The new recycling system

Guess what,they dont at the moment but retailers are charging deposit.Supervalu are anyway

Dublin Live has updated questions we were asking New barcodes and no logos on items are use the machine.

Logos need to be on the manual returns.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/deposit-return-scheme-faqs-operator-28565096?fbclid=IwAR3MaoBVvfMMbiHOi-l_yjb1WzS6hxIlWnD1KxRg8EjGm3t-z7NGpRRuEG0.

Going to Supervalu tomorrow so will possibly see the add on now.

You've probably half guessed why yourself... because the end user comes last, and they don't care if you are out of pocket.

If they charged you a deposit you are entitled to get it refunded.

Hang onto the bottle and receipt and try again.

I haven't seen that about needing a Clubcard to get a refund. Doesn't sound right, are you sure ?

the purchase receipt is long gone! will bring the lot in at some stage and request refund.

the €0.15 receipt from the 1 can would not scan at the self checkout till until after i scanned my clubcard.

gave some error message i cannot remember.

Was that an RVM.

The other poster had an issue with an automatic checkout.

I used my voucher before scanning my clubcard. Scanned fine. Only reason I know is my clubcard is on my phone with my card to pay.

Id hope if there are discrepancies, Greasepalms Tesco have not set up the system correctly and not mine. You should be able to redeem the voucher without a clubcard.

yes and who's to say they did'nt sell the can before feb 1st? no deposits until after jan 31st.

This whole discussion is about you calling it risky, the idea of someone knowing about a shop selling logoless cans that offer a deposit, and then with full knowledge of this deciding to purchase and redeem these cans via an RVM. you claimed re-turn would go back to the shop looking to get these deposits back that the machine gave, and that there was legal action that could occur from all this. no case, no risk, no legal action.

You have constantly dodged the whole "what would the legal summons say" thing, and "how can it be proven it came from the shop" thing, and "how would return even be aware of the machine giving deposits for non-logo cans". and "how do they blame a shop for it".

you can't take someone to court on a hunch, and you don't take someone to court to find out if they've broken the law, and you don't go to court if winning/losing is not up for debate. You said untruths on all of those things or seem to not understand these legal processes. return cannot just "go-after" someone.

"I’ve met your ridiculous proof requirements." and no you have'nt met any proof requirements, infact they're not my requirements they are the laws requirements. all you keep saying is "this is the law the shop broke, here is a copy paste of a section i believe they broke and here are some policies" which answers none of what i'm asking. There is nothing to tie the shop to someone redeeming a nonlogo can they did not pay a deposit on. and you have not told me how you find out what shop it came from, or if it was even sold before feb 1st. what makes you think it even came from that shop?

does the container have a logo on it? do you have a receipt? were you charged a deposit on your receipt when buying the drink initially?

these machines don't give free money for containers, they only refund containers that have had a deposit paid on them at time of purchase. not all bottles have deposits

“You don’t take someone to court to find out if they’ve broken the law” - what. the. ****.

That’s the entire point of courts, to determine if someone has broken the law.

youre obsessed with the idea ReTurn are going to look at a single can and trace it back to the shop. I’ve never said that. If ReTurn find out the shop is selling containers without a deposit, they can audit them. It’s that simple. Based on the audit they go to the dispute resolutions section in the membership.

You keep on bringing it to courts.

You asked for the law. I’ve given it too you.

End of. I’m out with yourself. I’ll stop derailing this thread.

Brands wont come into it if in the refund scheme as it states you can go to a member in the scheme for a voucher refund

"That’s the entire point of courts, to determine if someone has broken the law" yes and you previously said otherwise, you claimed its not up for debate whether someone's gonna win or lose in court, and that re-turn can still take someone to court and go after them regardless if they know they're gonna win or lose. which is entirely untrue

and no i'm not obsessed with an idea how is return able to find what shop the can came from, i was merely attempting to understand the rationale of your claims and asked you how they can pursure legal action against some shop or even find out about the can. You claimed it was risky, i established theres no risk at all. You don't understand legal process do you? there is no case for re-turn to take a store anywhere to court for someone redeeming a can and getting a deposit back from something that may have been sold before feb 1st or even stolen.

you claimed return would come back to the store (how can they even know which store in the first place?) you claimed return would come back to the store looking for the deposits back on the redeemed cans that didnt have a paid upon purchase. and that there was legal risk because of it. you made a number of really stupid claims that show a severe lack of understanding how the legal system works. you basically talked out your behind and promoted fear mongering of redeeming cans that didnt have a deposit paid on them. There is no way possible for return to know where said can came from. a laywer would laugh at your claims or get annoyed at you for wasting their time, as they're nonsensical.

