Football fans say ‘Balls!’ to the fixture-schedulers
April 23rd, 2012 • 6 CommentsWe always like to see a good protest by disgruntled consumers, and it should never be forgotten that football fans are, ultimately, consumers – albeit ones with a huge emotional investment in the product. As such, they’re usually quite happy to be messed about by the powers-that-be. Not always though.
That’s fans of Sevilla, displaying their unhappiness at the fact that their match with Levante on Saturday was rescheduled for a 10.30pm kick off so that everyone could bask in the post-match analysis of Barcelona v Real Madrid instead. Yes, 10.30pm.
And so they showed their anger by hurling scores of tennis balls at the match (in a protest nicked from elsewhere), duly holding the game up and making their night even longer. All good fun though. Shortly, we’re off to throw a golf ball in the face of our local newsagent, who put the price of four cans of Stella up by 30p at the weekend.
QUIET…this is a library…that now offers legal advice…
April 16th, 2012 • 7 Comments
Escuche arriba, hermosas personas! It is I, Len Dastard, full time litigation executive and part time pretend lucha libre! I get my kicks from assisting the fearless consumer. There is nothing that Len wouldn’t do for you. Believe that.
Plans are afoot to equip Britains 4,000 libraries with Instant Law video conferencing facilities which will provide legal advice by webcam for free from a legally qualified representative. The information currently available states that the conferencing will be in a “secure location” within the library. It will be interesting to see whether all 4,000 libraries ensure that the area is secure and all confidential information isn’t discussed publicly.
Instant Law had originally planned to set up these booths in shopping centres but decided, following a discussion with the manager of Europe’s biggest library in Birmingham, that this system was best placed in libraries. If you have recently visited a WH Smiths, you might have noticed that they now have a ‘Quality Solicitor’ kiosk where you can pick up the telephone and be routed to a local solicitor to obtain legal advice. I personally wouldn’t be surprised, based on the amount of these stored nationwide, if that had a bearing on their decision from moving from shopping centres to libraries.
The service will cover family law, employment, debts, wills, landlord and tenant, personal injury and even criminal matters.
Whilst the service is being billed as free, the first 20 minutes will be free of charge for the “initial consultation” and then any subsequent advice will be charged. At the end of this consultation the legal advisor will give an estimate of ongoing costs before you decide whether you wish to instruct them. Instant Law estimates that one in ten users will proceed with their quote.
There will also be designated computers where users can access free general advice and also put together their own legal documents.
At the moment the system is already in place at Birmingham central library, Marylebone and also Westminster.
Would you make a special trip to your library if you were in need of some legal advice or would you rather cut out the hassle and telephone a solicitor’s office to speak with them direct? Not all firms offer a free consultation but many do.
Have YOU had your cheap Pontins holiday cancelled?
April 16th, 2012 • 34 Comments
About three months ago, a very tasty deal appeared on the Pontins website – 7 nights self-catering for four people at their Brean Sands resort for only £33.07. Hard to knock back an offer like that if you’re in the mood for a low-budget break. Not surprisingly, lots of punters went for it.
Now it gets complicated. Fast forward to the present day and it seems that a sizeable bunch of excited holidaymakers have been contacted by Pontins and told that their 7-night stays have been cancelled. Sure there’s the usual apologies as well as some offers of 50% off a holiday at a later date, but in short, that’s some pretty unacceptable behaviour from Pontins.
We don’t know whether they’ve originally oversold the £33.07 holidays or whether it was a misprice that has just come to light, but for Pontins to cancel three months after taking the bookings, when customers are just a few weeks away from their holiday is scandalous.
Over at HotUKDeals, there’s around 20 people who have been affected by the actions of Pontins – we expect that there’ll be many more out there as well. If you’re one of them, contact HUKD here – they’re currently talking to some major media outlets who are keen to fight their corner.
Goverment scrap Consumer Focus and hand all the work to Citizens Advice
April 12th, 2012 • 27 Comments
An average consumer, yesterday
In what can only be seen as an act of stupidity, the government are abolishing the taxpayer-funded watchdog Consumer Focus, and dumping its responsibilities on Citizens Advice, which, lest we forget, is a charity, and one which has had funding slashed under the aforementioned governement.
Citizens Advice will be handed the responsibility of dealing with consumer gripes in those areas which aren’t regulated, while a new National Trading Standards Board will target rogue traders. Apparently, it’ll all ‘help streamline the consumer landscape” and “ensure a powerful consumer voice” to business, government and regulators. So that’s okay then. In short, consumers will be even more screwed than they are now.
