We went to a major food retail outlet yesterday, as regular customers looking to be healthier by basing our diet around its stocked range of nutricious, calorie controlled, "3 for £10.00" meal offers.
We opted this time around for 2 beef and veg dishes and 1 chicken dish, all located in the same "3 for £10.00" marked offer fridge with the rest of the extensive range in question, and none bearing any specific price markers on their packaging.
However, after we paid in store, we noticed from our receipt that we had been charged individually for all 3 meals, and so did not get the benefit of the advertised offer at all.
This was explained to us after payment by the cashier as being because the chicken dish was not, in fact, included in the "3 for £10.00" range.
When we queried with the cashier whether we could, therefore, exchange the chicken dish for another dish that was included in the offer, so as to enjoy the benefit of the "3 for £10.00" deal, they replied not, as we had paid.
When we recommended that the offer, in that case, needed to be far more clearly marked by them in advance of purchase to make the exclusion of the chicken dish evident, the cashier replied that we needed to take the matter up with the product provider itself, not the store, as it was not "from her personal experience" (whatever that means!) a matter for the store.
Consulting the product website subsequently, however, we noted that the retail store chain was not only retailer of the products, but manufacturer as well, so the snooty cashier had no idea what they were talking about😄!
The cashier in question was rude (bordering on obnoxious), abrupt, dismissive and totally unhelpful (in front of a long queue of other customers, it should be added), but we followed her instructions by taking the matter up with their (self owned 😂) product provider, nevertheless.
In doing so, we raised the following legal provisions that all consumers should be aware of:-
Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the Act) is very clear in protecting consumers, such us in the above example, against contract terms that could be used to give a business such as the retailer an unfair advantage.
The Act requires contractual and advertising wording to be:-
● fair; and (as importantly)
● transparent
The non inclusion of the chicken dish as part of the advertised offer that was relied upon, in the circumstances described, obviously satisfied neither of those key tests.
The non inclusion of the chicken dish was further demonstrably not brought to our attention as average (reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect) customers in a way that was practically effective to enable the retailer to apply any exceptions to the requirements of the Act.
To be practically effective, notification of the excluded product needed to be more than simply highlighting the exception to us post purchase or payment, but flatly refusing to rectify the position on reasonable request!
If a term could come as a surprise to a consumer (as this so obviously did!), then it would require even more effort to ensure its prominence than other terms in both contract and pre contract information/advertising.
The exception relied on by the retailer representative after the event created, on its face, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the clear detriment of us as consumers.
These requirements of fairness and transparency apply even where a contract has been signed in writing by a consumer. A trader cannot, therefore, merely rely on the fact that a consumer has actually signed a particularly onerous or detrimental contractual term, if it had not been legitimately brought to the consumer's attention for the purpose of the Act. The contract would in such a situation be non enforceable by the trader.
The above experience was a real personsl shame for us, as embracing a healthier lifestyle is difficult enough, but as we have been really enjoying the healthy eating range, we decided to write to the product owner (ie the retailer) in the above terms, to give them a chance to recognise their legal obligations and correct their errors.
Watch this space over the coming weeks to see what they reply with.....!