136 days ago

Four common supermarket price errors to look out for

Brian from Mount Roskill

Consumer NZ says supermarkets are still making pricing errors, despite increasing pressure and scrutiny on them.
Charges have been filed and a number of supermarkets have pleaded guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act due to inaccurate pricing and misleading specials.
But Consumer NZ says misleading specials are still costing shoppers tens of millions of dollars a year and has launched a petition calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the ac
It provided examples of a number of ways that people could be caught out by misleading signage in supermarkets.
Dodgy multibuy
=============
A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving.
supermarket price errorsA mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20.
Consumer NZ pointed to this mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20.
In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference.
The Gingernuts that were selling for $5 but the club price for a twin-pack was $5.59.
Two individual backs of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59.
Different pricing
=============
Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout.
A box of Coca Cola a customer paid more at checkout for than the shelf price tag.
In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout.
Confusing
========
Double cream brie with two prices. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie was "reduced" to $10.60 for a quick sale - or was it on sale for $9.80?
Mismatches
==========
Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item.
In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado.
Another sign at the same supermarket saying a single avocado is $1.69.
"One said $1.69. The other said $1.99," Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said.
"The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado."

Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone who was charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference.
He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know that was what was available.
A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product liens, pricing was a complex job.
"But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout," he said.
"We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors.
"Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right.
"If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate."
Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in our stores each week "and sometimes errors do occur".
"When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product."
Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said.
====================================================

More messages from your neighbours
5 days ago

A riddle to start the festive season 🌲🎁🌟

The Riddler from The Neighbourly Riddler

I'm a fruit. If you take away my first letter, I'm a crime. If you take away my first two letters, I'm an animal. If you take away my first and last letter, I'm a form of music. What am I?

Do you think you know the answer? Simply 'Like' this post if you know the answer and the big reveal will be posted in the comments at 2pm on the day!

Want to stop seeing these in your newsfeed?
Head here and hover on the Following button on the top right of the page (and it will show Unfollow) and then click it. If it is giving you the option to Follow, then you've successfully unfollowed the Riddles page.

Image
7 days ago

Poll: Should we be giving the green light to new mining projects? 💰🌲

The Team from Neighbourly.co.nz

The Environmental Protection Authority announced this week that a proposed mine in Central Otago (near Cromwell) is about to enter its fast-track assessment process. A final decision could come within six months, and if it’s approved, construction might start as early as mid-2026.

We want to know: Should mining projects like this move ahead?

Keen to dig deeper? Mike White has the scoop.

Image
Should we be giving the green light to new mining projects? 💰🌲
  • 53.3% Yes
    53.3% Complete
  • 46.7% No
    46.7% Complete
2085 votes
2 hours ago

Thousands of police warnings could be wiped because of protocol breaches

Brian from Mount Roskill

Thousands of formal warnings issued by police could be wiped from official records and compulsory training for all staff has been introduced because police haven't followed proper protocol for years, the Herald can reveal. Relying on formal warnings during police vetting has also been stopped nationwide because of the botch-up, and police are now inviting anyone who has concerns about a formal warning they've received to contact police and request a review of their records.
The background: Deficiencies in the formal warning system were first identified in 2021, after a High Court judge found the way warnings were issued breached the law. Central to the court’s ruling was that police didn’t understand that for a formal warning to be issued, a suspect must accept responsibility for their offending, and there must be sufficient evidence to prove the offence. After that ruling, police said they’d review their policies. However, the Herald has learned that four years since flaws were first identified, significant issues remain. A review conducted last year found that of a sample of 467 warnings issued between 2019 and 2024, only 171 were compliant. Police said those found to have breached policy were then wiped from official records.
=======================================================