Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Today I went into the yellow shop on Crystal Palace Road - the one sort of opposite the Castle Pub - to buy a zone 1-2 travel card. I paid my ?5.30 for what I believed was a travel card. When I got to Elephant and Castle to get on the tube I discovered I'd been sold a bus pass. So I had to spend another ?5.30 at Elephant and Castle on a travel card to get into town.


I went back into the shop just now to tell them what had happened - I am a regular customer. The man said it was my responsibility to check I had the right item in the first place. I told him I believe it is my responsibility to pay the right money for my goods and it is his to sell me the right things.


We ended up more or less having an argument in the shop and his wife came out and of course supported him in the answer that is up to me to check I've been sold the right thing.


He said he had never made that mistake before which was a lie as he has done the same to my husband.


I said I am an honest person who uses the shop regularly. I am supportive of small businesses and have even pointed out to them when they have out of date food on their shelves so they can take it down. They even sell individual items from multipacks which actually have 'not for resale' written on them! I said that although they are not accountable to anyone as it is their own business they still need customers. His very angry parting words were 'I don't need customers.'


So rather than getting a full refund of the ?5.30 he just gave me the difference between the travel card and the bus pass even though I had to buy another travel card to get where I needed to go.


I really hate slagging off local businesses especially as I run a small business in the area myself. I just wandered whether people had experienced this kind of mistake themselves and whose fault it is.

okcomputa Wrote:

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

> OMG you must be so bored - what is the

> point/motivation exactly of your post? I couldn't

> count the number of times I've been short changed

> or incorrectly billed etc in life - sometimes it's

> my fault, other times not.


I suppose it does come across like that! I was just really cross as he made the mistake and I'm fed up of shops trying to rip people off. I wanted to know whether there was some kind of rule that people should check their stuff before they leave a shop as they don't have any grounds for complaint otherwise. Anyway, it just goes to show I should never say anything while I'm still angry!

Actually Goodliz I do see the point of this post - the TFL ticket machine thingies ring up how much the ticket costs, so he will have known full well that the till had registered one thing and he had charged you another. There's nothing you can do about it, as the "no changes will be made after you've left the shop" thing is the same in small shops as big supermarkets, but i sympathise.


That shop is normally fine (cleanliness aside) unless you challenge the owner on anything - I've been in there before and rummaged thru the goods because the ones in front are out of date, and he has told me not to; when I've told him it is because things are out of date, he says "ok" but never makes any effort to remove dated goods. And when others have reached for something and I have told them that the one they've picked up is out of date, he has told me to mind my own business - a valid point, i s'pose, but even in the cut-throat world of trying to run your own business, I think knowingly selling things that are out of date is a bit off.


Anyway, that's a separate point. Summary: I think he probably realised that he'd sold you the wrong thing, but after the fact it's your word against his and he just doesn't back down, so you're stuck. There seems to be a moral to the tale, but Poo situation to be in.

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...