Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Really not a fan of M&S food and I hate that tiny new shop with a passion, so I try to remain loyal to the Co Op when doing my local food shopping.


But, seriously, are they running that shop down with a view to closing, or what?


The temperature in there has been arctic for weeks! Today I went in at 5pm and it wasn't specially busy. There were no trollies whatsoever and none of those slightly larger baskets you can wheel around. Dead flowers in a bucket just by the door. Dead chilli plants for sale on the shelf. Most shelves half empty. It looked like a store in serious decline but then it often has from time to time over the years.


Does anyone know how they are affected by the arrival of M&S?

The Co-op is disgrace..


Aisles littered with rubbish. Clogged with Wire Cages.


Constant leaks and floods. Broken down Freezers.. Food on their best by date. Some past their Use By date.

Some reduced.


No evidence of management on site. No one to get help from.


No strong bags available at checkouts. Limited staff on reduced amount of checkouts.

Most Self Service checkouts Card Only. Often requiring Assistance.


Complete shambles. Not a pleasant shopping experience.


I now use M&S. Fresh Food. Better quality meat and other produce and now no longer more expensive than the Co-op.


DulwichFox

I'm a journalism student studying at London South Bank University. Would I be able to quote the two of you in a piece I'm writing on the retail competition in East Dulwich? If so, do you believe that the decline in the CO-OP is a result of other supermarkets opening? When was it opened and has it always had the problems mentioned above?

Thanks

george, this is not the only thread bemoaning the parlous condition of the Coop, you need to search this site.


Surely if you are a journalism student you will have been taught/shown how to conduct your own research and

apply critical thinking? otherwise we will be doing your homework for you.


This advice allows for the difference between an objective and subjective viewpoint.


thanks

tomskip Wrote:

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

> Really not a fan of M&S food and I hate that tiny

> new shop with a passion, so I try to remain loyal

> to the Co Op when doing my local food shopping.

>

> But, seriously, are they running that shop down

> with a view to closing, or what?

>

> The temperature in there has been arctic for

> weeks! Today I went in at 5pm and it wasn't

> specially busy. There were no trollies whatsoever

> and none of those slightly larger baskets you can

> wheel around. Dead flowers in a bucket just by the

> door. Dead chilli plants for sale on the shelf.

> Most shelves half empty. It looked like a store in

> serious decline but then it often has from time to

> time over the years.

>

> Does anyone know how they are affected by the

> arrival of M&S?


tomskip, you have adroitly answered your own question

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> The Co-op is disgrace..

>

> Aisles littered with rubbish. Clogged with Wire

> Cages.

>

> Constant leaks and floods. Broken down Freezers..

> Food on their best by date. Some past their Use By

> date.

> Some reduced.

>

> No evidence of management on site. No one to get

> help from.

>

> No strong bags available at checkouts. Limited

> staff on reduced amount of checkouts.

> Most Self Service checkouts Card Only. Often

> requiring Assistance.

>

> Complete shambles. Not a pleasant shopping

> experience.

>

> I now use M&S. Fresh Food. Better quality meat

> and other produce and now no longer more expensive

> than the Co-op.

>

> DulwichFox


M&S provides us with what we believe we deserve,

whilst

the Coop gives the locale it's heartfelt indifference.

M&S has always been freezing (which was nice in the summer) and there are blocked aisles and overpriced stuff littering M&S too - a wise shopper will walk the few yards between the two and glean what each offers better than the other rather than feel they need to support one over t'other as though they were football teams.*


I like the co-op - it's a mess at times but co-ops have always been a bit like that.





*No, no! That's not the spirit of the forum! Rail against the disappearance of Iceland or plead for the advent of Waitrose or put forward the pros for a nice little Lidl at least!

Co-op is obviously going through a difficult time.


Think about the staff who are working in those cold conditions. Shoppers pop in and do their shopping then leave, Most staff are in their all day. Yes, it is cold but they get on with their jobs.


Have found the staff helpful and friendly.

