Tesco misprice policy discussion area

nannaC

!!!!!!_Dastardly wrote:

nannaC wrote:

GO TO IT !!!!!! we are all right behind you.QUOTE]

That sounds a bit kinky nannaC !! :rotfl: :rotfl:

OOPS perhaps my sentiments didn't translate into words quite right, but what I was trying to say is that we are there for you [team hug and all that]

payless

!!!!!!_Dastardly wrote:

..... Un-detterred went to meat aisle, had check and meat wrong pork joints and beef joints, 2.18kg SEL 2.65kg on pack, and 5.78 kg SEL 6.24kg on pack, got a dido CD SEL 6.97 chart 4.79 scanned £4.79, put couple of each in trolley with some other bits and bobs, went to checkout, expecting some aggro.............. refused to sell the product at the SEL price and the CS had the SEL's in her hand, you can have it at the product pack price, you are in infringement of the law, his reply was I am not bothered, I wish to buy the product at the SEL price I said, NO he said, I am not going to sell them at the SEL price, YOU ARE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO OVERCHARGE ME and get away with it because your CS has the SELs in her hand, your not going to have these products free for an overcharge/undercharge, pointed out undercharging long since gone. Anyway after some going round in circles for a while, the result was I purchased nothing.

THE GUY SIMPLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TESCO's VOLUNTARY POLICY AND THE LAW, the law is very clear I have illustrated it below and it is total separate from TESCO's GET OUT OF PROSECUTION POLICY.

Here is a quote from ADVANCED BUSINESS LAW, Smith & Keenan, standard law text for post-gradute/undergraduate law students.

'Although a trader can refuse to sell at his wrongly advertised price he may find himself facing prosecution under SS20 and SS21 of the consumer protection act where the price ticket shows a lower price than that at which he is prepared to sell.' (edit 'Actually taken from the judges summing up notes in case').

In layman terms the assistant manager better start looking for a new job because after I have finished with HQ on Friday 14 October he is going to need it. The only person who scr*ws me is Mrs !!!!!! Dastardly :rotfl:

So they were checking the prices at till , is that really bad ( surely all we really want is correct prices charged) ? would they sell at the lowest price shown ? / would you have paid this lower price?

Can't see how you can claim a R &R on a undercharge (dido CD)

My understanding is trader can refuse to sell ... yes he might be liable to prosecution under whatever ( advertising/ consumer acts ) but surely thats for T/s or courts to decide, it does not mean they have to sell it.

--Tony--

payless wrote:

So they were checking the prices at till , is that really bad ( surely all we really want is correct prices charged) ?

I think you misunderstood they would not sell it to him at the correct price (SEL) they still wanted him to pay the pack price (the overcharge):

!!!!!!_Dastardly wrote:

he said, I am not going to sell them at the SEL price

I would have paid it then called HQ who would have refunded by voucher and gave the store a roasting especially as they had the opertunity to put the overprice right before paying.

Dick_Dastardly_3

payless wrote:

So they were checking the prices at till , is that really bad ( surely all we really want is correct prices charged) ? would they sell at the lowest price shown ? / would you have paid this lower price?

Can't see how you can claim a R &R on a undercharge (dido CD)

My understanding is trader can refuse to sell ... yes he might be liable to prosecution under whatever ( advertising/ consumer acts ) but surely thats for T/s or courts to decide, it does not mean they have to sell it.

1. They are only checking POS because had a overcharge in the past. It is not standard practice to do so, and as per mail they refused to sell at the lowest advertised priced when asked directly.

edit : Funny how they haven't been checking the prices at POS since monday when offer on joints first made national, thus overcharging customers for pretty much 4 days without checking !!

2. The policy of Tescos used to be that an R&R could be claimed on an undercharge it has now since been ammended, Ben500 will confirm this.

3. You are correct they don't have to sell at the lowest advertised price (it is an invitation to treat prior to the contactual agreement at POS. But as per my quote from judges summing up in the relevant case law, they are in breach of the law and do face prosecution.

If required an individual can prosecute Tesco's on this basis it need not be trading standards, the law applies regardless of who takes the action. Obviously TS are the organisation who would be preferable, but ASDA, or Joe Bloggs public, may take action, if they believe Tescos are acting illegally which they are.

