The new recycling system

The only candidate for an audit in this shít show is Re-Turn.

these are dispute responses relating to containers bearing the logo, the term audit is misleading in this case. in re-turns case its simply looking at data which shows how many cans was sold with a deposit. its not the same "audit" a shop gets from the tax man, they simply use that word for simplicity sake in their own documents you keep linking.

either way, there's still no case or legal basis for the fear mongering things you was sprouting earlier relating to people putting cans without a logo into a machine and getting a deposit. you claimed return could look for these deposits from the shop, which they cannot, and then you went on to say its risky and a bunch of other untrue stuff. Theres no risk or legal potential as the same cans could have been easily sold before a deposit was even legally mandated (meaning feb 1st). if anything its the person knowingly returning the can that can be petty fraud but even that isnt the stores problem, like i said earlier its returns problem and nothing to do with any store. return have no knowledge of which store said can came from. theres no legal risk at all. even a special re-turn audit does nothing in this case

Same audit would show that the retailer didn't pay the deposit when purchasing items they're not charging a deposit on.

Two anecdotes from two different stores today.

Local petrol station has an exemption. Has small a4 signs saying they are exempt. They have a qr code for customers to find out where they can return bottles/cans. Doesn't name any other business so the advertising your rival business claim by retailers appears to be overstated.

Went to a supermarket chain and the wife wanted to buy a multipack of 500ml bottles of water. Unclear from labelling whether deposit would be charged. No visible Re-turn logo. She asked a staff member if they were in scope and was told that she'd have to pay deposit but wouldn't get money back. So we left them behind us.

Nope you didn’t.

I think the shop are taking a risk by not charging the deposit. Others are claiming I’ve lied (or said something untrue). I’m struggling where the untruth is in having an opinion.

An opinion can be wrong but in this case untrue? I don’t know how ReTurn are handling non-logo items being sold in shops but can be reclaimed by RVMs. My understanding is that shops are mandated by ReTurn to charge a deposit and effectively give that money to ReTurn. They can be audited and this can be picked up quite easily. I don’t think Boggles knows how it is being handled either (who I was responding too). Hence, it’s my opinion and he has his own opinion. Neither are lies or untruths. I don’t see how it’s scare mongering (are the shop in this thread????)

Is the above likely? No. Did my original comment warrant a massive back and forth on the topic? Absolutely not, it’s a tiny comment blown out of proportion by Boggles as he does with everyone who disagrees with him (not that I disagreed with him in my original post, I said fair play to the shop).

Shops very clearly can be audited. Whether shops are audited over this is a decision for ReTurn.

Youre the one that has completely blown something out of proportion. You’re the one who brought crime into it (I didn’t) and said I was “scare mongering”.

Fair play to the shop for standing up for what they think is right. I hope there are no consequences for them - now, what’s wrong with that statement?

What relevance is this? I hope there are no consequences. I’m glad the shop has stood up for what they believe.

You think there are no consequences and can be none.

accurate and fair? Or do you want another endless back and forth?

 hope there are no consequences for them

There won't be.

Fearmongering and daft tangents about audits doesn't make it any more likely.

If anything I can see the organisation that represents at least the smaller retailers take a case and try get it paused.

We are in the situation where the retailer is obliged to

Ensure all in-scope stock has the Re-turn logo

Should they be drawing logos on all the stock?

It's a clown show with extra balloons.

So you want an endless argument?

Can you not agree that there are different opinions?

It’s ReTurns decision to audit the shop or not. I think it’s unlikely but within their remit.

You want me agree to a strawman argument which is moot to the actual discussion.

The only reason you introduced audits is to try and hilariously back up your nonsense that Re-Turn could go after my local shop for a mess solely created by Re-Turn.

Ah no.

You think honesty is bad for business?

Better lie to customer and let them be robbed?

Interesting.

No, honesty is really important in business.

I didn't say they should lie.

The correct thing to do would be to refer them to a manager/supervisor.

It's not the fault of a junior staff member and they shouldn't be put in that position.

Why would they refer them to anyone?

The customer asked a question and got a factual and honest answer.

Why the need to escalate to a manager?

Guess what?

They will now have a barcode

potential and risky are terms in the document? either way regardless, you were fear mongering. You called it risky and gave an illuson of legal consequence to anyone who buys the cans for the purpose of redeeming them to get the deposit, but you aimed the consequnce towards the businuess selling the non-logo cans instead.

i don't think i can be how clear in how wrong you were, and there's no point bickering back and forward over law vs what their own policy says, but it can be easily settled and demonstrated another way.

let's pretend you are re-turn and i am a shop that sells non-logo stock, come at me.

Where do you begin to take legal action? what can you even do? Where is the threat of legal action coming from? you're turn, go