Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • cihanthepanda
    • By cihanthepanda 6th Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    cihanthepanda
    how are just eat getting away with robbery?
    • #1
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    how are just eat getting away with robbery? 6th Mar 18 at 9:42 PM
    everyone knows a consumer law is there to protect the people
    so when a law comes into place - such as no more card fees
    it is not there to just change the name of the fee!
    that makes a mockery of the point of the fee!
    yet just eat early january added a 50p fee to all orders claiming it is a service charge
    just the day before card charges are banned

    yet even with all the media coverage and outrage several months ago, nothing has been done and just eat still get away with it!

    it is making a mockery of consumer laws, it is like you are saying `i dont care what law you put, i will keep doing the same but under another name`!!

    please dont respond with comments like `simple dont use them` or things like that, this isnt a debate about the usefulness of just eats service

    im talking about the lawful side of it, when a law comes in banning card charges, how can they get away with it, simply changing the name of the charge to service fee?!

    ps i did report it to trading standards no reply
Page 1
    • Carrot007
    • By Carrot007 6th Mar 18, 9:44 PM
    • 1,143 Posts
    • 986 Thanks
    Carrot007
    • #2
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:44 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:44 PM
    They "Get away with it" because what they are doing is legally allowed.
    • cihanthepanda
    • By cihanthepanda 6th Mar 18, 9:47 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    cihanthepanda
    • #3
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:47 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:47 PM
    They "Get away with it" because what they are doing is legally allowed.
    Originally posted by Carrot007
    huh?
    its doing exactly what they were doing ..
    but under a different name in black and white
    • z1a
    • By z1a 6th Mar 18, 9:53 PM
    • 1,271 Posts
    • 1,217 Thanks
    z1a
    • #4
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:53 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:53 PM
    Are you forced to use them?
    • John-K
    • By John-K 6th Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    • 654 Posts
    • 1,011 Thanks
    John-K
    • #5
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    There is nothing stopping a business just adding the former charge to all orders. The law is against differential charging, which they are not doing.

    You need to differentiate between things that you do not like and things that are illegal. You have misunderstood the law here. Nothing to see, move along...
    • societys child
    • By societys child 6th Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    • 5,200 Posts
    • 5,734 Thanks
    societys child
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    Cook at home, it's so much cheaper and you know what's in it .

    • cihanthepanda
    • By cihanthepanda 6th Mar 18, 9:59 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    cihanthepanda
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:59 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 18, 9:59 PM
    Are you forced to use them?
    Originally posted by z1a
    you didnt read my OP
    it said im not willing to discuss the `oh dont use them if you dont like them issue`

    im here to discuss the legal aspect

    a law is there to protect consumers
    whats the point of the law if you can do the same thing under a different name
    Last edited by cihanthepanda; 06-03-2018 at 10:04 PM.
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 6th Mar 18, 10:01 PM
    • 5,123 Posts
    • 8,342 Thanks
    Gavin83
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 18, 10:01 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 18, 10:01 PM
    There is nothing illegal about placing a service charge on an order. What they called it previous to this is irrelevant.
    • Greta Sharbo
    • By Greta Sharbo 6th Mar 18, 10:03 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 206 Thanks
    Greta Sharbo
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 18, 10:03 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 18, 10:03 PM
    huh?
    its doing exactly what they were doing ..
    but under a different name in black and white
    Originally posted by cihanthepanda
    Well, it isn't though is it.

    What they used to do was legal. The law changed. They changed. What they are now doing is legal.
    • lammy82
    • By lammy82 6th Mar 18, 10:23 PM
    • 334 Posts
    • 307 Thanks
    lammy82
    The key point is that they are not just doing the same thing as before.

    It used to be 50p cheaper if you paid cash.

    The law says they have to charge the same price for cash and card.

    Now they are doing this. The service charge applies to all orders equally, cash or card.

    The law was not necessarily intended to make things cheaper for the consumer. It was just intended to make things equal, to stop people being penalised for paying by card.
    • bris
    • By bris 6th Mar 18, 11:18 PM
    • 7,596 Posts
    • 6,615 Thanks
    bris
    Did you really think the consumer would actually save money just because they did away with the fees? Really are you that naive.


    Every thing now goes up, airlines, hotels, just eat to name but a few will never absorb these fees as it's just to much to absorb. We all now pay whether we use credit cards or not.
    • stragglebod
    • By stragglebod 6th Mar 18, 11:31 PM
    • 117 Posts
    • 101 Thanks
    stragglebod
    you didnt read my OP
    it said im not willing to discuss the `oh dont use them if you dont like them issue`
    Originally posted by cihanthepanda
    You might not be, but I am. So if you don't like them, don't use them.

    im here to discuss the legal aspect
    Originally posted by cihanthepanda
    Which has been clearly answered several times, as early as post number 2.

    a law is there to protect consumers
    whats the point of the law if you can do the same thing under a different name
    Originally posted by cihanthepanda
    A law such as that would indeed be pointless. But since Just Eat aren't doing the same thing under a different name, you can sleep easily, basking in the knowledge that the law does indeed have a point. Glad to have been of service
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 7th Mar 18, 8:22 AM
    • 6,349 Posts
    • 6,222 Thanks
    eddddy
    Just to add another angle to this...

