Good deal at Tesco, including online!

[Sue]

I rarely shop at Tesco, but I do have a Clubcard.

Every so often I get sent vouchers, and I just assumed they were probably all long past their sell-by date, apart from one or two I've used in Oxford. I certainly don't have them any more.

BUT via info from a site from the MoneySaving Expert newsletter I've just found out I've got ?14.50 worth of still useable vouchers, dating back to May 2009!!, and not only that but through some system I don't understand, you can double the worth of the vouchers up until 5 May for things you buy either online or instore, and you don't need to have hard copies of the vouchers!.

I've got ?29 worth which is lucky as my microwave has just stopped heating or defrosting anything and I need to get a very cheap one very quickly :-D

Some things aren't included but microwaves apparently are, hooray, and there's one for ?33! Though the amount you can use in vouchers varies from department to department, and in this particular department you have to use multiples of ?10, so I'll have to spend the other ?9 elsewhere .....

Here's a link to a page explaining it all, but I don't know whether you have to sign into the site first to get onto the page.

http://www.tesco.com/clubcard/clubcard/bigexchange.asp#bottompane

You have to go into "my Clubcard account" to find out what you're owed, ignore the bit at the top which may tell you you have ?0, you have to scroll down to the section headed "Vouchers you still have to spend".

[camberwell70]

Excuse me, but shouldn't this be in the businesses section?

[zeban]

No of course it shouldn't- it's not an ED business Sue is telling us about!

[camberwell70]

So why is there a Tesco in East Dulwich Road?

[Sue]

That Tesco is a tiny little local Tesco which only sells food.

I don't think this thread is relevant to it in the least, and had I put it in the ED business section I'm sure it would have been lounged.

If Admin think it should be in a section relating solely to ED, they can move it there.

Why are you so concerned?

ETA: If you look at the link, you will see this is about things sold by Tesco like clothes, electrical goods etc etc. OK I expect you can use your tokens in a tiny little local Tesco, but that isn't what my thread is about.

[Andicam]

Sue, you should check whether you'll get change back from the vouchers you use. To buy the ?33 microwave using ?20 worth of vouchers could mean losing ?7. Alternatively, if you use one ?10 voucher, there'll still be ?13 to pay. Also, make sure you're exchanging your older vouchers first, I think they're valid for about 18 months or so.

[Sue]

Thanks, according to the website yes you get change back in points.

But for this particular department I can only use vouchers in multiples of ?10 so I'll only be able to put ?20 towards it anyway, and pay the rest in cash.

[Annette Curtain]

Great...

What's this thread about, I read Tesco and glazed over.

Sozza

N:-S

[Sue]

Annette Curtain Wrote:

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

> What's this thread about, I read Tesco and glazed

> over.

xxxxxxx

Why even bother looking at the thread then, let alone bother to post on it :))

[Annette Curtain]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Annette Curtain Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > What's this thread about, I read Tesco and

> glazed

> > over.

>

>

> xxxxxxx

>

> Why even bother looking at the thread then, let

> alone bother to post on it :))

I'm not posting per say.

( or looking at it again )

Nette:)

[Huguenot]

Per se.

For itself, or in itself. Perfectly valid to argue that it wasn't a post per se. You'd need to redefine what a 'post' was and introduce a degree of relevancy.

You could then argue that its lack of relevance meant that a post it was not. etc.

[Sue]

Bloody hell, this isn't the philosophy group :))

[Annette Curtain]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Per se.

>

> For itself, or in itself. Perfectly valid to argue

> that it wasn't a post per se. You'd need to

> redefine what a 'post' was and introduce a degree

> of relevancy.

>

> You could then argue that its lack of relevance

> meant that a post it was not. etc.

Yeh...

That's wot I meant

N:-S