Name and shame

[Markjbloggs]

This thread got controversial really quickly, didn't it?

You are incorrect when you state that that "It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the "best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired ..." If you had read my original post, I did state clearly that the item was stale.

Other people and yourself have made the point that the onus is on the shopper to check sell-by dates. In my case, if I had complained at the time, there is nothing to prevent the shop from putting the same item back on the shelf for some other sucker to come along and buy it. A name & shame scheme or an effective inspection regimen may go some way to preventing this, but merely complaining will not eliminate the practice when basic dishonesty on the part of the shopkeeper is to blame, the same dishonesty that lead them to rip me off in my change

M

It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the "best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired then there is nothing untoward in that respect. See the OASIS link that I posted earlier. However, many stores will discount such goods in my experience. I bought two jars of olives for €0.69 each reduced from €1.99 the other day in the Asian store on Mary Street the other day which had just reached their "best before" date for example. In fact the shop assistant was mistakenly (an honest mistake as far as I could see) charging me full price for them when I pointed out the discounted price and he charged that instead. No drama involved.

 

[ClubMan]

You are incorrect when you state that that "It's not clear that the second point is actually the case. If it was the "best before" date and not the "use by" date that had expired ..." If you had read my original post, I did state clearly that the item was stale.

You mentioned it being out of date but didn't say which date had expired. If it was stale then bring it back and get a refund as is your statutory right.

Anyway, the purpose of this post relates to one of the shops I visited - it was a food shop and I purchased a few items. Just opened one at home today, and it is stale - out of date since May.

Other people and yourself have made the point that the onus is on the shopper to check sell-by dates. In my case, if I had complained at the time, there is nothing to prevent the shop from putting the same item back on the shelf for some other sucker to come along and buy it.

Perhaps but you could still follow it up with the FSAI or local health inspector if you were so inclined as I mentioned earlier. In any case all you can realistically do is adhere to caveat emptor on your own behalf and assume that others will do so for themselves. If you are interested in protecting the consumer in general and not just dealing with your own issues then you could join the Consumers' Association or some other consumer oriented lobby or representative group.

A name & shame scheme or an effective inspection regimen may go some way to preventing this, but merely complaining will not eliminate the practice when basic dishonesty on the part of the shopkeeper is to blame, the same dishonesty that lead them to rip me off in my change

Why not report them to the ODCA so and/or the FSAI and local health inspector as mentioned above?

I trust that these constructive suggestions might be of some assistance to you and others reading this thread?

 

[DrMoriarty]

Just my final 2c, since Clubman's response has been unfavourably compared to my own...

I did actually suggest that the shortchanging was possibly '(joint?) human error', and that the OP should contact the shop 'without ranting about being 'ripped off', because you've no proof...' [etc.] So I don't see how Clubman's response was any more critical or 'offensive' (?) than my own.

Examples abound on AAM of posters getting annoyed (or worse) with Clubman's famously 'skeptical, objective and analytical approach'. Personally, I can't see how these qualities constitute failings in a financial forum — much less evidence of a 'personality disorder'. But I realise they may irritate people who prefer emotive outburst to reasoned debate.

I don't accept the OP's premise — 'My point is simple - I was ripped off [by a ]shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display [...] I was easy prey [...] the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped... [...] basic dishonesty on the part of the shopkeeper is to blame, the same dishonesty that lead them to rip me off in my change...[etc.]. You can't back up any of these assertions, so don't expect people to accept them unquestioningly, and try not to get so huffy ('Listen Pal...[etc.]') when they're challenged.

Exactly the same kind of thing has happened to me a few times, but I went back to the shop and had the situation redressed. Where I occasionally met with resistance — or even the lack of an apology — I'd just raise my voice slightly, to a level where other queuing customers could hear me...

But what's to be gained by coming on to a discussion board and whingeing (sorry!) about how 'them shysters ripped me off'...?

 

[Markjbloggs]

But what's to be gained by coming on to a discussion board and whingeing (sorry!) about how 'them shysters ripped me off'...?

Dr,

(if you really are a doctor) what was to be gained was to ask the question - is there was some form of public sanction against dishonest shopkeepers?

hope this helps,

M

 

[Thrifty]

Hi,


Don't really know all the history on the objections to the tone of replys but couldn't see anything wrong with the reply Clubman gave in this instance. he was just giving a valid opinion about checking your change. Didn't see the point in going off on a tangent and discussing previous replies.

I personally think its a bit of a dangerous thing having a name and shame site/thread whatever. People make mistakes whether its in change or out of date products. Customers can also be mistaken. I think it's important if you have a problem with a shop or company that you actually bring it to their attention. Don't think its fair to complain if you don't give the shop or company a chance to rectify it. But it has to be within reason - don't see any problem going back with the out of date product but in relation to the short change. If you don't go back straight away then i can't really see how the shop could be expected to take your word for it if you go back a few days later. Would still bring it up with them - they may be able to check if there was extra in the till that day. But you've got to look at it from their point of view.

I'm not sure why you think the shop assistant deliberatly shortchanged you. Wondered why you thought this?

don't get me wrong there are times when i do go through the proper channels and can get so infuriated with customer service etc that i would love to name and shame but when i consider how open to abuse this could be i think differently. it could result in being accused and found guilty in others eyes without a fair trial.