Our good friends across the road at Which! have come out against the proposals, with Lord Sir Peter Vicary-Smith being particularly vociferous, saying that, “Giving Office of Fair Trading responsibilities to local Trading Standards officers and the Citizens Advice is like asking GPs to carry out heart surgery. The government knows that failing to enforce consumer law already costs the British public over £6bn a year, but they seem determined to abandon consumers to increasingly sophisticated rip-offs despite the harm this does to the economy.”
But did Consumer Focus even DO anything? Do you lot reckon it’ll make things any better or do the government genuinely not give a toss about consumers?
Tweet your way to last-minute face value tickets…
April 5th, 2012 • 7 Comments
If you’re after event tickets and want to beat the venal scum that is ‘official resellers’ and online touts, up until now, you’ve been fairly stuck for choice. The delightfully ethical Scarlet Mist is a ticket exchange site where you’ll only pay face value for tickets but that’s generally it.
Until now. The increasingly useful Twitter service has thrown up an account called @twickets and it works thus. If you’ve got a spare ticket or tickets for an event, all you do is tweet about it and use the #twickets hashtag. The good people at @twickets will then pick it up and retweet it to their followers. Only tickets that are to be moved on at face value or less are allowed to be retweeted via the account so that there’s no nasty sharkery at play.
In the past few hours, we’ve managed to nab ourselves tickets for Primus, Alan Davies and Ladies’ Day at Aintree! Result!
What’s bigger, better and cheaper than The Big Switch? The Huge Switch.
April 2nd, 2012 • 13 Comments
What’s bigger than Big? How about Huge? That is presumably how the conversation in energyhelpline.com ‘s offices went when they were deciding the name for their new campaign aimed at trouncing Which! s Big Switch campaign.
Of course, the idea behind this new campaign is the same, to use group buying power to negotiate better deals on energy prices for consumers. However, presumably energyhelpine are hoping for more positive press, instead of the controversy that has blighted Which! in recent times.
Which!’s problems began when SSE, Ovo and Utilia, which together make up 18% of the UK energy market, said they would not take part in the Big Switch. Losing nearly 20% of your targeted customers is never a good thing.
Then smaller energy provider Ecotricity came along. Being an eco-driven energy provider they were concerned about the lack of green or sustainability credentials of the campaign, but were also very against the predatory pricing practices the Big Switch would encourage, saying it would breach its ethical pricing policy of having two simple tariffs with everyone getting the best price, no matter when they join or how they pay. Because of the way the Big Switch will work, customers switching through the Big Switch would be on a unique, and presumably cheaper, tariff than their existing customers.
In addition, Ecotricity believe Which! should have made it clear to the public that they were charging a fee that could net them millions of pounds.
“Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the campaign is the least known, that Which! could earn up to £8million. With around 200,000 people signing up and with Which! asking the successful bidder for a fee of £40 per customer, they stand to make up to £8million from this process – that is a lot of money,” commented Dale Vince ecotricity founder.
“This is not an attack on Which! who generally do a good job, but we feel if they want to become an energy broker, they need to make it clear to the public that this is not a purely charitable campaign and has a definite commercial outcome.” And he’s right- if all of the 258,428 people who signed up before 31 March do switch with Which!, that would generate a windfall of over £10.3 million in switching fees for the not-for-profit organisation.
Which! have confirmed the £40 switching fee, saying “This competitive figure is based on our understanding of acquisition costs in the energy market and the necessity of covering our significant costs in setting up The Big Switch – nearly £600,000 to date.”
But Which!’s problems didn’t end there. On Friday, Britain’s biggest energy provider British Gas confirmed it would not be taking part in the Big Switch, saying “current proposals from Which! fall short of being simple, transparent and fair for all customers.”
British Gas reiterated concerns over the potential huge profits for Which! but claimed their main reasons for not taking part were that customers taking part in the Big Switch could benefit from below cost pricing at the expense of existing customers; some customers would be excluded from taking part; more tariffs would increase complexity in the market; and important customer service standards and other energy efficiency support would not play a part in purchasing decisions. A large company refusing to give cheaper prices to a small group because it wouldn’t be fair to the rest of us? Now that’s what I call clever profiteering.
So will the Huge Switch be any different? Other than huger, obviously. Well the basic premise is the same, but the Huge Switch’s USP is that you can also switch to the energy provider’s best available tariff- you do not have to only switch to a new and unique rate. As the Huge Switch says, if you only have a choice of one rate “this price may be worse than the best in the market at the time – which pretty much defeats the purpose of the whole thing.”
