Name and shame

[Markjbloggs]

For the first time in ages I was shopping in Dublin on Saturday - after a while, I remembered why i don't go there anymore. It was overcrowded (mostly tourists), expensive, poor range of choice in the shops (I got 3/8 things I went in for!!). In other words, a very unsatisfactory day.

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 Just opened one at home today, and it is stale - out of date since May. Not alone that, but the shop assistant short changed me - I discovered this when i got to the bus stop and I am almost certain she did it deliberately.

Is there a way of publicly naming and shaming shops that rip-off their customers like this?

M

 

[ClubMan]

No offence but why did you not check the best before dates and your change at the time? Have you complained to the shop after the fact and, if so, how did they respond? What sort of things were you looking for that you could only find 3 of the 8 items in Dublin city centre? Personally I like mixing with tourists and lots of other people while shopping and find the range of choice in Dublin city centre quite ample but each to their own.

 

[Markjbloggs]

My point is simple - I was ripped off.

1. Should we have to check the dates on all items we buy - would it not make more sense for there to be a sanction against the shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display?

2. As for my change, I was easy prey - one of my bags had ripped and I had to buy a new (plastic) one. With all the hassle of re-packing, the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped.

 

[DrMoriarty]

Suggest you 'phone the shop tomorrow, ask for a manager and explain (without ranting about being 'ripped off', because you've no proof that the date issue wasn't simply an oversight and the short-changing a case of genuine (joint?) 'human error'...?)

I'd be surprised if they don't offer a refund, next time you're passing...

 

[ClubMan]

My point is simple - I was ripped off.

Fair enough - but have you complained to the shop yet?

1. Should we have to check the dates on all items we buy

Well that's precisely what recommends that consumers should do in the circumstances:

"Best before"/"Use by" dates

You should always check best before and use by dates on food, especially food with a short shelf life such as dairy products. The best before date is the date until which the food keeps its best properties, if stored properly. The use by date is a warning that the food should no longer be consumed or sold once the date mentioned is passed.

Note that best before date expiry does not necessarily mean that there is a problem. Use by date expiry is another matter. Usually shops will discount goods with expired best before dates.

would it not make more sense for there to be a sanction against the shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display?

If you think that there is a health issue here then report them to the FSAI or your local environmental health officer.

2. As for my change, I was easy prey - one of my bags had ripped and I had to buy a new (plastic) one. With all the hassle of re-packing, the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped.

You were almost certain before but seem absolutely certain now - how come? Presumably you didn't check your change before you left the shop so? If you kept your receipt and contact the shop they should be able to figure out if the till was over by the amount that you are missing on the day.

 

[Markjbloggs]

You were almost certain before but seem absolutely certain now - how come? Presumably you didn't check your change before you left the shop so? If you kept your receipt and contact the shop they should be able to figure out if the till was over by the amount that you are missing on the day.

Listen, Pal, one thing I did not ask for when I asked the original question was a public lecture from you or anyone else. Your tone is very offensive.

 

[Audrey]

Markjbloggs

His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem. I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!! People!!

I sympathise with you and can easily see how you wouldn't be in a position to check change when under a bit of pressure. Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!! For Gawds sake! C'mon!

 

[Markjbloggs]

Thanks, Andrew.

Markjbloggs

His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem. I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!! People!!

I sympathise with you and can easily see how you wouldn't be in a position to check change when under a bit of pressure. Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!! For Gawds sake! C'mon!

 

[SteelBlue05]

Markjbloggs

His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem. I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!! People!!

I sympathise with you and can easily see how you wouldn't be in a position to check change when under a bit of pressure. Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!! For Gawds sake! C'mon!

I dont think so, I think Clubman is very methodical when trying to analyse someones issue, maybe has a legal background or something, but I dont think it is deliberatly critical or trying to lecture anyone.

 

[RainyDay]

I think it's risky to get into a 'name-and-shame' exercise while users remain anonymous. If we're going to name shops publically, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the complainants to identify themselves publically as well.

 

[RainyDay]

His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem. I think his sole reason for reading anything on askaboutmoney.com is to criticise and lecture ... it seems to cheer him up no end!!! People!!

Hi Sophie - Can I suggest that you check back over CLubman's history of answering financial queries for 6 years and you can then revise your posting. It's just a little bit rich for someone who's been round here just a few short weeks to issue such a critical comment.

 

[ClubMan]

Listen, Pal, one thing I did not ask for when I asked the original question was a public lecture from you or anyone else. Your tone is very offensive.

I don't see how the questions I asked could be construed as offensive. I don't see where I contravened the but feel free to correct me if you think I'm mistaken.

His (Clubman's) tone is always that way in my experience. Seems to have a bit of a personality problem.

Can you clarify what you mean by a "personality problem"? What is the standard personality by which normality is measured?

Also, I think we should be able to expect that something we buy is less than 5 months old!! For Gawds sake! C'mon!

It depends on the "use by" date where applicable as outlined above on OASIS.

I dont think so, I think Clubman is very methodical when trying to analyse someones issue, maybe has a legal background or something, but I dont think it is deliberatly critical or trying to lecture anyone.

Thanks. I certainly don't have any legal background but I do like to think that I have take a skeptical, objective and analytical approach to matters as far as possible.

 

[tall chapy]

Good to see the auld moderator calvary, riding to the rescue again !!!

I have commented on Clubman's manner before and I am not alone in this, just ask daltonr and I am not here just a 'few weeks' and neither is daltonr.


I was extremely disappointed in the way the thread (link above)went so low, in all the years I am on this board, I have never seen it sink that low !! Unfortunately, Brendan closed the thread, before I was able to reply.
As much as I hate replying to this thread, in the manner that I am, I feel some balance needs to be applied.
A person that starts a thread, should not have to explain themselves, except if it is complicated. Asking someone to justify their actions will only wind things up !! We should be encouraging people to join the forum.

Its like a new member joining, coming on and saying they were mugged late at night and Clubman asking what were you doing out so late or walking in that area !!
The point is that they were MUGGED !!
Compare Clubman's response with DrMoriarty.
I have to admit that Clubman has given excellent advice in the past, but 2 'rights' does not justify 1 'wrong' and vice versa.


As for naming and shaming...go back to the shop and see what their response is and if they do not treat you fairly, name and shame...

 

[ClubMan]

Good to see the auld moderator calvary, riding to the rescue again !!!

SteelBlue05 is not a moderator. We've dealt with this accusation thoroughly in the past so let's not rehash it here. Suffice to say that if you think that moderators (such as myself and RainyDay) habitually or automatically back each other up or agree with each other on all matters then you are sorely mistaken and have not been paying attention over the years.

I have commented on Clubman's manner before and I am not alone in this, just ask daltonr and I am not here just a 'few weeks' and neither is daltonr.

You and others are perfectly entitled to your opinion but it doesn't prove anything in terms of my "manner" being the problem. Probably as many people that have had problems in this respect have complimented me and others for adopting a challenging and fact based approach to queries and discussions. Differences of opinions are a symptom of a healthy debating environment in my view.

I was extremely disappointed in the way the thread (link above)went so low, in all the years I am on this board, I have never seen it sink that low !! Unfortunately, Brendan closed the thread, before I was able to reply.

Are you insinuating that I personally dragged that thread "low" or something? Feel free to back this up if that's what you're insinuating.

A person that starts a thread, should not have to explain themselves, except if it is complicated. Asking someone to justify their actions will only wind things up !! We should be encouraging people to join the forum.

Who asked anybody to justify their actions?

Its like a new member joining, coming on and saying they were mugged late at night and Clubman asking what were you doing out so late or walking in that area !!

No it's not. That's another completely hypothetical and irrelevant issue/

Compare Clubman's response with DrMoriarty.

Why? I said more or less the same thing among other things too. Why expect everybody to adhere to what you consider acceptable standards of contribution? As long as the contributions are withing the posting guidelines and relevant/constructive/helpful they are acceptable in my view.

I have to admit that Clubman has given excellent advice in the past, but 2 'rights' does not justify 1 'wrong' and vice versa.

What "wrong"? What specific parts of my contributions above do you consider inappropriate or irrelevant? As far as I can see I have posted several pieces of very relevant information along with some opinions and questions about the specific situation in question. Where's the problem?

As for naming and shaming...go back to the shop and see what their response is ...

As I said above...

Maybe we should merge all these "ClubMan's tone" posts and threads into one so people can enjoy (or avoid) them in one go?

 

[GreatDane]

Hi

I was going to try and avoid this thread ... but, what the hell

I've been on both sides of this age old arguement, sometimes agreeing & sometimes disagreeing, with regards to the approach taken by the Mods on this site etc. I've even been falsely accused in the past via e-mail from an "official" on this site (another story which we dont need to get into right now & which was subsequently resolved in part).

Anyway, at this stage, I've concluded the best approach is not to waiste my time disputing what the Mods do, who is right or wrong etc ....

The bottom line here is who really cares ?

Hit the off button & go to bed ... move to another website if you dont like this one etc etc

Remember whats really important here .. when you step away from the PC, none of these small disputes on AAM really matter

Cheers

G>
http://www.rpoints.com/newbie

 

[ClubMan]

I've even been falsely accused in the past via e-mail from an "official" on this site (another story which we dont need to get into right now & which was subsequently resolved in part).

Just in case there's any confusion, I was not the "official" involved in this incident and this is the first that I've heard of it.

 

[Humpback]

My point is simple - I was ripped off.

1. Should we have to check the dates on all items we buy - would it not make more sense for there to be a sanction against the shop that deliberately puts out-of-date produce on display?

2. As for my change, I was easy prey - one of my bags had ripped and I had to buy a new (plastic) one. With all the hassle of re-packing, the shop assistant spotted her target and swooped.

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.

 

[Grumpy]

Markjbloggs,
You were shortchanged and sold food not fit for consumption.
Shame on the shop who provided this "service".
Tell friends etc. which shop it was...let me know!
Whether you can take any affective action is another thing.
You may or may not have been deliberately shortchanged, but you were.
Take it as far as you are inclined, even if its just to give the manager a mouthful.
You were entitled to better treatment than this, whether you were vigilant or not.

 

[Bamhan]

In my opinion it is up to the shopper to check his/her change at the counter.
On the item being so far out of date, that is unacceptable.
I always check the date on things out of habit and have had cause to draw attention to the staff in my local store on a number of occasions where food has been out of date.....I would return to the shop with my receipt and the item and ask for a refund.

 

[ClubMan]

You were shortchanged and sold food not fit for consumption.

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.

In terms of naming and shaming we have to be careful to remember the (in particular 8 and 9) and only do this in clear cut cases of misbehaviour on the part of retailers/service providers. In this case it's not obvious how clear cut the case is to be honest given (a) the lack of clarity about whether or not it was the best before or use by date that had expired and (b) the initial doubts that there seemed to be about the short changing issue.

By the way - people who have objected to my "tone" here and elsewhere might like to note that I have been far from the most robust in terms of airing my opinions in this thread. I have no problem with any of the most recent posts here but have so say that they certainly seem more forceful than mine and yet people still seem to prefer to concentrate on "ClubMan's tone" rather than just accepting it and other forceful posts as part of the cut and thrust of healthy discussion...