Just eat refusing full refund

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82158277#Comment_82158277

This was my assumption too.

If they know they're struggling to get riders, it would make sense for them to say the food is "ready" so they
end up in the queue for pickup. Then, when the rider turns up (or is near) they actually prepare the order.

That being said, not sure I'd be so confident that I'd be willing to test that theory out.

Altior

Properly cooked chicken gone cold is probably not going to be lethal, but once it cools down enough, the bacteria can grow again, so it needs to be chilled once again eventually, once the heat has dissipated. Think chicken at a finger buffet, might sit around for ages. I wouldn't try it out myself after 3+ hours! The reality is that plenty goes down in these fast food places, not all of it by the book. Even if a take away is delivered expediently, you'll never know the provenance of the food. It could for example be raw chicken left unrefrigerated for over 20 minutes, rechilled then cooked (far more dangerous) and you'd never know.

QrizB

Think chicken at a finger buffet, might sit around for ages. I wouldn't try it out myself after 3+ hours!

I'm pretty sure the rule for buffets is that it's thrown away after two hours. If anyone reading this has a current food hygiene certificate they can correct me :)

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82159552#Comment_82159552

Quite possibly that's the formal rule but I've never been at a function where leftover buffet food is removed or replaced before the function is over. The general observation stands, that cooked food like chicken, sandwiches etc is allowed to sit around in room temp way past the 20 minute rule, and still deemed good for human consumption. I doubt there are many people desperate enough to consume a takeaway that might have only been hot over three hours ago though!

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82159552#Comment_82159552

My understanding of the rules is that food can effectively be kept indefinitely (from a food safety standpoint) above 63c. If it drops below this it either has to be served within two hours or reheated to above 75c.

I've never tried it but I'd assume chicken (presumably fried in this case) kept at 63c+ for 3 hours would be pretty much inedible anyway (albeit not through bacterial growth.)

As I mentioned it's entirely possible that the food wasn't ready when they said it was and they simply said it was ready to make the delivery more valuable to potential riders (who presumably would prefer to take orders that are ready over those that aren't as there's less downtime.) But equally, I wouldn't be confident enough in any of these fast food places to test that theory out by actually eating the stuff.

oldernonethewiser

At 17:52 there was info that the order wouldn't be delivered until 21:25.

I would have cancelled the order.

saajan_12

At what point did you know the food was 3 hours old (as opposed to late but cooked just before delivery)?

What was I supposed to do when the driver finally arrived? Refuse the food and potentially end up with neither the food nor a refund?

→ Well yes if your argument is everythign was inedible and unsafe to eat then what is the point in receiving the food? Then you should ahve refused the food entirely.

Your only argument is if you didn't know it had been cooked 3 hours earlier and only found that out on inspecting the food.

Ergates

At what point did you know the food was 3 hours old (as opposed to late but cooked just before delivery)?

I don't know about Just Eat specifically, but some of the apps will tell you when food is cooked and ready for collection, then tell you when it's been picked up for delivery.

If you got the updated about it being ready for collection, and then 3 hours later it's still not delivered - that is when you know.

→ Well yes if your argument is everythign was inedible and unsafe to eat then what is the point in receiving the food? Then you should ahve refused the food entirely.

Your only argument is if you didn't know it had been cooked 3 hours earlier and only found that out on inspecting the food.

Whilst that might have made OP's fight with JE easier, it shouldn't make a material difference to their case. OP paid JE for a food delivery, which turned up over 3 hours later with good reason to believe it would not be safe to consume.

JE's argument that "they could not refund me because the restaurant requested a delivery code and the correct code was provided when the driver eventually arrived." is utter nonsense. As OP points out - that just means something was delivered. The food could have been stone cold, or full of rat droppings, but it would still have a delivery code.

If they know they're struggling to get riders, it would make sense for them to say the food is "ready" so they
end up in the queue for pickup. Then, when the rider turns up (or is near) they actually prepare the order.

That being said, not sure I'd be so confident that I'd be willing to test that theory out.

Exactly, and "actually, we were lying when we gave information that suggested the food might not be safe to eat" isn't a particularly strong defense.