The Huge Switch are making no secret of the fact that they are coming off the back of the Big Switch- their information deliberately compares its offering to Which!’s:
“We think we have improved on the Big Switch from Which! in a number of ways:
1. We will take less commission from the suppliers if you are part of our group switch than they are currently planning.
2. When we offer you the Huge Switch price we’ll also offer you the current best market price for you
3. When you register we’ll let you know the best market price too that day so you can get your switch going immediately if you prefer.
4. We are taking down more preference information from customers so you are likely to get a tariff more tailored to your needs – for example you can ask for a green tariff or a fixed rate tariff with us – you do not appear to be able to with Which!”
Mark Todd, director of Energyhelpline.com, feels the Huge Switch would be cheaper for consumers and includes a number of other improvements on the Big Switch scheme. Which he would do. “We agree with the concept of the Which! Big Switch, but feel there are a number of flaws. We believe we have come up with a solution that would be better, cheaper and provide more choice and flexibility for the customer.”
“There are still some suggestions that the collective bargaining price won’t be any lower than the best price offered by comparison sites anyway. We want to give customers the choice to go their own way in the switching process or offer them the strength in numbers to be part of a bigger bargaining unit if they prefer. Effectively, we are giving them the chance to hedge their bets and get a second bite of the cherry,” he finished.
A spokeswoman for Which! said the organisation welcomed the new campaign. “It is great to see more collective switching schemes being launched that have the potential to shake up the energy market. If it is done right, we think joining together to negotiate a better deal should be good for hard-pressed energy customers. We encourage people to register with as many schemes as possible to get the best tariff,” she said, through gritted teeth.
But even though the Huge Switch does charge lower fees than Which!, at best 50% lower, consumers who like the idea of collective bargaining for their energy, but dislike the idea of putting money in someone else’s pocket, may prefer thePeoplesPower, which does a similar thing, negotiating with energy companies once a minimum of 5000 customers put their weight behind it, but charge only a £2 handling fee.
But regardless of the fighting over the referral fee scraps, all this negotiation and discussion with energy companies should lead to clearer pricing and, hopefully, better deals for consumers, And that’s what we all* want surely?
*except the energy companies.
Aussie consumer watchdog slams Apple over 4G claim
March 28th, 2012 • 9 Comments
If Apple had advertised their new iPad as having ‘Wi-fi and the ability to cure infertility’ even though it wasn’t capable of curing infertility, we’d all be slightly vexed wouldn’t we? So why has there been so little fuss about the new tablet being advertised as having ‘Wi-fi and 4G’ over here in the UK when it won’t actually work with our forthcoming 4G networks? Dunno – it’s baffling.
Over on the other side of the world, the Australians have been a little bit less forgiving. Their consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have kicked right off with the Cupertino gadget-pimps, saying that Apple have misled punters with the 4G description.
In a statement, the ACCC said that Apple have “represented to Australian consumers that the product ‘iPad with WiFi + 4G’ can, with a SIM card, connect to a 4G mobile data network in Australia, when this is not the case”. They’re also taking Apple to court, alleging its advertising broke four sections of Australian consumer law.
As a result of the brouhaha, Apple are offering refunds to any customers who bought a new iPad, believing that it would work on the Aussie 4G network. No such problem here in the UK, as we barely have a 4G network for it not to work on yet.
Charity donation outrage over at GiffGaff HQ
March 26th, 2012 • 12 Comments
...GiffGaff users, yesterday...
Cheap mobile tariff company GiffGaff (who claim to be independent yet run by the o2 family) had some problems recently which resulted in outage for many of their customers which lasted just under 8 hours.
Sure, bit of an inconvenience. However, as a way of saying sorry and aiming to put things right, they offered to make a £10,000 charity donation.
The CTO of GiffGaff announced – “It has been amazing to see the messages of support and the suggestions that we should make a charitable donation as a way of making up for Friday’s outage. We therefore intend to make a £10,000 donation to a charity of your choice. The charities are ones you nominated for Payback in December - to vote just use the polling buttons on the main blog page before the end of the week”.
Reaction to this suggestion was very mixed and there were many cries of “we want personal compensation”. One forum member even requested that Rangers Football Club somehow benefitted.
Is it really a sign of the times that even when a charity donation is suggested we still hope for some form of personal compensation? What would our individual compensation (for the loss of service) be here? Possible £2 at the most I would imagine. Or, is this the easy way out for GiffGaff? Their members have paid for a service and they have been let down by GiffGaff so they do deserve to be compensated. It could be quite a cynical view but did GiffGaff realise it would be difficult for many members to morally object to a charity donation and insist on personal compensation? The administration and compensation here would surely outweigh their suggested donation. Plus, no doubt they would get a certain amount of good press from this move.
