The Mucky Duck, Hookagate

ruffles some feathers at the Mucky Duck and finds himself persona non grata.

I wouldn't have expected to get into a confrontational situation over a missing piece of crispy pork crackling, let alone be effectively barred from a public house over it.

Sunday lunches are usually relaxed affairs and you wouldn't expect the occasions to degenerate into a heated argument involving legal obligations, chefs' obligations and entrenched positions.

It all took place at a pub just outside Shrewsbury. I had returned to the village of my birth, Hookagate, on a sentimental journey, with family members with the inevitable recollections about first day at school, grazed knees and kissing Monica in the bike shed (I was only six).

The pub was called the Swan in my day, later the Flying Swan and more recently Cygnets. A few weeks ago it changed hands and changed names, to the Mucky Duck.

They were offering Sunday lunch with one course at £8.95 and two courses priced at £10.95 - not the cheapest pub food around.

I chose the roast sirloin of beef and a couple in my party went for the rolled pork, having noted and discussed enthusiastically that the printed menu stated quite clearly that it came with crispy crackling. That clinched it for them.

But when the meals came the crackling was nowhere to be seen. There was an initially hesitation as we had some difficulty identifying certain items on the plate but these turned out to be amorphous lumps of roast potato.

Inquiries were made of the young waitress who checked in the kitchen and returned to say: "There isn't any crackling, it was a lean piece of pork, with virtually no fat." Oh, lean pork so no crackling, a bit of a disappointment. Perhaps it was a bit too much to ask for the word "crackling" to have been crossed out on the paper menu.

My relatives were thus deprived of that crunchy delight and resignedly ate their unaccompanied pork. But the story, and the frustration did not end there.

I had the beef with vegetables and gravy; the beef was a little hard to cut with an ordinary knife but it was tasty enough.

For dessert I chose the crumble tart with custard which had a satisfactory flavour, although I would have preferred a bit more crumble. My wife Libby chose the tarte au citron with ice-cream and found it a delight with a really strong, lemon tang.

We finished our white wine (which was served warm) and went to the bar to pay, which was when the fun started. We asked if we could pay separately, which seemed to cause some consternation as five meals had been lumped on one bill.

I inquired of the lady behind the bar, the landlady presumably, if there would be a discount to compensate for the missing crackling. You would have thought I'd asked for a full refund, a written apology and my shoes polished.

There wasn't any way she was going to offer any sort of discount - or even an apology. I pressed my case, not really wanting a financial reduction, just an acknowledgement of the shortcomings. The discussion became somewhat earnest. We were both mature people and I expected a mature exchange of views, but things became strident, bordering on the shrill, with references to the Sale of Goods Act and selling "goods not of the standard demanded by the consumer".

Whether the landlady felt she was losing the argument or not, I am not sure, but she then told me "not to come into the pub again". As an example of customer service I found that it lacked even the basic level of civility - and it was a superfluous comment anyway as five of us had already taken that decision.

At this point a gentleman arrived, and was told the nature of my representations. He immediately offered to knock the price of a dessert off the bill. Yes, offer accepted, as to me it indicated some level of culpability on behalf of the management.

The Mucky Duck has only just got off the ground so perhaps some allowance should be made, but I find it difficult to excuse the attitude we encountered.

I sincerely hope this duck learns to fly high, but more attention to basic commercial detail is required.

PS: I noted a couple of weeks afterwards that the Mucky Duck's Sunday pork makes no mention of crackling.

ADDRESS

The Mucky Duck, Main Road, Hookagate, near Shrewsbury

Telephone: 01743 860202

MENU SAMPLE

STARTERS

Prawn and salmon tower with beetroot mayo (£5.25); garlic mushrooms with pine nuts and Stilton (£4.95)

MAIN COURSES

Cinnamon spiced breast of Gressingham duck, colcannon mash, cherry and port jus (£12.95); liver and onions over chive mash, topped with smoked bacon (£8.95)

DESSERTS

Chocolate mousse tower with cream or ice-cream (£3.95); homemade bread-and-butter pudding with custard (£4.95)

ATMOSPHERE

Informal but subdued

SERVICE

Waitresses speedy

DISABLED FACILITIES

Wide entrance with space for wheelchairs

Readers' responses

"His manner was abusive"

Formal response to the article about the Mucky Duck, at Hookagate, published in the Shropshire Star's Weekend supplement of Saturday, October 23 - Food and Drink, Page 2, written by Mr Rex M Key.

Mr Key and his party were asked to vacate our premises, on the instruction of the licensee, for using threatening behaviour. This outburst was witnessed by a full restaurant and all key members of staff.

Mr Key's comments were initially taken onboard and several apologies's given. However, Mr Key proceeded to quote the Sale of Goods Act and demanded forcibly a 10p reduction on his bill! His manner was abusive, rude and very loud.

He was then offered a free dessert, which he accepted, and asked to leave. He then threatened the licensee again upon his exit raising his hands and shouting: "My name is Key - don't you forget it!" Again witnessed by a full restaurant.

I feel that Mr Key was intent on finding fault on a busy Sunday service of over 40 covers - and would like to point out that his was the only complaint.

I find his comments very shallow and immature considering his age and experience.

Constructive comment is always welcome in business. However, to have three quarters of a page devoted to "crackling" seems a little harsh.

As a fledgling business demanding time, money and all of our energy, this article was as demoralising as it was far from the truth. As a new advertiser, willing to place my marketing budget with yourselves, I am totally disappointed with the biased opinion put into print for our prospective customers to read.

Jane Clark

Director

***

"Comments unfair"

I have just read your comments about The Mucky Duck restaurant in last Saturday's Star.

I consider the comment is most unfair, the unpleasantness being totally created by your reporter.

I was there on that day. We had just had an excellent meal, when this arrogant man overwhelmed the restaurant with his silly complaints.

I was amazed at the time, because he seemed to have finished his main course when he complained. If there is a problem, the complaint is made when you first receive the food, not when you have eaten it all. He complained about his friend's lack of crackling with his pork, and found it totally unacceptable when an apology was given by the waitress.

After eating his meal he complained loudly, quoting the Sale of Goods Act, legal obligation etc - all over a bit of crackling.

I must tell you that there was a spontaneous cheer from our table after he had left the restaurant and the manager let us know that he had been banned from coming to the restaurant again.

I have never heard of this being done before, but good for them.

Harold Trimbee

***

Did he inform staff?

Did your reviewer have the courtesy to inform the staff when he ordered that they would require separate bills? Or is mind-reading expected as well as crispy crackling?

If on a "sentimental family occasion" your reviewer is too tight-fisted to foot the bill, I think his family wouldn't want to see him again either.

S. Holding

Shrewsbury