Tesco accused me of fraud !

dublin99

I printed a Moy Park promotional voucher for their new range of chicken products which says "redeem at Tesco stores". When I presented the voucher at check out, the cashier told me it was not accepted. I enquired further, holding up the queue, and she left the till and checked. When she came back, she told me very loudly in front of the other customers waiting that it was not acceptable as it was a photocopy! It most certainly was not - it was a direct print off from the website which only allows one to be printed per customer. She effectively accused me of forging a voucher by illegally photocopying! I was humiliated - and defamed in public. I have written to Tesco who has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter!

jor el

Did you talk to the manager at the store, or have you contacted Moy Park about it?

rubadub

This comes up a bit in bargain alerts -mcdonalds or BK etc not accepting them. What they all should do (and some do) is clearly state on the label that this is a printed label and may be on normal paper with poor black & whick print quality.

The companies should also notify the supermarkets in advance.

dublin99

Moy Park said their Brand manager assured them that there were "no issues with the internet vouchers" (well I certainly had a major problem!) and blamed Tesco.

I dealt with a Supervisor at the store at the time, but I was just so embarrassed having been accused of trying to use a forgery to scam a few euros off Tesco, and after holding up the queue, I had no time to argue further. I have since copied my letter to the Tesco Head Office to the Store Manager.

I believe Moy Park has made redemption arrangements with Tesco and should take it up with them - but the Tesco system is so bad that it sometimes even rejects it's own Tesco vouchers! I think I will stick to Superquinn and M&S in future.

Tesco really needs better staff training more than anything else! Their action was defamatory to say the least.

cgarvey

dublin99 wrote: »

I was humiliated - and defamed in public. I have written to Tesco who has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter!

Maybe it's because you're still fuming over it, but if you came across that way in store, I don't expect you'd get much sympathy from any staff there. It doesn't take much to humiliate you, clearly.

I don't know what you should do now, (and good luck if you want to take a defamation case against Tesco!). Perhaps a call, or visit, to the Tesco manager explaining the issue with the voucher and asking them to clarify, if they wish, with Moy Park?

Tesco are under no obligation to accept those vouchers, and with the variety of vouchers (and, more importantly, the individual T&C of those vouchers), it's not that far-fetched to question the validity of the voucher (especially in the context that the previous voucher for beans might explicitly prohibit voucher printing/reproduction). If staff aren't vigilant, the voucher won't be honoured and Tesco lose out. That some slip through the net is hardly surprising given the wide range of vouchers retailers are expected to accept.

Defamed? If your version of the event is true and un-exaggerated, then perhaps (and only perhaps) you were defamed, by the strictest definition. But to a more objective, reasonable person such a claim is probably laughable.

Humiliated? Over the fact that someone reasonably questioned the voucher? For what, a couple of quid off a chicken or something? Dear jebus.

Isn't all this a bit too USA 2009, rather than Dublin '99?

dublin99

"Tesco are under no obligation to accept those vouchers, and with the variety of vouchers (and, more importantly, the individual T&C of those vouchers), it's not that far-fetched to question the validity of the voucher (especially in the context that the previous voucher for beans might explicitly prohibit voucher printing/reproduction)."

You are incorrect, CGarvey. Firstly the voucher in question stated it was redeemable at Tesco Stores. Tesco had entered into a contract with the manufacturer, Moy Park, and therefore has an obligation to honour them. Tesco staff should receive appropriate training in handling such documents. If they had received proper staff training and are in doubt of the validity of such a document, they should be able to seek directions from their superior.

I am not from the USA as CGarvey suggests but perhaps certain areas in rural Ireland are still deprived of broadband access. In year 2010, self printed documents such as plane tickets, boarding passes, concert/sports tickets, car hire/hotel voucher, gift certificates, promotional coupons are very much part of everyday life. They are usually scannable with a unique bar code for each document. Life would be in chaos if everyone handling such a document such as in an airport or in Croke Park rejects its validity as a "photocopy".

I hope I do not need to explain what a forgery is – but by definition it is associated with an underlying intent to defraud. The amount involved is irrelevant. Fraud is an offence. For example, certain public figure used some possibly forged receipts to claim expenses - the case is now in the High Court.

Why would I be looking for sympathy from Tesco staff as CGarvey suggested? I am a customer with Consumer Rights and I expect a reasonable standard of customer service in a store, and customer queries to be dealt with in a competent manner.

