Cover charge not clearly listed or explained

I write on behalf of the operators of San Giuliano Restaurant and refer to your column of March 28.

You state: "Fortunately, unlike San Giuliano Restaurant, there are restaurants where they do not present bills to customers that include charges about which they were not informed in the first place."

In fact the 'cover charge' of 80c per person is clearly listed on the menu (copy enclosed).

I suggest you issue a correction to the above-mentioned article.

This menu is posted in various places in the restaurant and given to the customers. (Dr Philip Manduca)

I thank Dr Manduca for sending me a copy of San Giuliano Restaurant's menu which is well worth looking into. It is approximately 28 cm by 45 cm and, although the 'cover charge' of 80c is listed on the menu, contrary to what Dr Manduca is suggesting, it is definitely not "clearly listed" and it does not convey a clear statement. Moreover, rather than being given the "clear" prominence it deserves, it is obscurely listed at the bottom right-hand corner (in an area of 8.5 cm by 1 cm) as item 49 among 50 items as follows:

Cover charge (includes Maltese bread & butter & bruschetta) 80c.

While bearing in mind that consumers have the right to choose, and since the above is presented as just another item in the menu, it is accordingly most likely to be interpreted as "just another item in the menu" along with the other 49 items to choose from.

Consequently, Mr Vella Falzon did not notice it, which is why he wrote: "It was not till later that I realised that the receipt includes a cover charge of Lm1.60." Evidently, Mr Vella Falzon either overlooked item 49 on the menu, or he just saw it without necessarily reading it on the assumption that it was an option/choice just like the other 49 items on the menu.

Besides, it must be stressed that this is not a standard policy adopted by all restaurants. Therefore, considering that not all restaurants adopt this policy, in restaurants where there is a cover charge, the information related to it should not be listed as just another item in the menu.

It should be clearly printed as an important, obligatory condition/policy and must be highlighted in such a way that it cannot be overlooked (which is what happened in this case) and clearly explained in accordance with the consumers' right to be informed.

As I explained on March 28, the product sold by restaurants is probably the one with most ingredients, including the opportunity to unwind, relax and loosen up, very often after a hard day's work. In such a scenario, the average person's vigilance, sharpness, etc., are considerably diminished, albeit somehow intentionally.

Moreover, the last thing one would consider indulging in while dining out is arguing with restaurant staff. Unfortunately however, there are restaurants where this syndrome is exploited at the customers' expense.

Being in possession of a copy of the menu, I was able to conduct various surveys to establish whether the fact that Mr Vella Falzon and his partner did not notice and did not realise that item 49 was about an important policy was unusual or not.

In a role-playing scenario, out of more than 20 persons I asked, not a single person actually noticed and read the small "cover charge" item on the menu. Indeed it wouldn't be a bad idea for San Giuliano Restaurant to conduct such a survey. On my part I would be more than happy to help them.

In any case, the fact that it is item 49 out of 50 items does not help and the likelihood of diners having made a choice before getting to item 49 is very high.

Sadly, not all suppliers communicate clearly with their customers. It is not so much what is said, written or printed that matters but how it is said, written or printed. It is also common knowledge that, in various commercial scenarios, this is a perennial problem. Hence the inclusion of the right to be informed among the eight internationally recognised consumer rights.

Going back to the menu, another niggling factor is that the prices are quoted in cents. This can confuse and mislead potential diners. I would say that psychologically, for some people, 600c might seem less than Lm6. I must also focus on the 50th item in the menu listed as follows:

Minimum charge (food only) 600c.

Here again, apart from being the last item, it is quoted in cents. Moreover, it is not explained at all as to whether this condition applies per person or per table. What happens when they are dealing with groups? This too, like item 49, should not be listed as an item but as an important condition that must be explained clearly and highlighted in line with the consumers' right to be informed.

To add insult to injury, while the not so positive statements quoted above are in a rather small point size, the following positive information is printed in a bold font that is double the size of the rest of the text and in three languages:

Prices are inclusive of VAT

IVA compresa nei prezzi

Alle Preise sind MWS.

Finally, in view of the above, rather than issue a correction as suggested by Dr Manduca, I feel morally obliged to reiterate: "Fortunately, unlike San Giuliano Restaurant, there are restaurants where they do not present bills to customers that include charges about which they were not informed in the first place."

Yet again, I thank Dr Manduca for supplying me with a copy of San Giuliano Restaurant's menu. Indeed, as has been "clearly" demonstrated, it proved to be highly informative and well worth looking into.