 

[Audrey]

I'm really surprised at some of these responses, including yours Ronan D John. Why am I surprised? Well simply because you leave no room for honesty on the part of the shopkeeper or owner - you completely accept that if someone tries to get away with dishonesty, and succeeds in getting away with it, then it's the fault of the victim for letting him get away with it! Where is the morality? Have we all lost sight of honesty, trust, morality, kindness to our fellow man, decency ????? I really can't believe how clinical our society has become when we blame a victim for being victimised!! And as for the "..shame yourself rather than blaming somebody else" - well shame on YOU Ronan D John.

Point is, you weren't. You were just the typical Irish shopper, oblivious to what's going on around them. You were a gullible shopper, got caught out, and now you feel a little stupid for it. Not the shops fault.

Harsh and all as it is, you bought some fresh produce (supposedly fresh fair enough), but didn't bother checking whether it was in date or not. This is your fault that you ended up buying it. You didn't have to.

If everyone who was in the store checked the date, then the produce wouldn't have been sold. I would have thought it standard practice when buying fresh goods to check the best before date? I'm not a major shopper, but even I know to do that.

As for being short changed, again, your fault. You can come up with all the excuses in the world for being "easy prey", but if you're not going to check your own change before leaving the store, I'm sorry, but it's your own fault again.

This is not a defence of the store you were in, but in fairness, if you're not going to look after your own interests by being even a little more observant when shopping, how can you expect any sympathy at all?

Would be more suitable now to name and shame yourself rather than blaming anyone else.

 

[ClubMan]

Sorry to labour this point but those who make insinuations (or explicit claims) that there is some sort of moderator conspiracy to back each other up when challenged might like to take note of the fact that most of the comments in support of my posts have come from non moderators with whom I am not personally acquainted in any way (in fact I am only personally acquainted with two of the moderators in any case - Brendan and Liam D). As it happens, and without getting into the details, another thread is currently quarantined in the Moderators Forum for review because RainyDay felt that I had breached one of our posting guidelines.

 

[DrMoriarty]

Dr,

(if you really are a doctor) what was to be gained was to ask the question - is there was some form of public sanction against dishonest shopkeepers?

hope this helps,

M

Yes, of course there is. Where you have evidence, you can report them to the [broken link removed] and/or the RGDATA. And copy your complaint to the shop owner/manager, especially if it's a chain store or a franchise.

You can also 'vote with your feet' and not shop there again.

P.S. Since you ask, I'm a 'Doctor' of Philosophy...

 

[Humpback]

I really can't believe how clinical our society has become when we blame a victim for being victimised!! And as for the "..shame yourself rather than blaming somebody else" - well shame on YOU Ronan D John.

I shall consider my wrists slapped here then shall I?

I do believe that most, if not all, of us here are aware of all the media coverage regarding "rip off Ireland" and how many/most businesses are out to make as much money as possible of our (or their employees) backs.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Obviously however, if these businesses do anything illegal to make this money, then there is an issue there, and as ClubMan has pointed out, our complainer here has the option of doing that - a bulletin board is no place to be seeking justice.

In this particular case, nothing illegal has happened.

Therefore, it is simply that we are in a situation where most people in this country now know that they are dealing with businesses out to make the quickest and easiest buck possible.

Therefore then, we should all be on the look out (on our own behalves at least as per Clubman) to make sure that we're not caught out by this.

You are defending a consumer who didn't do two of the most basic and simplest things that any consumer would do - inform themselves about what they are buying, and checking their change.

I find it staggering that people are jumping to this persons defence because they acted stupidly when out shopping.

 

[Humpback]

In my case, if I had complained at the time, there is nothing to prevent the shop from putting the same item back on the shelf for some other sucker to come along and buy it.

Well, considering that the item was 5 months out of date, it's obvious that you're actually the first "sucker" to have come along in 5 months to have actually picked the item up and purchased it.

Having been there for 5 months already, that's 5 months of "suckers" who avoided purchasing the item, leaving it there for you to merrily pick up, not check the dates, and take to the checkout.

Shops don't get away with stuff like this if they're dealing with intelligent, careful, and informed consumers.

Shops these days get away with the stuff they get away with because Irish people have become overly "comsumerised" with our excess money in our pockets and our wish to spend our money, not matter what, no matter when. Irish consumer don't value the money in their pockets any more and shops are taking advantage of them.

As I've said before here, "a fool and their money are easily parted".

 

[podgerodge]

Shops these days get away with the stuff they get away with because ......and shops are taking advantage of them.

You're now proving the case of the original poster in my opinion - doesn't matter how careless (maybe you should call people this instead of "stupid" or "fool") someone has been, the shop is still at fault - there is no excuse for selling out of date food and expecting the customer to do the shops job for them.

 

[Humpback]

You're now proving the case of the original poster in my opinion - doesn't matter how careless (maybe you should call people this instead of "stupid" or "fool") someone has been, the shop is still at fault - there is no excuse for selling out of date food and expecting the customer to do the shops job for them.