It is not a matter of a supermarket cashier "reasonably" questioning the validilty of the voucher. It is a matter of declaring it a "photocopy" (and hence a forged document) without proof which was defamatory.

Cabaal

dublin99 so what do you actually want or expect Tesco to do for you to resolve your complaint?

P. Breathnach

cgarvey wrote: »

Maybe it's because you're still fuming over it, but if you came across that way in store, I don't expect you'd get much sympathy from any staff there. It doesn't take much to humiliate you, clearly.

I consider this response to be offensive.

...Tesco are under no obligation to accept those vouchers...

On what basis do you make this conclusive judgement?

Defamed? If your version of the event is true and un-exaggerated, then perhaps (and only perhaps) you were defamed, by the strictest definition. But to a more objective, reasonable person such a claim is probably laughable.

People often shop in their own neighbourhood, and being publicly accused of dishonesty in front of one's neighbours could be quite significant. And actionable.

jor el

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On what basis do you make this conclusive judgement?

Seeing as how shops aren't even obliged to take your money, I don't think there's an obligation for them to accept a voucher as part-payment. That's an aside though, as the reason it was refused was false. They claimed it was a photocopy, which it was not.

If Tesco wants to arrange voucher programmes with companies like Moy Park, and the vouchers can be self-printed by the customers, then Tesco Management need to make sure than local management are aware of this, and they they in turn pass that on to the staff. It appears that in this case, both the staff member and a supervisor were unaware of this.

P. Breathnach

jor el wrote: »

Seeing as how shops aren't even obliged to take your money, I don't think there's an obligation for them to accept a voucher as part-payment....

In general, that is a fair point. But in a transaction at a supermarket checkout things arrive at a point where the goods can be deemed to have been sold and the customer owes payment. In my opinion, once the cashier hits the "Total" button and shows the final price, that point is reached.

dublin99

To answer your question, Cabaal, I would have expected Tesco to have the courtesy to firstly acknowledge my complaint, as I had requested in my correspondence. I would have expected the matter to be investigated as per the internal procedure of the company. I would expect to receive an explanation of what happened.

I totally agree with P Breathnach.
The store of the incident is within walking distance of my house. Some residents in the neighbourhood work part-time in Tesco. It is not just damaging to my reputation but also very distressing if my neighbours think that I had tried to commit a dishonest act in the local store.

Although I am not a litigious person, I also agree it is actionable. In July this year, a 5 year old boy in Balbriggan won a defamation of character law suit in the circuit court against Lidl Ireland. He was wrongly accused of stealing a packet of crisps in his local store and as a result suffered distress, inconvenience and injury to his credit and reputation. He was awarded damages of €7500 plus costs.

And jor el, please read my earlier post, Tesco has an obligation to redeem the voucher under contract with the manufacturer. And they are obliged "to take my money" as a customer. It is unlawful for a business or service provider to discriminate, for example, by refusing to sell goods or provide service to certain groups of customers.

P. Breathnach

dublin99 wrote: »

... I totally agree with P Breathnach....

Just bear in mind that I am offering an opinion. I have, on occasion, been wrong.

JohnC.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In general, that is a fair point. But in a transaction at a supermarket checkout things arrive at a point where the goods can be deemed to have been sold and the customer owes payment. In my opinion, once the cashier hits the "Total" button and shows the final price, that point is reached.

Not at all. Things can still be removed after hitting total. Total can be hit many times during scanning. It does not end the sale. If you said hitting the Cash button (or cheque, credit card, etc.) you would have a point. That button does end the sale.

Or to put it another way, what if someone puts stuff through the till, cashier hits total, customer realises they don't have enough money. By your standards, the shop can demand payment in full. But of course they don't, because the transaction isn't actually complete until the money changes hands. The customer can walk away and leave the goods without paying for anything because they don't actually own it yet.

The goods have been sold when payment has been made.

JohnC.

dublin99 wrote: »

And jor el, please read my earlier post, Tesco has an obligation to redeem the voucher under contract with the manufacturer. And they are obliged "to take my money" as a customer. It is unlawful for a business or service provider to discriminate, for example, by refusing to sell goods or provide service to certain groups of customers.

