Large retailers deceive customers: how they change prices before sales.

Unfair pricing practices

According to The Sun: Consumers trying to find good deals on furniture may not achieve the desired savings due to dubious pricing tactics by four major retail chains. It has been found that companies Very, Furniture Village, Blinds Direct, and 247 Blinds use suspicious selling methods with 'was/now' tags, which often lead to overcharges.

The organization Which? conducted a ten-month study analyzing over 40,000 home products from nine major brands. It turned out that some retailers deliberately inflate 'was prices' that had not been in effect for several weeks or even months prior to the start of the sale.

This creates the illusion of larger discounts than consumers actually receive.

Examples of opaque pricing

For example, the company Very advertised its Rubberwood dining set as 'Was £349, Now £299' in May, yet the set had not sold for £349 since March, and at the time it could be purchased for £199. Thus, consumers overpaid by £100 more than they could have two weeks earlier.

Which? also found that 75% of sales at Very had inconsistent pricing.

In the case of Furniture Village, the situation was no better. Its Dolce dining set was marked as 'Was £2,349, Now £1,795' even though it had previously sold for £2,095 just a month ago. This indicates that the actual discount was £254 less than stated in the advertisement.

According to Which?, 98% of items on sale at 247 Blinds also had false pricing. For example, one blind was advertised as 'Was £105.66, Now £103.88' even though it hadn't been sold for £105.66 since December, and it had recently been available for £79.25.

Very explained its pricing policy by stating that price fluctuations are caused by market trends and promotions. Furniture Village added that their Dolce dining set is part of a sale and does not reflect a regular pricing approach.

Blinds Direct promised to review its practices, while 247 Blinds remained silent regarding Which?'s inquiry.

Do these tactics violate the rules?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) emphasizes that 'was prices' should reflect the price consumers actually paid before the discount. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) also warns that unreliable price comparisons can violate consumer protection legislation.

However, Which? discovered numerous instances of products being advertised with outdated 'was prices' for extended periods. For example, the Rubberwood dining set at Very was labeled as 'Was £349' for 68 days, although it had only sold at that price for five days prior.

Lisa Webb, a consumer law expert at Which?, said:

“Unfair pricing practices are unacceptable, but Which?'s investigation repeatedly found pricing issues among various retailers.”

“Consumers should approach discounts with caution and must check prices at other stores to find similar items at better prices before spending their money.”

Which retailers can be trusted?

Fortunately for shoppers seeking good deals, not everything is so bleak. Which? confirmed that Argos, Blinds2Go, Dunelm, Ikea, and John Lewis adhere to fair pricing practices. Among these five retailers, only 12% of items on sale had inconsistent prices, and just 5% had 'was prices' that lasted longer than they actually sold at that price.

One example of honesty was Argos, which ran a month-long sale on the Miami dining set. The 'was price' matched the nearest price before the sale began, and the discounted price remained stable throughout the promotion. Such a straightforward approach allows consumers to visually assess how much they are saving.