Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just been there, and it's really not good enough. The waitress didn't write down our order and instead of 2 escargots we got 2 soups and 1 snails. [They only charged for 1 snails, but we had to wait another 20 mins.] The fish soup tasted good but was just about warm, and not hot, and the thin slices of fried bread, set on the side with rouille and grated cheese, were stale. The Feuillete pastry was way over cooked. The Confit of Duck had a crispy, and in parts overbaked skin. Overall, it was also overcooked. The potato Dauphinois was a disgrace - flaccid and overbaked. t warm, and the thin slices of fried bread, set on the side with rouille and grated cheese, were stale and not crispy. I feel really sad that they're not getting it right, they must have put a lot of energy into setting it up. We won't be going back

I think everyone has a right to their expectations.

Expecting food to be cooked somewhere near right is reasonable IMO.

In the U.K. what makes me laugh (and this is not specific to this restaurant or ED) is how paying customers are prepared to forfeit their hard-earned wages to prop-up a restaurant that cannot make the grade.

So many unhappy customers smile politely, pay a tip, pay the bill and walk out without saying a word to the waiter/manager.

When the waiter comes over (as they do, with the implicit expectation that you'll say 'fine, thanks') and asks how things are, tell them you're underwhelmed and will not be paying full price for a meal that's not full quality.

If that'll cause a free cabaret in the restaurant so what, the restaurant need to know - there's a transaction here.

You're under no obligation to treat businesses with kid gloves !

Basically restauranters must get a decent percentage of their income from pissed-off customers who're happy to just keep on paying (and returning) on the off-chance that one day they'll be lucky and a meal will eventually be OK.

This is a lose-lose proposition, the restaurant doesn't get the feedback they need so don't improve where and when they should, the customer has unsatisfying experiences and pays for the privilege.

How many of the unhappy posters above have told the restaurant with the detail posted here and why do you think it's OK to pay a restaurant full price repeatedly when they fall short ? - genuine question, I really don't understand the logic of this approach.

Absolutely respect Tosca's right to an opinion. Everyone's expectation levels are different I guess?

As is what good looks like to any individual. Unless it's very obviously bad it's surely shades of grey and wholly subjective. For something like this establishment I'm happy with a 7/8 out of 10. Not looking for perfection.

I guess some people are easily pleased and others less so. I'm with MrD when it comes to expectations for this type of restaurant, and steveo with the alcohol.

Re. Tosca's review, I always thought the fried slices of bread (> croutons) traditionally served with Soupe de poisson came about as a way the French would use up any left over bread (a morning bought baguette quickly loses it's freshness and will be stale by evening). The idea is that you plonk them on top of the soup, sprinkle some cheese and let it soak/melt for a bit before scoffing. I'm not even sure you would pick up any staleness after it's been fried anyway...

Walk past ever night.. Looks nice but seems a bit busy and a couple too many tables...

If you don't mind listening to everbody elses conversation or others hearing yours ... then Ok I suppose.


Not so good for a romantic intimate occassion..


DulwichFox

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think everyone has a right to their

> expectations.

> Expecting food to be cooked somewhere near right

> is reasonable IMO.

> In the U.K. what makes me laugh (and this is not

> specific to this restaurant or ED) is how paying

> customers are prepared to forfeit their

> hard-earned wages to prop-up a restaurant that

> cannot make the grade.

> So many unhappy customers smile politely, pay a

> tip, pay the bill and walk out without saying a

> word to the waiter/manager.

> When the waiter comes over (as they do, with the

> implicit expectation that you'll say 'fine,

> thanks') and asks how things are, tell them you're

> underwhelmed and will not be paying full price for

> a meal that's not full quality.

> If that'll cause a free cabaret in the restaurant

> so what, the restaurant need to know - there's a

> transaction here.

> You're under no obligation to treat businesses

> with kid gloves !

> Basically restauranters must get a decent

> percentage of their income from pissed-off

> customers who're happy to just keep on paying (and

> returning) on the off-chance that one day they'll

> be lucky and a meal will eventually be OK.

> This is a lose-lose proposition, the restaurant

> doesn't get the feedback they need so don't

> improve where and when they should, the customer

> has unsatisfying experiences and pays for the

> privilege.

