Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Now I know my maths is poor, but I do know a little about consumer law.

I've just come back from the Gap Outlet shop in Lewisham.

Garment in question ?39.99 with a 50% Off ticket.

Man at till "That'll be ?43.99,please"

"Hang on, I says, "it was only ?39.99 to start with"

"Oh" Re-does till "That'll be ?23.99."

"That's not 50% off", I remark, rather coldly by now

"No, it should only be 40% off. It's headquarter's fault"

"That's illegal to display one price and charge another" (coldness merging into annoyance.)

"No,we have 24 hours to rectify it. We have rights too"


Customer service?

From the citizen advice website on the matter (https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/if-something-is-advertised-at-the-wrong-price/)


If you take an item to the till and are told the price on the tag or label is a mistake, you don?t have a right to buy the item at the lower price. You could still try asking the seller to honour the price.

> It is annoying and you do sometimes wonder if they do it deliberately. Today I tried to

> buy 6 items from Superdrug, of which 5 were more expensive at the till, making the total

> cost >30% over what I expected.


If it is done deliberately or recklessly I think it could even be an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. It would be relevant to see if it's occurring in more than one branch. In any case it's contrary to official guidance on proper practice.


"2.1 Indicating two different prices

2.1.1 The CPRs prohibit traders from giving misleading information about prices, which could include indicating a price for goods or services which is lower than the one that actually applies, where this would cause, or be likely to cause, the consumer to take an different transactional decision. In many cases, a different transactional decision is likely to mean whether or not to buy a product, but it could include other decisions taken about transactions.

2.1.2 You should not therefore show one price in an advertisement, website, window display, shelf marking or on the item itself, and then charge a higher price at the point of sale or checkout." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31900/10-1312-pricing-practices-guidance-for-traders.pdf


See also http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading-regulations-2008 re additions to the regulations.


In practice I'd expect any reputable chain to honour the shelf price unless it's a crazy one, and maybe throw in an ex gratia something if you take it up with head office. Failing that, or if it seems serious or persistent, you can always just pass on the information to local Trading Standards, http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200098/trading_standards/1462/1_information_for_consumers.

Sainsburys at DKH refunds you the difference if you catch them out, which lucky as it does happen fairly regularly there too. I believe Waitrose refunds you the entire cost of the item; did for me at least. It was only a couple of quid but still impressive.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...