They are under no obligation to sell you anything, for cash, vouchers or any other form of payment. I don't see how discrimination comes into it, unless you are claiming they refused to take it because of your colour or you are a traveller or similar.

jor el

dublin99 wrote: »

And jor el, please read my earlier post, Tesco has an obligation to redeem the voucher under contract with the manufacturer. And they are obliged "to take my money" as a customer. It is unlawful for a business or service provider to discriminate, for example, by refusing to sell goods or provide service to certain groups of customers.

You're veering far off the topic now, to the completely untrue. If you plan to contact Tesco, Moy Park, or any statutory body about your complaint, do not go down this path. They will laugh at you for not having a clue, and rightly so. There is no obligation on any store to accept your money, or vouchers. The only time when cash cannot be refused is for payment of a debt. Bringing discrimination into it is a complete red herring, and using irrelevant information to back up your argument is not the way to proceed.

At the moment, you have a valid complaint about them not accepting a self-printed voucher. That is all. Don't try to make it something it's not, as it will not help your case.

dublin99

To clarify and to put it in simple english - Jor el and Kahless - you both raised the point that a shop is not obliged to take my money. I assume you mean that a shop can choose not to take my money and refuse to sell me goods which I intend to purchase.

If you are correct, then the shop is choosing not to provide me with goods which I am entitled to buy as a customer from a business, whilst other customers, are still able to purchase the same goods in the same shop.

If such is the case, then the shop would be committing an offence under discrimination law, as the potential customer who is refused service has been discrimated against. It is as simple as that : Discrimination is described in Irish Law as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is, has been or would be treated.

borderlinemeath

dublin99 wrote: »

To clarify and to put it in simple english - Jor el and Kahless - you both raised the point that a shop is not obliged to take my money. I assume you mean that a shop can choose not to take my money and refuse to sell me goods which I intend to purchase.

If you are correct, then the shop is choosing not to provide me with goods which I am entitled to buy as a customer from a business, whilst other customers, are still able to purchase the same goods in the same shop.

If such is the case, then the shop would be committing an offence under discrimination law, as the potential customer who is refused service has been discrimated against. It is as simple as that : Discrimination is described in Irish Law as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is, has been or would be treated.

No, they didn't say you couldn't buy the goods - they wouldn't accept your voucher in part payment. I'm sure they wouldn't refuse cash or laser/credit card had you offered.
If they were in doubt about the voucher they would have refused it from anyone who presented it in black/white printout and again would have taken their cash so you are barking up the wrong tree by saying that they were discriminating you over other customers.

dublin99

Borderlinemeath, YOU are barking up the wrong tree - go back and read read Kahless' post : Quote "They are under no obligation to sell you anything, for cash, vouchers or any other form of payment"

I am replying to earlier posts quoting the hypothetical situation when a shop is refusing to sell for cash or whatever normally form of payment such as Credit card Laser etc...

Nolimits

I'm really glad I didnt have you as a customer, you say your not litigious but it sure doesnt sound that way. You started talking about discrimination as soon as someone pointed out they don't have to sell you anything. Management always reserve the right to refuse admission, your also way off with regards what rights you think you have as a consumer. Your right that it wasn't handled very well, neither on the day nor subsequently. I have no doubt that tesco would be quite embarrassed about this and in time you'll probably receive some minor form of compensation along with an apology.

JohnC.

Fine, keep barking up the wrong tree with that discrimination nonsense. It's not worth arguing the point with you.

borderlinemeath

dublin99 wrote: »

Borderlinemeath, YOU are barking up the wrong tree - go back and read read Kahless' post : Quote "They are under no obligation to sell you anything, for cash, vouchers or any other form of payment"

I am replying to earlier posts quoting the hypothetical situation when a shop is refusing to sell for cash or whatever normally form of payment such as Credit card Laser etc...

No business has to sell you anything - the contract starts when you hand over accepted payment.
Your payment method wasn't acceptable and now your crying discrimination?

take Jo'rels advice because you seem to have a very thin grasp on the legal end of discrimination and what it constitutes.
YOU were not discriminated against. Your method of payment was rejected.
From your version of events you may have been defamed but that's about it.

dublin99

"Management always reserve the right to refuse admission, your also way off with regards what rights you think you have as a consumer."

