Customers protest after Loblaws demands ID before sending $25 gift card for bread price fixing | Page 3 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

AltaRed said
For what it is worth, I received said email this morning. I replied with a 'stuff it' response on the basis that if they cannot figure out my residential address credentials from my very active PC Points (now PC Optimum) card, then there is no hope for their competence.  

All this trouble for a measly $25 card to be spent in Loblaw stores. It was not worth the application....nor all the energy put into this thread!

Loonie said
They should have just sent cheques. Then there would be no concern about who the actual recipient was, no after-the-fact need for supplementary ID, and no self-interest on the part of Loblaw.

Great point, Loonie. There's their true motive.

Remember when they tried to discourage people from donating their gift cards to the food bank because that would see the food bank buy only their cheapest, lowest margin basics (i.e., "no name") rather than brand name or more premium President's Choice products? 😉

Cheques are inherently more averse to fraud; however, for small value cheques deposited through the ATM, because many banks and credit unions outsource their deposit gathering activities, they don't match cheque payee names with account holder names on ATM deposits. 😉

I know this from the bank when I even had to refer the odd client to the ATM to deposit a cheque payable to their former married name - or with co-party, like an auto dealer lessor on a small insurance settlement cheque.

Years later, working at a self storage facility when a customer who was grossly delinquent on their storage rent saw their locker sold at auction, the locker actually brought in more than was owed, which almost never happens! I did the right, honest thing by phoning him to let him know and he wasn't upset his locker was auctioned, but thanked me for letting me know. My aunt, the property manager, was pissed because she normally prefers not to pay out such amounts, not contact the client, and then "write it off" (meaning book it as revenue) after twelve months. She cut the cheque, reluctantly, to his company name and himself. Sadly, the company was no longer in existence, so she refused to budge on re-doing a new cheque to his name only. I told him I used to work for the bank and what he might try doing is depositing it at the ATM, wait for 7-10 days for the hold to lapse to ensure it cleared, and, sure enough, it did. He was so thankful. 🙂

Cheers,
Doug

Wayno said
Folks, I have just responded to Loblaw's request for ID Information:

To: Loblaws Program Administrator

To confirm my residential address, I am willing to provide my PC Optimum card number. This card has my identity information.

1. I have used the Shopper's Drug Mart Optimum card for years - registered with name and address.
Your company already has information confirming my residence.

2. I have been at this same residence for the past xx years, with the same email address, and the same telephone number.

3. I am unwilling/unable to provide additional ID because of my concern with Identity Theft.

Could you please respond on how you want me to provide my PC Optimum card number.

Thank you.

.. a long time Loblaws/Shoppers customer  

They can't force you to provide a driver's license; a bank can't even do that. If your PC Optimum card isn't satisfactory to them, offer to scan them a copy of a recently received envelope, addressed to you, cancelled with Canada Post orange and/or grey postmarks. That's valid secondary ID in B.C. provincial and municipal elections. 🙂

Cheers,
Doug

Doug, I don't know if a penalty might still be levied through the courts. It was just an "if..."
I raised this more to contrast their "voluntary" restitution with what a real one would look like.
As far as I know, the whole matter is still being looked at by the Competition Bureau, which is also looking at other retailers.

Loonie said
They should have just sent cheques. Then there would be no concern about who the actual recipient was, no after-the-fact need for supplementary ID, and no self-interest on the part of Loblaw.
…

That is only true if the cheque is payable to an actual person. Cheques payable to a fictitious person become payable to the bearer under 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act:

Fictitious payee

(5) Where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person, the bill may be treated as payable to bearer.

I remember a court case long time ago involving a crooked bookkeeper who was able to have paycheques issued to ficticious people. The bookkeeper then took the cheques and cashed them for himself. The business was not able to recover the money from their bank.

Norman1 said

Fictitious payee
(5) Where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person, the bill may be treated as payable to bearer.

I remember a court case long time ago involving a crooked bookkeeper who was able to have paycheques issued to ficticious people. The bookkeeper then took the cheques and cashed them for himself. The business was not able to recover the money from their bank.  

Interesting, that might explain why the banks and credit unions don't really care if you deposit the cheque through the ATM payable to someone else. If called to task (i.e., taken to court) by the actual payee, they're comforted by that section of the Act and past jurisprudence that says, basically, the payee's only form of recourse would be to the person who deposited the cheque? They would, however, be liable to the extent that it went to court, to hand over the name and address information of the person who deposited it.

