Consumers Beware: Misleading Shelf Pricing and Poor Customer Service

Today my mother, brother, and I visited PetWorld XXL in Somerset West to purchase a 4kg bag of Royal Canin cat food. On the shelf, the product was clearly advertised at R499.99. However, when we reached the till, we were charged R880.00.

We immediately brought this to the attention of the manager and explained that the displayed shelf price was R499.99. Rather than acknowledging what appeared to be a merchandising error, the manager repeatedly insisted that the barcode on the shelf label was different and refused to honour the displayed price.

As ordinary consumers, we rely on the prices displayed on the shelves when making purchasing decisions. Customers are not expected to compare product barcodes with shelf labels—those are internal stock control mechanisms and not something the average shopper would reasonably verify.

What was most disappointing was the manager’s attitude. Instead of resolving the issue professionally, she became confrontational, raised her voice, and repeatedly stated that she would not sell the product at the advertised price. In my view, this was a poor example of customer service and demonstrated a complete disregard for consumer rights.

To make matters worse, after we left the checkout, the manager appeared to joke with her colleagues about the situation. Whether intentional or not, this came across as dismissive and disrespectful after we had raised a legitimate concern.

The experience left us feeling that our concerns were not taken seriously. We ultimately left without purchasing the item and bought the exact same Royal Canin cat food from Crazy Pets at a better price.

Consumers should be aware of their rights when advertised prices differ from the amount charged at the till. Businesses should ensure their shelf pricing is accurate and, when mistakes occur, handle them professionally and fairly rather than blaming the customer.

I sincerely hope Pet World XXL investigates this incident, reviews its pricing practices, and provides additional customer service training to management so that other customers are not treated in the same manner.

Another concern was that the manager was not wearing a visible name badge or any form of identification. As a customer, this made it impossible to identify the individual responsible for handling the complaint or to refer the matter accurately when escalating it. Managers dealing directly with the public should be clearly identifiable, particularly when resolving consumer disputes.