Does that sum up a very typical yet incorrect view of someone who works in a shop?
Look up the law on Equality and Consumer Rights!

dudara

dublin99 wrote: »

If such is the case, then the shop would be committing an offence under discrimination law, as the potential customer who is refused service has been discrimated against. It is as simple as that : Discrimination is described in Irish Law as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is, has been or would be treated.

Discrimination has to be proved on one of a clear set of criteria such as gender, age, race, religion etc. Now stop derailing the conversation and return to the topic at hand.

All goods remain the property of Tesco until they sell them to you i.e. receive payment. They can refuse to sell to you under certain criteria. They are not obliged to accept your money. You may want to do some reading on the topics of contracts, "Invitation to Tender" and legal tender.

I agree that it would have been embarassing to have the cashier discuss the validity of voucher. However, I do also think that you are blowing it out of all proportion. It was a somewhat reasonable point given that the voucher was self-printed.

(I've attempted to pass through security at Dublin Airport with a self-printed boarding card, only to be told to go back to the check-in desk and get a fresh card as they didn't like the look of my home-printed one. Was that worthy of a fuss? No. Hassle, yes, fuss, no.)

Chalk it down to a bad experience and try not to imagine that everyone is out to malign your character.

jor el

dublin99 wrote: »

Look up the law on Equality and Consumer Rights!

You might want to do the same yourself first, as you've already proven that you don't know anything about discrimination or consumer law. On the consumer law issue, do a search for the terms Invitation to treat and offer, acceptance and consideration, and also read this note on legal tender. No discrimination has taken place, and to continue to say it has just makes you look foolish.

It's already been said where you have grounds for your complaint. Don't try to introduce irrelevant material just to make it sound better. It won't work, and they are likely to take you even less seriously.

Sponge Bob

In before the lock moi!

dublin99

To contrast the different standard of service and staff training between Tesco and Superquinn, I had a 400 loyalty points coupon from Supperquinn for purchasing their own brand aged fillet steak. I bought the item but the voucher won't scan at the till. Instead of delaying me further or asking me to go to customer service, the Superquinn cashier gave me a €4 discount on the spot which was equivalent to what I would have got for the 400 extra points. Now that's good service!

rameire

yes, that is good service from Superquinn.

but in relation to Tesco, i would take the advice given by Jor el and Dudara, they are very wise in relation to consumer issues.

slave1

dublin99 wrote: »

Discrimination is described in Irish Law as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is, has been or would be treated.

You're taking parts of sentences/paragraphs and forming your own meaning, if what you say is true (and it quite simply is not) you should take action against all the businesses up and down the country that discriminate against me as a non-student/non-pensioner and force me to pay higher amounts for haircuts/pizzas etc, you'll have a field day against cinemas that charge me more to see a movie at night also...

I assume you've had the foresight to register your letter of complaint, if so send another, you'll soon be more out of pocket...

I suggest you stand back for a minute, take it on the chin and move on, life has greater challenges

upandcumming

OP, they don't have to accept your money.
But anyway, get your friend to get another voucher, go in and try to complete the transaction. Sneaky but nothing wrong with it.

j4vier

everyone knows that the service provided by superquinn or tesco are totally different, you can see that as you just walk into the store,so now that you are aware of it , dont go there any more simple as!

tbh if i were you i would have just left the product there at the till without buying it , there is no need to make a big deal out of it, they werent obliged to accept the voucher and you werent obliged to buy it either..that's all

you should take the advice of the previous posters and drop the descrimination theory cos its nonsense, they only descriminated the method of payment as they are well within their rights to do so.. you see places that refuse to take anything bigger than 50euro notes

P. Breathnach

There is an important point that seems to in danger of being overlooked because of all the noise in this discussion: the fact that OP might have been defamed by the manner in which the cashier refused the voucher.

All the discussion about whether a shop is obliged to accept vouchers, or at what point a contract is made, or what constitutes actionable discrimination, is a distraction.

Defamation is a serious thing. But it's not in itself a consumer issue, even if it happens in the context of shopping.

jor el

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is an important point that seems to in danger of being overlooked because of all the noise in this discussion: the fact that OP might have been defamed by the manner in which the cashier refused the voucher.

Maybe, but I do think the OP is exaggerating in subsequent posts. In the first post, it's claimed the cashier said the voucher was a photocopy, nothing more. This is just a mistake, not defamation. The OP added that the cashier effectively accused him of forging the voucher in an illegal manner. The manner in which this is described, using the word effectively, leads me to believe that this didn't happen, but rather the OP has read more into what happened, and is coming to false conclusions.