I have witnessed customers being so rude to the staff when I?ve been in shopping, it?s not their fault. Give them a break.


M&S have a small selection of store cupboard essentials, and are quite pricey, it?s always busy. Sometimes it?s handy popping into co-op getting the essentials.


Support your co-op!

I would like to support the Co-Op as a local, convenient, reasonably priced ( unlike M&S), long established shop, and try and do so, but the last lot of meat I bought there was past it's sell by date, as I only noticed when I got home. So my support is a bit uncertain.

I?m sorry, but the LL Co-ops?s failure has nothing to do with the limited successes of the local M&S.


Not only has that shop been long notorious for failures (well before M&S opened) ? but competition does not create poor service, poor management, poor planning, poor? well you name it ? amongst those being competed with. The LL Co-op had every opportunity of re-positioning itself as the go-to shop for branded goods and staples. The brand reputation of the Co-op is value (as M&S?s is quality) ? and that could have been played into.


The shoppers who regretted the passing of Iceland locally could readily have been enticed into a store occupying a similar (value, people?s store) brand position. Instead of which a declining store simply chose to decline further and faster. This may be about the Head Office attitude to local decision making, of course, but this isn?t a worthy company suffering from unacceptable competition. This is suicide by neglect.

Hey Student researchers - try looking right back to the 70s for the boom time of the Co-op.


The Co-Op in Swansea was once THE place to go for meeting Santa at Christmas and it had the best cafe in Swansea too. Could we say the same about Co-ops in SE London.


Anyway I live in the Co-op on Rye Lane (or I assume one was here or the name makes no sense) maybe have a look.

georgeidd Wrote:

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

> I'm a journalism student studying at London South

> Bank University. Would I be able to quote the two

> of you in a piece I'm writing on the retail

> competition in East Dulwich? If so, do you believe

> that the decline in the CO-OP is a result of other

> supermarkets opening? When was it opened and has

> it always had the problems mentioned above?

> Thanks


This is an anonymous public forum, so I'd have though you could use what views you want. Good luck with your studies.


I would very much like to see the finished piece - I'm sure it would be an interesting read - although I suspect it's University copyright once submitted.....anyway - good luck.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I?m sorry, but the LL Co-ops?s failure has nothing

> to do with the limited successes of the local M&S.

>

>

> Not only has that shop been long notorious for

> failures (well before M&S opened) ? but

> competition does not create poor service, poor

> management, poor planning, poor? well you name it

> ? amongst those being competed with. The LL Co-op

> had every opportunity of re-positioning itself as

> the go-to shop for branded goods and staples. The

> brand reputation of the Co-op is value (as M&S?s

> is quality) ? and that could have been played

> into.

>

> The shoppers who regretted the passing of Iceland

> locally could readily have been enticed into a

> store occupying a similar (value, people?s store)

> brand position. Instead of which a declining store

> simply chose to decline further and faster. This

> may be about the Head Office attitude to local

> decision making, of course, but this isn?t a

> worthy company suffering from unacceptable

> competition. This is suicide by neglect.


In a nutshell.

I now only use Iceland on the Old Kent Road for big shops. It?s not far, and parking is easy for me. It?s those that don?t drive I feel sorry for, forced to jump buses and lug shopping around. I also miss the convenience of Iceland for bread and milk, other essentials etc. The Co-op is a shambles. M&S is out of most people price bracket for a regular shop.


Louisa.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Louisa Wrote:

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

> -----

> > M&S is out of most people price bracket

> > for a regular shop.

> >

>

> I'm not sure that is necessarily true.

>

> I have been very pleasantly surprised at M&S

> prices, and the quality is way better.



Certainly some bargains towards close of play, usually about one hour before. Lots of bakery, fresh produce, cakes and sandwiches are significantly reduced. I?d certainly agree it?s cheaper than co-op for many items and way superior in terms of quality. But then Iceland did some great deals which neither current option can match. Understandably so.


Louisa.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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