Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just went to Luca's on North Cross Road. Food was pretty good apart from the Buddha bowl, which even Buddha himself, with his infinite patience, would have found a little lacklustre (mainly rice and hot spinach). The menu also seemed to contain lots of rules about 'no exceptions or substitutions being made' which set an unfortunate, officious tone, which proved quite apposite as they then asked me to pay the bill upfront (including a tip for service I hadn't received) because I was 'sitting outside', you know, where all the criminals sit. I guess they must've had people do a runner in the past, which is a shame, because it completely killed the chill vibe and gave me the ick. Won't be going back.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/312158-lucas-please-pay-upfront/
Share on other sites

Have to feel sorry for all businesses, especially small ones, in this awful economic environment. When you've got surging wages, power bills and all other inputs it's a recipe for serious trouble.


People doing a runner without paying is just despicable, hopefully Lucas can find a way to make sure people pay without doing this somehow.

We are regular's at Lucas and go most Saturdays for brunch.

The staff and owner recognise us and when we sit outside we also get asked to pay upfront.

Do I object?

No-the waitress who knew us was apologetic about needing to ask for advance payment but I'm sure they wouldn't have needed to do this if people hadn't eaten then left without paying whilst seated outside.

Its a struggle for all independent businesses right now and I'd rather pay upfront and keep Luca's going than go to Megans where the food is truly awful and belongs to a chain.

Often when going to pubs with beer gardens, you are asked to pay at the bar when ordering, which makes perfect business sense and doesn't imply those sitting outside are criminals who will do a runner, but people do, I suspect, make a genuine mistake and leave without paying.


McDonalds is also a business that makes you pay before you get your food, do you object to their business practice too (although I do object to their food lol)


The tip is an interesting one and you can always leave them cash after you've eaten if you feel that's better.


Maybe tell the staff about the Buddha bowl rather then posting on a public forum. Feedback direct to a business is always better then posting about it after.

You haven't the faintest idea what it's like to run a business, let alone in ED, vegan notes.


An overwhelming sense of entitlement & demeaning attitude is exactly why businesses like mine have to re-evaluate our policies.


NewWave's response should tell you something about yourself.

I'm a big fan of Luca's and am getting stuff from there (pretty much always takeaway) a few times per week.


Rule seems pretty reasonable to me, especially given the climate facing small businesses at the moment. Paying in advance is hardly unusual for service in cafe's - Cafe G does it too since you pay when you order.

I think perhaps the problem is the way it is communicated, rather than the policy itself re paying upfront, which seems completely fair.


I also found the tone of some of the statements on the menu to be rather off-putting.


I'm sure Luca's don't mean it to come across in this way, but I was quite taken aback by what I perceived as the rather curt way in which customers were being addressed (not by the staff, I hasten to add).


I wonder whether they might reconsider their wording so that they get the same points across in a more customer-friendly way?

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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