair.

What did you ask them for, by way of resolution? And what have they refused to do?

A_Geordie

I don't do food shopping online but I think the OP has a valid point somewhat.

If the terms allow for a unilateral substitution by Co-Op then the terms could be regarded as unfair. If there is an option in the account to allow the Co-Op to provide a substitute if there selection is not available, then I think it becomes a little more of a grey area.

I've read numerous articles where people have reported receiving random substitutions such as a tin of baked beans, or a piece of meat for Christmas when they specifically ordered a vegan meal. For me, the key question would be whether a reasonable person would expect to receive that substituted item based on the original requested item.

For meal deals, any sensible and reasonable person would think that the purpose of getting a meal deal is largely to save money than individually purchasing those items or similar. I think it would also be reasonable to take the view that if the meal deal item was not available, then the Co-Op staff should in the first instance consider substituting with a side meal that is available within the meal deal range - unless the OP has given clear instructions not to select certain meals or meals with certain ingredients.

Even if there is no other side options available in the shop as they are all out of stock, would it be reasonable to expect to pay for a similar side meal that falls outside the meal deal range and results in you paying significantly more than you might expect (assuming the substituted meal is what you might expect to receive). The jury is out on that one but I don't think it is too farfetched for the OP to take their current stance.

Problem with returns is that food are deemed perishable items and is a category that is exempt from the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, if the food deteriorates or expires rapidly. I expect that this will be the argument by Co-Op as to why no returns are allowed.

The logical solution here would be to sue Co-Op but I'm sure they wouldn't want to be going to court over £8 and whether the OP has time on their hands to pursue this out of principle more than anything.

Ergates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900221#Comment_81900221

I could be wrong, but I believe with food deliveries they tell you at the point of delivery if any substitutions have been made. So it's not a matter of returning the items, it's a matter of rejecting them at that point - which would mean the restrictions on returning perishable items wouldn't apply (as they'd never come into your possession).

My question would be: If there is a meal deal for, say, main, side and dessert and, say, the side was substituted so the meal deal no longer applies. Would they let the customer reject the other 2 items too?

A_Geordie

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900252#Comment_81900252

Is it standard across the board for all food retailers who offering online shopping to inform at the point of delivery if substitutions were made?

I suppose whether CCRs come into play depends on the age old question of at what point is the contract concluded. Losing the right to cancel will come into effect once there is a concluded contract, so I would agree that if the contract isn't concluded until the customer has accepted the food at the point of delivery after being made aware of any substitutions, then the exemption won't apply.

My question would be: If there is a meal deal for, say, main, side and dessert and, say, the side was substituted so the meal deal no longer applies. Would they let the customer reject the other 2 items too?

I can't see any reason why they wouldn't refuse rejection of the other items because they formed part of a complete deal rather than something that was ordered on individually.

screech_78

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900286#Comment_81900286

I occasionally do online grocery shopping with Sainsbury’s and they send an email ahead of delivery, informing you of any substitutes.

You’re free to hand any substituted items back to the driver for a refund. You’re also free to hand back any items in your shopping. I’ve ordered items that I’ve then discovered I don’t actually need and never had an issue receiving a refund.

Pretty much all supermarkets work the same in regard to meal deals. It’s the downside of ordering for delivery. If you don’t like it, you can always shop in person.

A_Geordie

Well, this is what the T&Cs says about substitutions.

4. Availability of goods and substitutions

1. Availability of goods will depend on stock in the ‘Selected Store‘ at the time of purchase.

2. Where an item you have chosen is unavailable, we may substitute the item with an alternative, where available. However, this may affect the price you pay (see clause 9.2). You will be notified of any alternatives and the total price charged in your delivery or collection emails.

3. You may refuse any substituted item on delivery or collection and we will refund you for the items.

4. If an item which forms part of a promotional offer, such as a multi-buy offer, is not available and this results in the conditions of the promotional offer not being met, you will be charged the standard individual price as stated on the website for the other items to which the promotional offer would have otherwise applied.

4(3) clearly says that you can refuse a substituted item and there's nothing in 4(4) that prevents or prohibits you from refusing an item not part of the meal deal. So unless the OP never received advance notice of the substituted goods or that Co-Op are refusing to issue a refund after rejecting the items then I am not sure what the OP's issue is.

Perhaps it hinges on the question @ergates posed earlier, which is whether the other remaining items are allowed to be rejected. I would argue yes, otherwise that sort of interpretation is an unfair term since a consumer would not have intended to purchase at full price but rather the deal price. Imposing a higher charge that's outside the control of the customer would be an inherently unfair term in my opinion.