You have never answered any of the questions, because you don't know legal process. Instead you post a copy paste or link and say "this is law". Where's proof of shop being guilty of anything? and where is risk? how tf does return even know which shop to audit? anyone can get a can from one shop and go miles away to another rvm in a different part of the country. you gave no basis on any of this. these are questions you need to be able to answer if you are to take a store to court. a court is'nt "i'm accusing this person of breaking this law, but im not backing up what made me come to this conclusion, instead i'm only copy and pasting the law i believe they broke and then calling doing that "proving" or "backing up my claims"."

___

ps

even if re-turn audits any number of shops, it does'nt prove anything or what you're saying the shop is guilty of.

The shop isn't guilty of anything, last week that poster was telling everyone that if a shop charged a deposit on a container without a logo that would be illegal.

Now they are claiming the complete opposite.

Utter spoofing, don't waste your time.

someone seems to not understand that return is not law and cannot change law or change legal definitions. i even explained with a trocaire charity example. being mandated by law to have RVMs placed in your store and registering with re-turn, does'nt mean return can change the law whenever they see fit. They have no power or involvement over law, only their own little rules and non-legally enforceable policies at best. Any laws that exist which pertain to this deposit return scheme are made by the government, not return. all return is, is a not-for-profit. Would'nt they make profit if they took someone to court? lmao. re-turn violate their own terms if moving the goalposts. idk why u defending return and saying they can go after people when they can't.

if a shop is charging deposits on something they're not meant to, and offering the person no way of reclaiming these deposits, they are breaking the law indeed!

what i would like to know is: how does return know if a shop sold a nonlogo can before feb 1st?, and more i would like to know is: how would return know where to go looking for deposits, from someone redeeming cans in an rvm that didnt have a deposit paid on them initially? nothing to lead them back to the shop. And nothing to say the shop did anything wrong, infact who knows maybe they stole the can from the shop lol.

imagine a shop being sued because someone stole a can, did not have the decency to pay the shop a deposit when stealing the can, then brought the same can to an rvm and redeemed it for a free deposit. seriously what a bunch of utter nonsense.

this all be related to the new recycling system

not budge an inch on anything? law and legal requirements does'nt budge! this isnt a back and forward "i'll bend on some of my beliefs and you bend on some of yours and we'll come to a compromise in the middle" this is you being incorrect about law and making fear mongering claims and insisting there is risk without showing any just theorizing something you don't understand, and then spoofing/dancing around. its important that misinformation is now allowed or is corrected. The non-logo thing is an example, i am fully aware that there are cans out there that do not have a logo and still require a deposit to be paid on them. that is what the conversation is about, someone obtaining a logoless can they did not pay a deposit on, and then redeeming said can for a deposit at the RVM. you claimed return can go after the innocent little shop and look for the unpaid deposits from them. which is entirely untrue

its nonsense, if someone steals a can from a shop, then redeems it for a deposit via an rvm, is the shop gonna have to pay that? and how do you even find out which shop the can was stolen from? rhetorical questions to demonstrate and prove the nonsense and your lack of understanding of legal process. There's no risk.

if you disagree, put on paper how the shop is guilty of anything. What law does a shop break if someone redeems a can they stole or purchased before feb 1st? how is a shop responsible for another persons actions? and how would you even know which shop it came from? you cant even prove any of this. The case would be thrown out before even being started. There's absolutely nothing to go on here. you have no argument, just opinion and "here's what i believe they did and heres the law i think has been broken". with nothing to show what made you arrive to the conclusion

i could say to a judge laywer "heres is what the law says on theft, and here is what i believe bren2001 had stolen from me", thats no good. no reasoning or nothing. no tanglable proof, no reason for coming to the conclusion provided, nothing to hold up in court or present to a judge other than a bare accusation of an unfounded claim. No burden of proof proven or anything. pure nonsense.