July look-back: when the checkout total did not match the scanner
Consumer NZ’s account of one Christchurch shop shows why the overcharge and the value of affected products are different figures.
One shop, 26 reported errors
Consumer NZ reported on 24 July 2026 that a shopper at New World St Martins in Christchurch found 26 pricing errors after using a Shop & Go scanner. The account described a scanner total of about $360 followed by a checkout total of about $410.
This was a report about one transaction. It does not establish how often pricing errors occur at that store or across a supermarket chain.[1]
Two refund figures with different meanings
The difference between the displayed and charged prices totalled $48.80, according to Consumer NZ. The incorrectly priced products themselves totalled $140. Those amounts describe different things: the overcharge and the full purchase price of the affected items.
Consumer NZ said it contacted Foodstuffs after the shopper initially received the difference only. The organisation reported that Foodstuffs apologised and said it would contact the shopper to put things right. That is the response reported in July, rather than confirmation of the final transaction.[1]
The retailer’s explanation
Foodstuffs told Consumer NZ that a technical issue with the scanner caused the discrepancy. It said the device had been removed from service for investigation and repair, and that it was not aware of further incidents involving that device.
Keep that response alongside the shopper’s experience. A historical report of a faulty device should not become a claim that every scanner or store has the same problem.[1]
What to keep if a price looks wrong
Keep the receipt and, where possible, a photograph of the relevant shelf label or promotion. Note the product, size, quantity and any membership or multibuy conditions, then ask the store to explain the difference.
Check the retailer’s current policy for your store before assuming what refund applies. Consumer NZ’s July article described policy differences and exclusions; those details should not be treated as a universal refund promise.[1]