TESCO AND WAL-MART 2

A woman was refused the morning-after pill because it was against the pharmacist's religious beliefs. Ruth Johnson was refused the emergency contraception by a locum pharmacist at a Tesco supermarket. She asked an assistant at the chemist counter for the pill Levonelle, but was told it had to be dispensed by the locum himself. Miss Johnson said, "He told me that he would not be 'allowing' me to buy the pill from him because he had a right to refuse to sell it on the basis of his personal beliefs. The pharmacist was of Asian origin, so I asked him if it was because of his religion and he replied 'yes'."

Miss Johnson, of Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, complained to the manager of the Hewitt's Circus branch. She said, "I was told that it had nothing to do with them and that they couldn't force the pharmacist to sell it, despite him working in their store. I then asked if a Jewish or Muslim checkout operator could refuse to sell pork or alcohol, or if a Jehovah's witness could refuse to sell birthday and Christmas cards." A Tesco spokesman said the pharmacist advised Ms Johnson on other places to purchase the pill, but was acting within his rights to refuse to dispense it himself.

He said, "We do apologise to Miss Johnson for the inconvenience caused." A spokesman for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said, "Any attempt by a pharmacist to impose their beliefs on a member of the public seeking their professional guidance, or a failure to have systems in place to advise of alternative sources for the service required, would be of great concern to the RPSGB and could form the basis of a complaint of professional misconduct." (Source: Daily Mail, Oct/08)

An elderly couple were told off by Tesco for doing their shopping too slowly. Roland Hodgson and his wife Pauline spent over four hours at their local store and spent £300 on all their Christmas food and presents. But days later the blue badge holders received a stern letter reprimanding them for breaking the three-hour limit on disabled car park spaces. They were warned they face a fine of up £100 if they repeat the "offence", but the couple have vowed never to shop at Tesco again.

Roland said, "They may say every little helps, but it's clearly only if you're spending your money fast enough. We go there once a week and normally spend around £60. We won't be going back again. What a way to treat loyal customers. They're persecuting the disabled for shopping too slowly, the very sort of people they know will take more time than the average shopper." He said the only warning about the time limit was on a small sign on the road on the way into the car park, not by the spaces.

He added, "It's the 'Big Brother' feeling you get about the place that's really worrying. Why should a big company have DVLA access to my number plate for commercial purposes? After we got the letter we called them up and they were saying that we could have parked there and gone shopping in town. It's ridiculous, both of us have trouble walking. We're not going to go lugging shopping about the place."

The letter from Tesco stated, "Your car was parked for longer than the time limit allowed at our store. We know from research that the time limits exceed the time customers spend shopping in our stores and feel that they are fair and reasonable. Therefore could you please observe the time restrictions to avoid a parking charge notice being issued." A spokesman said, "We feel that in the vast majority of cases that three hours should be enough for everyone's needs." (Source: Daily Mail, Nov/07)

Tesco has been accused of misleading shoppers over a 'half-price' promotion after it suddenly increased prices shortly before starting the campaign. Television commercials are promoting the supermarket's 'Fruit & Veg Pledge', in which it promises to halve the price of five different fruits and vegetables every week for the whole of 2007, purportedly to encourage people to eat the recommended five helpings every day.

Trading standards officers say they are investigating if shoppers have been misled by Tesco, which takes more than £1 in every £8 spent in British shops. In the advert, TV gardener Alan Titchmarsh tells viewers, "Let's face it, eating five a day isn't that easy. So every week for the whole of 2007 we promise to halve the price of five different fruit and veg. Which should help keep you nice and healthy, not to mention your bank balance."

However, analysis shows that four of the products featured in the first week of the promotion in January suffered a sudden price hike at the end of December, immediately prior to the '50% cut'. Gala apples, one of the product lines in the promotion, were priced by Tesco at £1.19 for a kilo on December 11. They then went up to £1.99 on December 18, but were reduced to 99p on January 1 for the promotion.

Peaches were priced at £1.99 on December 11 for a 500g punnet, then went up to £2.99 on December 28. On January 1 they were reduced by 50% to £1.48. Nectarines were priced at £1.49 for 500g on December 11, then went to £2.99 on December 28. On January 1 they were also cut by 50% to £1.48. Plums followed a similar pattern. Martin Fisher, from the Trading Standards Institute, said the supermarket was 'grossly exploiting' loopholes in the industry code on pricing which allows them to cut prices on goods which will go rotten if they are not sold quickly.

The analysis appears to show other ploys used by Tesco to offset the cost of their price reductions. Pre-packed courgettes were halved to 99p for a pack of three, but at the same time the price of loose courgettes rose by 35p a kilo. Celery hearts were halved in price, but the price of celery sticks were simultaneously increased by 51%. A Tesco spokesman did not deny the sharp pattern of price changes in the highlighted products, but claimed it was due to seasonal price fluctuations.

He said, "At Tesco, we're doing more than any supermarket to make it easy and affordable for our customers to get their five a day. Any suggestion we ramp up prices in order to cut them again is the purest nonsense." Labour MP Jim Dowd, chairman of the all-party small shops group said, "This sounds like sharp practice, which is something Tesco has gained a reputation for. It amounts to the deception of customers." (Source: Mail on Sunday, Mar/07)

Bailiffs seized alcohol worth £60,000 from a Tesco store after the company ignored a High Court order to compensate a driver whose van was damaged by its fuel. David Bond was a victim of contaminated fuel more than three years ago. He filled his Mercedes Sprinter with 61 litres of diesel at a Tesco Extra store in November 2003. The fuel, which was contaminated with water, badly damaged the engine and he had to pay £3,400 to have it repaired immediately because he needed his vehicle for work.

Although Tesco later admitted liability, it was prepared to pay only 25% of the repair costs. Mr Bond rejected the offer and sued Tesco for the full cost of the bill. A County Court judgment was made against the company and it was ordered to pay Mr Bond £2,690 by December 12 last year. It had already made an interim payment of £1,060 two years earlier but nearly three months after the ruling, Tesco had still failed to pay a penny more.

His lawyer claimed Mr Bond could have started winding up procedures against the company or tried to have its assets frozen. Instead, he had the case transferred to the High Court. On March 1 an enforcement officer from the court impounded wine, spirits and beer worth £60,000 at a Tesco store in Gloucester. The goods, which were not actually removed from the store, could have been sold off within days but Tesco ended the dispute with an apology and declaration that the cheque was in the post.

Mr Bond finally got his cheque for £2,690, more than three years after his van engine was ruined but his solicitor said the drink would remain impounded at the Gloucester store until the funds cleared. Mr Bennington said, "It has taken media interest rather than legal judgment and high court enforcement to spur Tesco into action." In a letter, Tesco blamed an administration error and said it was an "isolated mistake". (Source: Mail on Sunday, Mar/07)

<<< Prev