    Just Eat offer a service, and to do this, they employ people (administrators, programmers etc) and they have to buy/rent computer servers etc.

    Just Eat need to earn income to make the business viable. The way they have chosen to do this is to charge the restaurant about 12% of the order value and charge the consumer 50p.

    Perhaps you think that Just Eat should charge the restaurant that extra 50p instead of the consumer.

    In order to continue making their income, that would put pressure on the restaurants to increase their prices.

    So the net result would be that the 50p service charge disappears, but the price of the food increases instead.



    Edit to add...

    Perhaps a future development will be that restaurants start offering a 12% discount for orders that don't come via Just Eat (and you won't have to pay the 50p either).
    Last edited by eddddy; 07-03-2018 at 8:35 AM.
    • cono1717
    • By cono1717 7th Mar 18, 10:47 AM
    • 688 Posts
    • 486 Thanks
    cono1717
    Perhaps a future development will be that restaurants start offering a 12% discount for orders that don't come via Just Eat (and you won't have to pay the 50p either).
    Originally posted by eddddy
    Some do this and Just Eat do not take kindly to it. Our local used to text us after we got the just eat order delivered to tell us how much cheaper they would have done it outside of Just Eat.
    • pmduk
    • By pmduk 7th Mar 18, 11:24 AM
    • 8,368 Posts
    • 6,187 Thanks
    pmduk
    OP, you might want to change the thread title as it's been demonstrated that there's no theft involved.
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 7th Mar 18, 11:45 AM
    • 2,508 Posts
    • 2,435 Thanks
    steampowered
    The fee is also payable if you are paying by cash.

    The fee is not linked to whether you pay by card or not.
    • Blackbeard of Perranporth
    • By Blackbeard of Perranporth 7th Mar 18, 12:27 PM
    • 5,046 Posts
    • 30,362 Thanks
    Blackbeard of Perranporth
    everyone knows a consumer law is there to protect the people
    so when a law comes into place - such as no more card fees
    it is not there to just change the name of the fee!
    that makes a mockery of the point of the fee!
    yet just eat early january added a 50p fee to all orders claiming it is a service charge
    just the day before card charges are banned

    yet even with all the media coverage and outrage several months ago, nothing has been done and just eat still get away with it!

    it is making a mockery of consumer laws, it is like you are saying `i dont care what law you put, i will keep doing the same but under another name`!!

    please dont respond with comments like `simple dont use them` or things like that, this isnt a debate about the usefulness of just eats service

    im talking about the lawful side of it, when a law comes in banning card charges, how can they get away with it, simply changing the name of the charge to service fee?!

    ps i did report it to trading standards no reply
    Originally posted by cihanthepanda
    huh?
    its doing exactly what they were doing ..
    but under a different name in black and white
    Originally posted by cihanthepanda
    you didnt read my OP
    it said im not willing to discuss the `oh dont use them if you dont like them issue`

    im here to discuss the legal aspect

    a law is there to protect consumers
    whats the point of the law if you can do the same thing under a different name
    Originally posted by cihanthepanda
    Gathering up inputs because I think this could go Take Away!
    Commemorate Celebrate Inspire
    #RAF100 A century of service!
    • Heliflyguy
    • By Heliflyguy 7th Mar 18, 12:49 PM
    • 807 Posts
    • 392 Thanks
    Heliflyguy
    You may have to pay a higher fee in future.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/06/just-eat-loss-shares-online-takeaway-australia
    • NineDeuce
    • By NineDeuce 7th Mar 18, 12:57 PM
    • 825 Posts
    • 754 Thanks
    NineDeuce
    So should Just Eat work for free then?
    • wesleyad
    • By wesleyad 7th Mar 18, 1:59 PM
    • 207 Posts
    • 162 Thanks
    wesleyad
    A bit off topic, but for it to be "robbery" has to have some force or threat involved, if Just Eat are doing so I would contact the police.

    On topic, it's sad but perfectly legal and makes sense for them to do this given the regulations. Don't really see a problem paying 50p for the ease of use. You say not to say "don't use them then" but really that's the obvious answer, they are a service provider you are choosing to give your business to. If you don't like it use another or bypass completely.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

48Posts Today

3,152Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin