ODCA/Tesco and alleged below cost selling

C

ClubMan

Registered User
Messages
49,202
Anybody see the recent case of the ODCA charging Tesco with below cost selling in contravention of the Groceries Order when an ODCA official bought a few dozen cans of beer selling at cost price, tendered a €6 loyalty points money off voucher and then accused Tesco of below cost selling on the basis that the discounted price per can of beer was below cost. According the yesterday's Irish Times Tesco are in court looking for an injunction or a dismissal of the case on the basis that entrapment was used and that the voucher used was actually issued to the wife of the officer who made the purchase (even though the checkout staff did not check this). Anybody else consider this a waste of (presumably scarce) resources and hardly the best way to protect the consumer as per the remit of the ODCA? What a joke...! :\
 
tesco

Boiled up when I read the article in the paper. The ODCA are doing themselves no favours pulling stunts like this. One has to wonder about the mindset of the individual who set up this "entrapment". He should be dismissed on the spot and an apologetic statement issued by the ODCA. Can't imagine anyone thinks that this was an example of a public service.
 
He bought the beer which was priced at cost. He used the €6 voucher to pay for the beer and then claimed that because the unit price of the can was now reduced below cost price that Tesco were acting unlawfully!

A very odd case!

Marion :hat
 
Yes - that's the gist of the case as reported in yesterday's Irish Times anyway.
 
Is the ODCA operating ultra vires in this instance? They certainly do not appear to be working on behalf of the consumer.
ajapale

ps there was a similar discussed here in 2003 concerning the awarding of Loyalty Bonus Points for purchases of Baby Food.
 
Is the ODCA operating ultra vires in this instance?

Unless I'm mistaken the ODCA are also responsible for ensuring that retailers comply with the terms and conditions of the Groceries Order although I don't really see how enforcing price floors is supposed to protect the consumer (whatever about other retailers) or stimulate competition.
 
I was amazed that the COST to Tesco was 1.71 per can

How could it be so much ?

Is it the case that there would be a retrospective discount based on their sales and Bud ( Uncle Arthur ? ) send them a cheque / credit note in the post after the event ?

Dont thing much of Tesco. Think even less of ODCA after their day in court. A waste of taxpayers money ( ODCA & Court Service ) and an unnecessary expense to Tesco.
 
ODCA Mission Statement

To enforce consumer legislation within our remit and to promote consumers intertests.

Since the Groceries Order 1987 is clearly not Consumer Legislation (its designed to protect small retailers and producers) I think we can safely say that the ODCA is acting outside its own mission statement in this instance.
 
Since the Groceries Order 1987 is clearly not Consumer Legislation (its designed to protect small retailers and producers) I think we can safely say that the ODCA is acting outside its own mission statement in this instance.

Actually we can't according to [broken link removed]:
About ODCA - Enforcement Unit

The Role of the Enforcement Unit of the ODCA is to actively protect the interests of the Consumer by ensuring that Consumer Protection Legislation is complied with. The Unit works in close co-operation with the Inspectorate and conducts Market Surveillance under the terms of a variety of Statutory Instruments and European Directives.

The Enforcement Unit is split into two groups - Enforcement Unit 1 and Enforcement Unit 2.

The remit of Enforcement Unit 1 includes:
<!--EZCODE LIST START--><ul><li>Toy Safety</li><li>Electrical Goods</li><li>Price display in Shops, Pubs and Restaurants</li><li>Textile and footwear labelling</li><li>Timeshare and Holiday clubs</li><li>Misleading Advertising</li><li>Telecommunications</li><li>Unfair terms in consumer contracts</li></ul><!--EZCODE LIST END-->
The remit of Enforcement Unit 2 includes:
<!--EZCODE LIST START--><ul><li>Labelling of Pre-Packaged food products.</li><li>Distance Selling.</li><li>Air Travel and Package Holidays</li><li>Below Cost Selling.</li><li>Unfair Terms in Housing Contracts.</li><li>Adulterated Alcoholic Drinks.</li><li>Merchandising Marks.</li><li>International Marketing Supervision Network.</li></ul><!--EZCODE LIST END-->
The units conducts pro-active surveillance of the areas as well as investigating complainants made by members of the public. The Units can and do prosecute violations of consumer protection legislation in the district court. They also liase with Business and Industry groups to improve the level of compliance with Consumer protection legislation.

The Units were established in September 2002. Enforcement Unit 1 is staffed by 1 AP, 2 HEO's, 2 EO's, 1 SO and 1 CO. Enforcement Unit 2 is staffed by 1 AP, 1 HEO and 4 EO's.
Click to expand...
 
Yes Clubman I saw that but maintain their mission statement does not reflect the fact that they have responsibility for this weird bit of non-consumer legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top