> How many of the unhappy posters above have told

> the restaurant with the detail posted here and why

> do you think it's OK to pay a restaurant full

> price repeatedly when they fall short ? - genuine

> question, I really don't understand the logic of

> this approach.



This is all true and I would add that a restaurant owner will absolutely want to know if something's not right. It gives them a chance to put it right and send you away a happy customer, rather than an unhappy customer that's likely to write a bad review on the EDF or Trip Advisor or wherever.


There's an old adage that you're taught in catering; that an unhappy customer will tell way more people about their bad experience than a happy customer will about their good one. So it's essential to their business that a customer is sent away happy.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DovertheRoad Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You in the mood for some lovin' Foxy?

>

> https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN

> d9GcQ053pvUJzmL6ps3aXAcifemwsohc-bqzuNX2mfFTeZZrVF

> LKx3ng

>

> Always.. Love a Candle me... Old Romantic.

>

> Foxy.



That's that creepy candle that someone else uses on here


Blow it out Foxy, battery powered candles are the new 'candles'

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > DovertheRoad Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > You in the mood for some lovin' Foxy?

> >

> >

> https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AN

>

> >

> d9GcQ053pvUJzmL6ps3aXAcifemwsohc-bqzuNX2mfFTeZZrVF

>

> > LKx3ng

> >

> > Always.. Love a Candle me... Old Romantic.

> >

> > Foxy.

>

>

> That's that creepy candle that someone else uses

> on here

>

> Blow it out Foxy, battery powered candles are the

> new 'candles'



It was of the only one I could find that was small enough..


I saw some of those battery powered things in a neighbours window and thought they were going to set fire to their nets.

Got new glasses since then..


Anyway.. This is my own Candle pic .. taken in the EDT..




Hope you like it..


Foxy

"When the waiter comes over (as they do, with the implicit expectation that you'll say 'fine, thanks') and asks how things are, tell them you're underwhelmed and will not be paying full price for a meal that's not full quality.

If that'll cause a free cabaret in the restaurant so what, the restaurant need to know - there's a transaction here."


Very, very legally dodgy territory there. It's true that the 'contract' between a customer and an establishment is of a civil nature. If you find there is fault with your meal, and you genuinely believe that the price charged should not be paid, then you have to leave what you reasonably believe to be the price of the raw ingredients on the table, a legitimate address at which you may be legally served a summons, and invite them to see you on small claims court for the balance. It is not a matter for the police, unless...


Unless you do anything which can give rise to the suggestion that you had any intention to avoid paying full price from the beginning, or you leave a sum which clearly is not the cost of ingredients, or the address is suspect, as any of that is fraud and then the police can be involved and you can be charged.


I would always encourage people to tell the restaurant if they had a bad experience. It may be painful to hear but we need to know. Anywhere that does not respond with at least politeness and a 'thank you for your feedback' should not be revisited. And anywhere decent should at the least be willing to remove offending items from the bill - we generally do it even if we disagree with the customer, unless it's plainly just an issue of personal taste, and even then we're usually happy to cook something else without charging for it. But be cautious with threats to not pay full price, it's very dodgy ground.

Basically, you can't be reasonable expected to pay full price for less than reasonable food / service / waiting times.

If this was enforced more by customers then standards would increase almost immediately.

You're not going to feel like doing this unless you feel you have a very strong case anyway, in most cases I'd expect the restaurant management to recognise this too and make the necessary gesture. If they don't, then so what, it's just a disagreement - which can happy in any field where payment is due i.e. painting and decorating you're not happy with.

This is one of very few trades where people politely pay, again and again, for what they are not happy with (just read the numerous threads on this forum !).

I agree with everything you say there - the quality of delivery should match the price asked. Of course this is the real world and people mess up. If a customer isn't happy then they should say so; there's often a potential friction point where things are subjective ("my steak is overcooked" vs "no it isn't", for example), and generally good places will simply suck it up and bring a new plate of food; it's the cost of doing business.


I'm simply making the point that refusing to pay full price is a legal mine field fraught with danger, which both sides should endeavour to avoid. Once the threat of withholding most of the payment is made, it often shuts down most other lines of peaceful resolution and so should only be used if the establishment is being pig-headed and refusing to be reasonable. As I say, anywhere with half a brain is going to express gratitude for the feedback and either remove offending items from the bill (regardless of the validity or otherwise of a complaint) or offer free replacements. If they don't then they deserve to go out of business.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...