The new recycling system

he does'nt mean any wrong, he just seen something thats untrue and responded to it thats all. This is the internet a place where we shouldnt really take anything too personal and only take all with a grain of salt. We just chatting anyway. Everyone is free to disagree with anyone.

i'm focusing more on re-turn and how to actually benefit from the scheme, or help others whoc can't make it to an rvm but also make a bit of money on the side helping out (i'm not a charity lol)

Yes, a link I commented on and ask a pertinent question about.

That's how discussion forums work.

Where is my “untrue” statement?

ReTurn could go after them. Whether they’d win or not is up for debate. Whether ReTurn have the autonomy to make their own decisions is not.

You reckon ReTurn couldn’t turn around to the shop and ask for the deposits to be paid?

i had a larger response typed out but i felt it was too harsh, so imma take a different route and respond in a different way that answers with a legal question instead

"If they don’t charge the deposits they may be liable for them" How can return prove or even know the shop sold those deposits people made? the cans are destroyed upon being fed into the machine. And pointing at a shop and saying "they musta got the cans from there because they have stock that matches this description" is entirely speculation and argumentative. Lawyers would have an objection field day, infact it would'nt even be put infront of a judge or make it to court as no actual crime had been committed, and even if there was a crime comitted, it would have to be proven and not based on a hunch or heresay. Also who's to say maybe the cans without the return logo were "purchased" by someone BEFORE feb 1st, and then redeemed in the RVM after?

Where is my “untrue” statement?

LOL.

Last week you were telling everyone it was a crime to charge a deposit without the logo, this week you are saying it a crime not to charge a product without a logo.

That is Premier League level spooking God love you. 😂

They have absolutely no idea which products can be returned for the deposit, so they tried to force all retailers to charge a deposit on everything.

The consumer is being robbed, several retailers see this and refuse to participate in something that actually could be illegal, it is certainly immoral.

It's worth noting again, that Re-Turn tried to force the retailers to dump all their stock, the retailers said they would but compensation would have to paid immediately.

That wasn't happening so in order to minimise the exposure for Re-Turns incompetence the consumer is being robbed.

Of course the minister should be in charge of their brief and all over this, with the potential of a pause until the mess is straighten out.

But he has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he is dangerously stupid.

So maybe with an election looming it may have to go up the chain for anything meaningful to happen.

i bought a couple of bottles yesterday and was only charged on 1 with a logo. the rest had no logos and no deposit charge attached. infact i've seen a shop get a delivery of non-logo cans and was shocked.

We just need to keep our receipts and cause enough hassle/nuisense by returning the bottles to the store you purchased them from to manually get your deposits back if the machine does'nt give you a deposit voucher. These shops if they do give you a refund on the deposit manually, will then in turn crush the cans/bottles and throw them in regular trash or regular recycling i imagine.

Bottom line any shop charging you a deposit on cans/bottles without a logo is either taking the piss, or those bottles can be redeemed for deposit, if they don't keep your receipt and bring them back

Someone on here said previously that Ireland does these big implementation projects well. Not sure if I agree fully with that statement but if true previously, this yoke will have to be classed as an outlier

no, they can't "audit the shop" where are you coming up with this? Thats not what an audit is, and no, even that "It’s very simple to look at how much they paid ReTurn and how many eligible containers were sold." is not possible. and if it were, it can be circumvented with how the cans are being sold.

Also how can they say who sold what? cans could have been stock purchased before any feb scheme. shop isnt liable for selling their own non-logo stock. if the barcodes can be redeemed for deposits then big deal, thats re-turns problem not the shop.

the risks you keep talking about look like fear mongering due to lack of understanding how legal system and audits work. its like "i dont know anything about law or anything im talking about so i will type some word salad and fear monger/warn of something and say potentially as i dont really know what im saying, and just say its possible somehow, i will figure out typing how its possible as i'm typing it, i might come up with something. maybe if i speculate"

You’re just spinning an argument. What I said isn’t untrue, ReTurn can seek that those containers sold should have been charged a deposit and seek that the shop is liable.

It’s my opinion that they could do that. It is your opinion they couldn’t.

Section 8 of membership rules:

https://re-turn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/DSRI-Retailer-Membership-Rules-FINAL-June-2023.pdf

i know return can't turn around and look for the deposits. this is'nt a simple disagreement over an opinion, what you said is untrue despite it being an opinion. it was your delivery, you stated it as fact or a legal possibility when it is no such thing at all. i hope you don't feel attacked over it or take it personally, but it is important for other people to correct any sort of misinformation like this when they see it being posted to the forum.

what you said IS infact untrue, that really is the point. Also calling it an opinion does'nt make the other persons side invalid either. If i say "its my opinion the sky is green and red color" i would be entirely wrong, and my opinion would be untrue.

You’ve said they can’t be audited, they can.

Why would ReTurn audit a retailer if not to recoup money?

Section 8:

https://re-turn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/DSRI-Retailer-Membership-Rules-FINAL-June-2023.pdf

I’ve never said a crime has been committed. your words.

Im glad you accept they could go after them. That settles it.

Glad to know you don’t want my evidence anymore. I provide the pdfs to show where I get the information from and point people to the exact slide or paragraph.

My understanding is that it’s charged at the point of sale. Tesco own brand water is an internal product so it’s charged there.

I think that’s what I’ve read but I could easily be wrong. It was a long time ago I read about the flow of money in the system.

They are the membership rules!

Section 25, 26 and 27 of the same document outlines the Dispute Resolutions. That’s how they “go after them”.

It’s very clear ReTurn can audit books in relation to what in-scope containers they have sold.

Come on BoardsBottler, there’s clearly sufficient proof there. Retailers are bound by these rules.