The only issue that I can see is that the voucher was perfectly valid and should have been accepted, but it was not. This is due to a lack of staff education on these types of vouchers, nothing more.

jd83

It would be great if my biggest problems were getting a discount on Moy Parks new range of chicken products. God you wrote them a letter they didnt get back to you so if your still unhappy vote with your feet and dont go back there, im sure they will be delighted not to have to see you again!

yoyo

Thinking back now my local Tesco accepted the printed voucher getting The Moy Park Chicken without any problems, Tesco Jervis fwiw

Nick

rubadub

Walshes foods used to have vouchers out years ago with no expiry date on them, so I picked up loads at the time. I went in about 2 years later with one and when the guy scanned it he said it was not showing up on his system. I just said I don't want the product so and paid for the rest.

dudara

rubadub Please - this is not After Hours

dudara

rubadub

Fair enough, sorry, post edited. The first bit is true about the voucher being refused though, and it didn't bother me in the slightest. When going in with printed out vouchers I am always thinking it is likely to be refused.

cgarvey

dublin99 wrote: »

You are incorrect, CGarvey. Firstly the voucher in question stated it was redeemable at Tesco Stores. Tesco had entered into a contract with the manufacturer, Moy Park, and therefore has an obligation to honour them.

Whether or not Tesco entered in to a contract with Moy Park makes no difference to any perceived obligation to accept the vouchers from a consumer. From my retail experience, however limited, Tesco would be lucky to have been notified of the vouchers in a general circular email/newsletter, nevermind having entered in to any sort of contract. There is no way any retailer would enter in to a contract enforcing them to accept anything other than legal tender as payment; especially one the size of Tesco (with everything so centrally controlled). The voucher can state what it likes.

Agreed with your points about staff training, handling it better, and managing your complaint better.

However, I still think you're blowing it completely out of proportion. I'm all for the Irish reversing the stereotype of laying down and accepting poor service, but this is the other extreme (my USA reference). I'd love to hear the sales assistant's side of the story!

dublin99 wrote: »

I hope I do not need to explain what a forgery is – but by definition it is associated with an underlying intent to defraud.

Did he/she accused you of forging it (or just of photocopying it)? I mean, did they accuse you directly of what you're implying they accused you of, or are you just buttering up something like "Sorry, sir, I can't accept that as it appears to be a photocopy"?

dublin99 wrote: »

I am a customer with Consumer Rights and I expect a reasonable standard of customer service in a store

What consumer rights have been breached?

dublin99 wrote: »

It is not a matter of a supermarket cashier "reasonably" questioning the validilty of the voucher. It is a matter of declaring it a "photocopy" (and hence a forged document) without proof which was defamatory.

I still don't see that at all, from what you've said. Declaring something as a photocopy is not accusing you of forgery (or fraud). Did he/she ALSO directly accuse you of the latter?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I consider this response to be offensive

There's a report post button underneath the post, if you do. Use it so a moderator can review my post and edit it accordingly (or more drastic action like banning me). I've reviewed it, and stand by everything I've said in there.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On what basis do you make this conclusive judgement?

ON the basis of previous retail management experience (including handling vouchers), dealing with many different wholesalers & producers handing out vouchers, dealings with industry representative body's advice on same, my limited non-professional interpretation of consumer law, and some basic common business sense. If you need more details, you can research me online.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People often shop in their own neighbourhood, and being publicly accused of dishonesty in front of one's neighbours could be quite significant. And actionable.

Actionable, yes. Actionable because anything is. The OP can claim whatever he/she likes and take whoever to court based on that claim. So actionable doesn't imply they'd succeed in such action. I've yet to see evidence that he was "publicly accused of dishonesty". For example, I've often refused out of date vouchers (and sometimes accepted them on good will terms). That doesn't mean that I've accused a customer of dishonest/forgery/fraud. Even if I think they were chancing their arm (or something more deliberate), I wouldn't accuse them of that.

So consumer rights out the window (because nobody suggests any were breached), we're back to a defamation-type case. If OP wants to go ahead and sue, based on that, good luck to him/her. Certainly, that's their right. I'm not sure he/she'll get very far, and based on what he/she said here, and based on that I think this is all very US-styled litigation over completely blown out of all proportion nonsense.