SHOPPERS looking for a bargain on furniture might not be saving as much as they think, as four major retailers have been accused of misleading pricing tactics.
An investigation by Which? has revealed that Very, Furniture Village, Blinds Direct, and 247 Blinds are using questionable “was/now” sale labels that could leave customers paying over the odds.
Shop Window Sale Sign Clothes Red White Banner Store uk[/caption]
Which? spent ten months tracking the prices of more than 40,000 home furnishing products from nine major brands.
Some retailers were found to use inflated “was prices” that hadn’t been charged for weeks – or even months – before a sale began.
The watchdog said this can create the illusion of a bigger discount than shoppers are actually getting.
Take Very, for example.
Its Rubberwood dining set was advertised as “Was £349, Now £299” in May, but the set hadn’t been sold at £349 since March.
During that time, it had been available for as little as £199.
Essentially, shoppers were paying £100 more than they could have just two weeks earlier.
Which? found that 75% of sale items at Very had prices that didn’t match up.
Furniture Village wasn’t much better.
Its Dolce dining set was labelled “Was £2,349, Now £1,795”, but the set had been sold at £2,095 just a month earlier.
That’s £254 less than the supposed “was price”, meaning the advertised discount was far bigger than the real saving.
And at 247 Blinds, Which? said 98% of sale items had misleading prices.
For example, one blind was advertised as “Was £105.66, Now £103.88,” even though it hadn’t been sold at £105.66 since December.
In fact, it had recently been available for just £79.25.
Very defended its pricing, claiming fluctuations are due to market trends and promotions.
Furniture Village said its Dolce dining set was part of a clearance sale and doesn’t reflect its usual pricing approach.
Blinds Direct promised to investigate its practices, while 247 Blinds didn’t respond to Which?’s requests for comment.
Are these tactics breaking the rules?
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) says that “was prices” must reflect the price charged immediately before a discount starts.
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) also warns that misleading price comparisons could breach consumer law.
Yet Which? found numerous examples of products being advertised with “was prices” for far longer than they were actually sold at those prices.
For instance, Very’s Rubberwood dining set was labelled “Was £349” for 68 days – but it had only been sold at that price for five days beforehand.
At Furniture Village, 75% of sale products had “was prices” lasting longer than the actual sale period, with similar issues found at 247 Blinds and Blinds Direct.
Lisa Webb, consumer law expert at Which?, said: “Sneaky pricing tactics are unacceptable, but Which? investigations have repeatedly found problems with pricing across a range of retailers.
“Shoppers should take discounts from these stores with a pinch of salt and make sure they shop around at other retailers to see if they can find anything similar at a better price before parting with any hard-earned cash.”
Which retailer’s can you trust?
IT’S not all bad news for bargain hunters.
Which? found that Argos, Blinds2Go, Dunelm, Ikea, and John Lewis were far better at keeping their pricing honest.
Across these five retailers, fewer than 12% of sale items had intervening prices, and just 5% had “was prices” lasting longer than they were actually sold at that price.
One standout example came from Argos, which ran a one-month sale on its Miami dining set.
The “was price” used was the most recent price charged before the sale, and the discounted price was consistent throughout the promotion.
This clear and simple approach makes it easy for shoppers to see exactly how much they’re saving.