I'm not defending the shops here. I'm saying that we know that they might do something like this.

If it's illegal, catch them and report them.

If it's just dubious practices they're engaging in, and we know they might try it, then it's careless of us to still fall victim to it.

 

[Bamhan]

Surely it is not expecting too much to expect shops to display only food which is within it's sell by dates.
Quite a lot of food has a sell by date on it which is months ahead if not years so having food in stock which is so far out of date is unacceptable.
The shop is at fault here in my opinion not the person who picks up the item.

 

[Thrifty]

I can't believe how blown up this argument has become out of an out of date product and being short changed - after all who hasn't at some stage been short-changed or bought an out of date product. While i'm not defending it (under health and safety not allowed sell out of date food) but if it happens you bring it up with the shop or report it to one of the many regulator bodies if you feel strongly about it and you're just a little more careful next time. I was short changed once or twice as a child and believe me that was before the celtic tiger and 'rip off ireland'.

This talk of victims in relation to incidents such as this and using the tag 'rip off ireland' for every minor incident dilutes the whole debate and takes away from the real rip off in far more important areas such as the price we pay for our utilities where we have little or no choice or control. Incidents like the above are annoying its needs to be put in perspective and realise that verybody has a certain amount of personal responsibility themselves (can't hire eddie hobbs to go with you every time go shopping). I'm sure i sound preachy but there thats my tuppence worth anyway.

 

[Bamhan]

But why accept second rate service in any area.
Sure we are ripped off on a wide scale but do we now have to check the small print on each and every tiem we buy.
I find regularly that what is advertised as a super de dooper special offer in a shop is not what it seems at all.
For example when the items are scanned the saving is not given.
Now I am the sort of person who checks her receiptbut not everyone does so shops get away with it on a huge scale.
Yesterday evening in my local shop I noticed three separate items which were labelled special offers but were nothing of the sort.
I brought it to the attention of the manager and he said he would sort it out but how many people bought these special offer items thinking they were saving.
We pay enough, in fact a lot would say too much for groceries as it is but we should be able to expect at the very least that we will be able to consume the item once purchased without having to return it at our own expense.

 

[Audrey]

Ronan

"I do believe that most, if not all, of us here are aware of all the media coverage regarding "rip off Ireland" and how many/most businesses are out to make as much money as possible of our (or their employees) backs.

There is nothing wrong with this".

Are you talking "wrong" as in illegal or "wrong" as in immoral? I'm talking "wrong" as in immoral. My point was in relation to morality ... caring, human kindness, decency. Must we reduce everything to two levels - legal or illegal? Black or white? Why not moral or immoral? Are you familiar with these words? Actually, when you are so patronising as to use words like "sucker" and "fool" you have already answered my question.

 

[Thrifty]

Fair point Bamhan and i agree with we shouldn't have to accept a second rate service. But unfortunately its the customer that has to point out and demand the first rate service from the shop directly. Kindof got to vote with your feet. I think its a bit of a universal problem.

 

[Humpback]

Actually, when you are so patronising as to use words like "sucker" and "fool" you have already answered my question.

Sucker was used by someone else before me - not my term.

And fool was used in context of a quotation rather than describing anyone in particular here.

As for your particular question, regarding moral or immoral.

For the third time, I'm not debating the morality or otherwise of what these shops are doing. I don't agree with what they're alleged to have done (intentionally or accidentally). However, as a consumer, there's nothing I can do about that. And as immorral isn't illegal (in the case of what we're discussing), nobody else can do anything about it.

All I can do is manage the situation (immoral as it may be), and there are three options, frequently mentioned already in this thread.

1. Watch out for yourself, and take care of your money and your purchases.
2. Complain and make your discomfort known.
3. Shop elsewhere.

 

[ClubMan]

Why not moral or immoral?

Because these are subjective and dependent on the individual's value system which varies from person to person. Legal and illegal at least have the advantage of being objective measures of acceptability or otherwsise as determined by the society/state in which we live and amenable to change as we collectively see fit. Not that these should be the only measure of acceptability or otherwise but as a base standard they are a good start and certainly better than subjective assessments of "morality". If others like to supplement these with their own views on morality then all well and good but they should not arbitrarily assume that others adhere to the same codes of conduct, morality or values as they do.

(All this from a single contentious shopping spree! )

 

[Humpback]

Fair point Bamhan and i agree with we shouldn't have to accept a second rate service. But unfortunately its the customer that has to point out and demand the first rate service from the shop directly.

And the problem in this situation, is that the customer who had the problem, thought it better to log in to a discussion forum to complain about the problems he's had, rather than going back into the shop to detail his concerns, explain what he might expect to happen to resolve the situation, and allow the shop the right of reply.

So, the shop in question, while having a very unhappy customer on their hands, doesn't know about it. Businesses can't address customer dissatisfaction if they don't know that their customers are dissatisfied.

They may have been genuine mistakes that have caused the customer to be unhappy, but having not been told about it, they can't action on it at all.

And I would say now that there is no point complaining at this stage, well, maybe about the out of date food, but definitely not about the alleged intentional short changing. The most effective way of complaining is in person, and as soon as possible after the event.