MORPH3US

janebrain wrote:

!!!!!!, don't forget to take photos of the security guard who was doing the hoovering while all this was going on - I like HIS style! ;-)

Why was the secutiry guard doing the hoovering? Doesn't your store have cleaners?!? :rotfl:

My local store doesn't even have carpet :rotfl:

payless

!!!!!!_Dastardly wrote:

1. They are only checking POS because had a overcharge in the past. It is not standard practice to do so, and as per mail they refused to sell at the lowest advertised priced when asked directly..

But can't see anything wrong if a cashier says something like ... " I've had a few incorrect prices on these - let me check to make sure I don't over charge you."
( not the case here, but , maybe a way they could deal with people that they think are absuing policy)

!!!!!!_Dastardly wrote:

.2. The policy of Tescos used to be that an R&R could be claimed on an undercharge it has now since been ammended, Ben500 will confirm this..

Yes , but in reality having a r & r on a undercharge is silly, and gone now anyway

--Tony--

payless wrote:

But can't see anything wrong if a cashier says something like ... " I've had a few incorrect prices on these - let me check to make sure I don't over charge you."
( not the case here, but , maybe a way they could deal with people that they think are absuing policy)

There is nothing wrong as long as they then charge the correct price, but to still demand the higher price and knowing they are overcharging is totally wrong. This is their opertunity to correct the error and not pay an R&R

payless

agreed - yes of course they should then charge the lower price.... but a good way of them dealing with people they think are just trying to search out R&R's

Poing

nannaC wrote:

Found one today that is not that far removed from above. Finest Parmesan BIG SEL down to £13.08kg unfortunately not on the cheese which are still priced at £17.08kg a whopping £4 per kg overgharge. This was in both my local stores and another that I asked OH to check.
Obviously the slogan 'EVERY LITTLE HELPS' must refer to the profits for shareholders. Will post on misprice thread.

Hi, I have been following this thread for a while now and find it amazing how much Tesco are profiting from overcharging. I went into Tescos and had a clubcard voucher for 75 extra points when you spend £3 on Finest cheese. So I was looking at the cheese, trying to figure out the best ones to get. Anyway, picked up parmesan, cos it will keep for ages, and looking at the back to see the different prices as needed to spend the £3, and noticed that although the SEL said £17.08/kg there were packets on the shelf priced at £13.08/kg. (also some at £17.08 too). So surprise surprise I bought the cheaper one.

But I was just wondering, did the store not put the new lower SEL out on purpose so that many people do not realise they are being overcharged??
Very sneaky me thinks!

On another note, I was overcharged for a birthday card, and it was from following this that I knew about the R&R policy. Was a bit nervous going to CS after reading other peoples experiences, but the young man simply said we will give you a refund onto your card and you get to keep it - it's easier that way. Cue me looking surprised - oh really? and I hadn't even had to ask him for it!

I am appalled by some of the CS behaviour and those of you who have been treated badly have my every sympathy and I hope you get the matter resolved by HQ, chin up :wave:

Dick_Dastardly_3

payless wrote:

agreed - yes of course they should then charge the lower price.... but a good way of them dealing with people they think are just trying to search out R&R's

You still don't understand fully, let me re-iterate. A person can get a million R&Rs, they can go around the store for hours searching them out and they would have never broken the LAW. Abusing the policy is irrelevant from a legal perspective, if Tesco's had performed its alledged 4 point check with any degree of DUE DILENGENCE AS WOULD BE EXPECTED BY ANY REASONABLE MAN you would not have the opportunity to 'abuse' the POLICY as prices would be consistently right, and when one is wrong it would be immediately corrected on a national basis, while Tesco's in every instance when it has sold a product above the lowest advertised price has broken the law (edit : or refused to sell at the lowest advertised).

The evidence from my receipts speaks for itself, products are continually overpriced over multiple stores, they are even wrong days after the original R&R, and even days after the second R&R on the same product. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead customers on the basis of because they have 50 products they'll never know. Unfortunately for Tescos there are those amoung us who do now know Tescos little game and are prepared to embarass them and force them into action.

This is not a question of the rights or wrongs of the policy it is a clear case of LEGAL infringements which Tesco's perform on a frequent and regular basis without due respect for its customers who have trusted them to get it right. I did for many years and am now more than aggitated that I have been overcharged for such a prolonged period by a company I thought I could trust.

The policy is an internal policy by Tesco's and is used as a sweetner to avoid the full force of prosecution, and is largely irrelevant in legal terms, unless they refuse a refund and are thus in breach of both the advertised policy and as a result in breach of certain advertising regulations.