My wife and I visited the Pitt Street Mall Store. Upon looking, we found an item we wished to purchase, the Elegance of Africa Elephant for the price shown of $500.
We approached a staff member and requested to purchase this product. She told us we must be an SCS member to purchase it, assuming this was a free membership as there was no fee stating this with the product advertised in store, she advised us this was an $89 fee, without paying this, there was no way that they could sell us the item.
I advised the store attendant that this was in breach of the ACCC & NSW Fair Trading guidelines when it comes to pricing and price displays, she refused to hear me out, and told me that the only way to purchase this product is by paying the additional $89 membership fee and there was nothing else she could do. Put in this predicament, we purchased the product, paying the unadvertised $89 fee to take up later, for a total of $589.
The ACCC states “Businesses must not display prices that are wrong or likely to create a false impression.”. Not displaying that this item indeed attracted an $89 fee if you were not a member is certainly creating a false impression.
The ACCC also states “If a business also displays a price for just one part of a product or service, the total price must be at least as prominent as the partial price. A prominent single total price is one that is clear and stands out so that it is easily noticed by a consumer.” The $500 displayed for the product was the price for just one part of the product. Swarovski can display the price of its product without including the cost of the mandatory membership fee it also charges, but only if it also displays the prices inclusive of the mandatory membership fee. The prices inclusive of the membership fee must be displayed just as prominently as the display of the prices without the membership fee included. There was nothing displaying any pricing regarding the $89 fee.
NSW Fair Trading states “Businesses cannot promote or state a price that is only part of the cost, unless they also prominently advertise the single (total) price. This means that customers should be able to identify the total price in an advertisement just as easily as prices for all the other aspects.
The single price must be:
• clear at the time of the sale
• as prominent as the most prominent component of the price.
After looking at their QVB and Westfield Burwood stores, I can confirm all their displays are the same. I was eventually contacted by an Area Manager ‘Sam’ who told me I wanted the item so too bad.
My question is, who do you think is in the wrong & if in fact what they are doing is in breach, how many people have been forced to pay an additional $89 for a product they really wanted?
Do you have a photo of the in-store price displays and information at the point of entry/shown generally within the store? It would be interesting to see what is presented.
If the pricing display said ‘membership price of $500’, they might not fall foul of displayed labeling requirements. If the pricing displayed was ‘$500’, and they only said at the register that this was the price for members, this is very concerning as it would potentially contravene displayed pricing requirements.
Photos would speak 1000 words if you had one. It would also allow community members better understand how pricing is displayed and communicated to the consumer.
Thanks for your reply, being a new member i’ll have to add the images over a couple of replies. The item in questioned I have circled. Just to put into a bit more context too, the darker $2000 elephant on the left did not require the $89 membership fee, yet the one circled did…
Hi @AndrewD29, do you have a legible image of the large white sign on the upper shelf to ascertain whether it might have relevance? The sign showing ‘up to 40% off selected styles’ seems off too since there is no obvious way to tell which ones it applies to. Are the 2 signs related in any way so one needs to read both in concert?
I do see the SCS (Swarovski Crystal Society) Exclusive badge next to one of the $500 Elephants (one on the right). Would that constitute enough notification?
With multiple products and the leftmost not being exclusive, my opinion is (from what I can discern) that sign would need to be shown with each product to which it applies.
Last question from me, confirming the middle and right elephant are different products? If the same it could be argued the SCS Exclusive sign is sufficient if potentially misleading. If they are different products which seems the case my previously posted opinion holds.
There will probably be more comments coming, some of differing views, but in your place I would be penning a formal complaint to your fair trading office. Unfortunately education is usually the first response leading to a better sign, full stop.
You could also write a formal letter of complaint to the shop citing the requirement and asking for the membership to be refunded and cancelled. If you are not familiar there are many links on the Community and Choice as well as from the ACCC in how to write one.
Thanks for your insights @PhilT , they are much appreciated.
The store didn’t want any part of it and told me to contact head office which I did, the area manager called me saying it was completely impossible to refund the membership fee as they did nothing wrong so it was too bad.
I think Fair Trading will be my next stop, I was hoping to get some opinions before this from other peoples perspective to see if they thought the store was in the right.
Perhaps getting some legal advice on what next steps you should take will also help you decide what to do. Your first step would normally be to go formal, this entails you sending Swarovski the request for what you want in writing. Do not rely on phone calls to undertake this step, contact should be in writing so you have proof of what you have requested. Fair Trading almost always requires proof of you having done this. Fair Trading for the most part are about mediation and so you may find that if Swarovski are not willing to listen, Fair Trading may say there is nothing they can do. Next step after Fair Trading may be a case in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal as they are the State arm of the ACL that can award you the outcome you seek. They will again almost always want to see proof of you requesting an outcome from the business and that you have tried using Fair Trading, before they will hear a case.
Consumer Legal advice centres are in every State and Territory, they are fee free to use and get advice from. They may also help you frame your request letter and help you determine what other steps you can take. We do have a list on this site that has some of the Legal centres contact details for each State and Territory. Free Legal Advice Centres
CHOICE and the ACCC have templates of request letters you may wish to use.
ACCC
CHOICE (the link to the templates is in the linked page)
On further consideration it increasingly seems to be a grey issue how this could turn out. On one hand the shop staff verbally advised the item was a ‘member exclusive’ but could have claimed anything they wanted since it was not explicitly sign-posted. Why wasn’t that restriction properly displayed? Even if it was a conscious ploy to attract customers to their membership could they be held to sell it to anyone just because? On another hand the customer did not have to enrol and buy the product but chose to because they wanted the product. Would that circumstance be duress in this context? Which view will be weightier on balance.
It seems not about consumer rights but about complying with signage and whether the shop did or did not properly and adequately post prices and ‘exclusivity’. Regardless of how the latter is adjudicated does a customer have rights to recompense once they accept what is presented to them as a take it or leave it? I suspect @AndrewD29 may be right about the signage, but I also suspect it will not matter in the end since Swarovski seems bent on a hardball stance regarding an event in one of their shops, and anything further would probably be goodwill that does not seem to exist.
Looking forward, if a formal claim is knocked back as it is likely to be, is the frustration to try going further worth $89 and/or the principle? Only @AndrewD29 can answer that.
That is why I recommend that they avail themselves of some free Consumer Legal Advice centre advice before they take any further steps.
Fair Trading has no risks as well, just that they are usually very limited in terms of what they will do in our experience of using them. In the case of inadequate signage for prices or duplicitous signage, they might do more. I am not going to hold my breath in anticipation of any action, it is a necessary step regardless.
A complaint to the ACCC about the issue is also free and might lead to some action about the way Swarovski display their prices and offers. No personal outcome for @AndrewD29 is to be expected from such a complaint though.
Businesses are quite entitled to put conditions on the sale of goods, like membership, to get the price indicated, or even buy the goods at all.
Member’s only price.
As long as they don’t engage in third line forcing, which involves having to pay a third party for something. Like if you want that TV at that price, you need to buy an extended warranty.
Well, signage has little to do with anything in this case.
The buyer expressed interest in buying the object at the price. The seller explained the conditions of sale, and that would be a member price. There was a price for membership.
This is all explained before any transaction of sale entered into. So far so good.
The buyer then chose to become a member, to avail themselves of the price shown. And quite possibly member prices in the future.
The transaction of sale then occured on mutually agreed terms, with the seller getting a sale, and the buyer getting the item wanted. And now a member.
I utterly fail to see what the issue in this topic is. And how in any way it could be a scam.