Cheers,
Doug

Norman1 said
Postmarked envelope only proves address. Canada Post doesn't verify the person even exists.

I'm pretty sure I can mail a letter for Winnie the Pooh with my postal address and Canada Post will deliver it to my mailbox.

Same with the PC Optimum membership. I don't think they ever checked that each member is an actual person. The four members at one address may not be actually four different people.  

Right on both counts, though maybe they are doing soft credit checks for opening PC Optimum memberships now?

On the other point, that's true that I can mail something to my dog at my home address, and it will get there. Technically, it's a crime for me to open his mail for him without a Power of Attorney (which aren't available for dogs, as far as I know). However, it does seem to prove residency. I was surprised as you, but kind of pleased actually as I think the ID requirements needed to be loosened, when I saw that Elections B.C. would accept two pieces of non-photo ID, one with the person's name and signature (to prove ID) and the other could be a recent, postmarked envelope bearing that person's same name and address. Instead of trying to specify exact ID types, they're opening it by saying the types of things they need to see.

Still, you have to admit what Loblaw is doing is overly onerous and wrong? They should budget a higher amount for fraud. They can certainly afford to! And, if they can't, they should've thought of that when they proposed creating an cabal of bread wholesalers and retailers that would dictate price increases in tandem with each other!

That raises another important point...since Canada Bread Company is now owned by Grupo Bimbo SA, of Mexico, at the time it was owned by Maple Leaf Foods, which in turn was majority owned by Michael McCain. Shouldn't he and Maple Leaf Foods bear the responsibility here, not Grupo Bimbo, if the Competition Bureau decides to pursue criminal sanctions against individuals? Alternatively, perhaps the best course of action would be just for the Competition Bureau to seek criminal convictions of the corporate entities here.

Also, Loblaw's actions here and the whole invasive personal information verification process (they needn't do a soft credit check and driver's license verification!), the Competition Bureau could decide to rescind its immunity deal to Loblaw.

Cheers,
Doug

Doug, you seem to be up on this, and you say "As for collusion, conspiracy, etc., yes, both Weston and Loblaw were the primary colluders/co-conspirators. On that note, a wholesaler (Weston) and a retailer (Loblaw) can collude....."

(Let's ignore Sobey's, Metro, etc for a moment, they've not admitted anything, they may or may not be involved, so let's stick to those who have admitted.) If Weston and Loblaw are both controlled/owned by the Weston family, and they agree ("conspire") together that Loblaws stores will charge $2.39 for bread instead of the "industry" or usual price of $2.19, and they agree to split the extra 20 cents profit, how is that offensive? People now have a choice of paying $2.39 at Loblaws stores or $2.19 elsewhere, seems fine to me. What am I missing?

Norman1 said

Fictitious payee

(5) Where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person, the bill may be treated as payable to bearer.

I remember a court case long time ago involving a crooked bookkeeper who was able to have paycheques issued to ficticious people. The bookkeeper then took the cheques and cashed them for himself. The business was not able to recover the money from their bank.

Doug said
Interesting, that might explain why the banks and credit unions don't really care if you deposit the cheque through the ATM payable to someone else. If called to task (i.e., taken to court) by the actual payee, they're comforted by that section of the Act and past jurisprudence that says, basically, the payee's only form of recourse would be to the person who deposited the cheque? They would, however, be liable to the extent that it went to court, to hand over the name and address information of the person who deposited it.

That absolve for the bank only applies when the payee of the cheque is a fictitious person.

When the payee is a real person, the bank is fully liable for cashing the cheque to someone other than the payee.

Payments Canada ACSS Rule A4, section 6 allows the bank the cheque was drawn on, up to six years to bounce a cashed cheque back to the financial institution that submitted it for clearing because the intended payee was not paid or the intended payee's endorsement was forged.

I don't think the intended payee even needs to go to court. If still within the time limits, payee would notify the person who drew up the cheque (the drawer). Drawer would notify her bank. Bank would ask for a signed affidavit from the payee. After receiving the affidavit, the drawer's bank would bounce the cheque, for "Intended Payee(s) Not Paid" or "Forged Endorsement", back to the financial institution that submitted the cheque and credit the drawer's account.

Drawer would draw up another cheque to the payee.

I think that was done by some of Earl Jones' victims to recover their money. Apparently, there were insurance payout cheques that Jones intercepted and deposited into his own Royal Bank account after forging the endorsement of the victim. Victim was not aware there was even a policy!