The new recycling system

You've repeated exactly what I said.

The retailer is paying the supplier (wholesaler) 15c/25c on each and every qualifying bottle.

You are saying that the retailer is not charging the fee.

The retailer is losing the money.

Because any manager worth their salt will realise that this is a ridiculous proposition to put to a customer.

"Here is your six pack of water I'm changing you 90 cent extra as a deposit but you can't get it back".

The customer will be annoyed and like our earlier poster will leave the shop without the water.

Breaking two golden rules of business never upset the customer and always close the sale.

If the manager had any sense the bottles would go back into the storeroom until somebody comes up with a better plan.

You said the retailer was not going to participate and will not charge.

They will have no choice but to buy the return products, so they'll have to participate.

If a small number of transitionary items get through, it won't be the end of the world.

You, like a few others are searching for any minor issue and trying to make it a major issue.

Quite laughable.

You, like a few others are searching for any minor issue and trying to make it a major issue.

So the Green Man must be obeyed without question?

Aren't you a super disciple.

Went up to local centra which I wouldn't shop too much in but to have a look at their machine as its near enough to walk with a few bottles.

The things built into a little enclosure beside one of those large washer/dry coin machines but it's got a shutter down over it so either they forgotten to open it today or it's broken.

Re-turn have focussed on ensuring that, no matter what, they will not lose a cent on deposits, and they have skimped or avoided any investment in getting this scheme started.

They will pay for this during the next four months with retailers and consumers being annoyed at completely avoidable issues. This stingy pose, the attempt to not lose or spend cash, could risk the entire scheme and even undermine, delay or endanger other planned initiatives (like takeaway coffee cup levy).

They should have made sure that from day 1 all items would work, even items that may not have had a deposit or logo on. They could have left it loose for the transition and then, once people are familiar, strictly enforce the logo after. No need for 4 months transition either, 30 days might have been enough.

This would cost them, for sure, millions (like €20, €25m), but what they would get is a smooth launch, easy first experience of using RVMs, and people becoming familiar with the scheme before they need to become familiar with logos, barcodes etc. it would even have boosted their initial collection ratio stats.

Frankly, it's how a private business would do it, e.g. mobile networks, tech platforms, or streaming services, who seek to introduce mass, consumer change, lose money for years while they get set up. They understand a happy and engaged customer base is vital.

Yet here you are. Fixated too.

ReTurn can go after anyone who is in breach of the membership rules. It’s equivalent to a breach of contract. First via arbritration of course.

No crime has been committed. You do realise there’s a difference between criminal law (ie crimes) and civil law? Link below explaining.

Your standards for proof are simply ridiculous.

Ye can bold things all you want. It doesn’t make you correct. You’ve zero evidence. Thats all entirely your opinion. You’ve said my opinion is untrue and can in o way back that up. I’ve backed up everything I’ve said and given you links.

It’s incredibly unlikely it would ever go to arbritration or that ReTurn would investigate them. It is a risk that ReTurn can and may do.

https://www.legalaidboard.ie/en/our-services/differences-between-criminal-and-civil-legal-aid/#:~:text=Criminal%20matters%20concern%20the%20prosecution,between%20you%20and%20an%20organisation.

If the manager had sense may the bottles wouldn't be on the shopfloor? They are responsible for the rollout in their store.

Or, the manager doesn't care because maybe the vast majority of people will buy it and only realise too late they've been conned.

again you're making alot of claims without really answering any of the legal questions i put forward, with the whole "go after them" approach again. a judge would ask where has the shop breached this contract, and what proof have they got for this accusation.

You're saying i have 0 evidence? i'm not making any accusation or claim towards any business, wtf would i need evidence for?

You have no case. all you're doing is saying "x business broke a contract so re-turn can get them and its risky because of this". There is no risk at all. Burden of proof would be on re-turn proving the cans put into their rvm machines came from x persons shop, infact how would they even know it was those cans? legally speaking theres nothing, no proof, no evidence. Nothing. no leg to stand on. and how would re-turn even know they are being cheated out of deposits anyway? their own machines destroy the cans once they go in and give the deposit voucher. What would make re-turn even aware that there are non-logo containers being put into their machine and giving out a deposit? and more importantly how can they hold this up in court as evidence to present to the judge? there is no case, as a can could have came from anywhere, or could have been purchased before feb 1st. this is specificly in refferense to cans without a logo.

No breach of contract has even been done in this scenario.

Legally speaking they infact do not have a leg to stand on. civil or criminal. no case! nada

again pretend you are return, and i am a shop that sells sodas and whatever, go after me. What is the court summons or solicitors contact with me going to accuse me of? a solicitor isnt going to take on a case with no regard for winning/losing, or unsure if a person has actually done wrong. There needs to be a crime or civil wrongdoing that has happened.

i dont think its a case of little/no understanding of how customers think

i think its more of a case of "total disregard" for customers entirely. its really badly set up, and too punish based. People won't respond nice to this, its bullying

I don't think that's happening, the staff member is probably wrong on it.

My understanding is of it is that there's 3 streams of product on sale for the time being, 1 with return logo, deposit. 2 old stock, no logo, domestic barcode, no deposit. 3 old stock, no logo, international barcode, deposit.

With 3 the fee has been payed to return by manufacturers because there's so much of it in the chain to destroy/repack whatever.

The tills will know which products to apply the deposit to, you aren't being charged it if you can't get it back

The shopkeeper is the one dealing with the customer and expecting to take his money.

That means he has to think on his feet and find a solution.

Offering to relieve his customers of deposits they can't get back won't hack it.

exactly, so either sell the non-logo cans without charging a deposit, or don't sell the cans at all. Choice is simple

Yes they have a problem on their hands.

They should be burning the midnight oil over the holiday weekend and hopefully come up with a solution by Tuesday.

Seeing as their Board is mostly made up of reps from the industry they should have a lot of understanding of the complexities of the business and dealing with customers.

Now is their chance to prove it.

I have stated before that it is not a quango but that's a small issue in the face of current difficulties.