It would be interesting to see the general consensus here. So, lets take a vote…
GAME: where do consumers stand post-administration?
March 26th, 2012 • 16 Comments
As reported earlier, Game Group have today gone into administration. The following statement has been issued by the administrators and if you’re a regular Game or Gamestation customer, this could well affect you. Read on…
Dear GAME customers,
Here’s some important news about us. GAME Group plc (the parent company of GAME in the UK) is now in administration. We want you to know that the Administrators aim at this time is to continue trading while they seek to find a new owner for the business.
In the meantime, we’ve had to make some changes. We’ve summarised them below. Some of them are temporary, some are permanent.
1.Online Sales: We expect some disruption to our online services over the next few days while we make some changes. We apologise for the inconvenience this causes.
2.Refunds and Exchanges: Until further notice, we will not be able to offer refunds or exchanges for products purchased either before the administration or for products purchased from the date of the administration.
3.Pre-Orders: No new pre-orders can be taken until further notice. No refunds can be given for any pre-order deposits which have been paid. We are reviewing this over the next week.
4.GAME Reward card: We have had to suspended use of GAME Reward Cards. This means that points can be earned but NOT redeemed until further notice.
5.Gift cards: We have also had to suspend GAME gift cards. The value on these cards cannot be redeemed. If this changes, we will let you know. We apologise for the inconvenience this causes.
6.GAMEWallet: the value stored in GAMEwallet accounts will be suspended until further notice following the appointment of administrators.
7.Pre-owned Software: You can still buy pre owned products at great prices in your local store or online. If you trade in a pre-owned software item then you will still be able to accrue reward points and use your trade in to exchange for another item. You will not be able to trade in pre-owned software for cash. If this changes, we will let you know. We apologise for the inconvenience this causes.
8.Pre-owned Hardware: We have had to suspend trade in for pre-owned hardware at this time. If this changes, we will let you know. We apologise for the inconvenience this causes.
9.Click and Collect titles: We have had to suspend this service. We apologise for any inconvenience this causes.
MJA Jervis and SD Maddison have been appointed as Joint Administrators of The GAME Group plc, Game Stores Group Limited, Gameplay (GB) Limited, Game (Stores) Limited, Games Station Limited, Game (Retail) Limited and Gamestation Limited on 26 March 2012 to manage their affairs, business and property as their agents and without personal liability. MJA Jervis and SD Maddison are licensed in the United Kingdom to act as insolvency practitioners by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
If you have any questions please feel free to email us at: customerservices@game.co.uk
TalkTalk and Orange top complaints
March 22nd, 2012 • No Comments
Ofcom have released some data which points squarely at TalkTalk and Orange and says ‘you’re not popular amongst your customers are you?’
Figures for landline services show Ofcom received the most complaints about TalkTalk, mainly because of issues concerning billing and customer service. Virgin Media meanwhile attracted the fewest complaints, which remarkably makes it the least complained about landline provider for the last five quarters.
There was bad news for TalkTalk elsewhere as they generated the most complaints among fixed broadband providers.
Ofcom said complaints about mobile providers were much lower, but of those, Orange have the most complained-about service, seemingly driven by their announcement to increase their monthly plan prices for all customers including those who were tied into existing contracts.
So if you get your landline from TalkTalk and have an Orange mobile, then sorry about the hairloss and constant indigestion.
A TalkTalk spokesman said: “We’re pleased that Ofcom saw less than half as many complaints about our broadband service than this time last year. While there will always be variations in the quarterly data we are confident that the long-term trend is positive – fewer complaints, more calls being resolved first time and improving customer service. There is more work to do but we are confident that the measures we’ve put in place are paying dividends.”
An Orange spokesman was more depressed: “We are disappointed to have performed less well in this report, particularly as Ofcom ranked us joint first for overall customer satisfaction for mobile operators in a previous report. We understand our performance is reflective of our Pay Monthly price increases communicated to customers in December.
“We will take on board the findings from the Ofcom report, and continue to look to make improvements in the area of customer satisfaction through our existing employee training programme, customer feedback reviews and our investment in technology.”
Issuing a money claim? Remember to now send it to Salford…
March 21st, 2012 • 5 Comments
Escuche arriba, hermosas personas! It is I, Len Dastard, full time litigation executive and part time pretend lucha libre! You know that by now, of course. You don’t? I suggest you get out of my sight before I perform upon you El Hurricanrana Muerte…
For those of you who have been unfortunate enough to need to issue a money claim, you probably know that the system is far from perfect.
During the summer months many county courts have a major backlog. Some of these delays can mean it could take anything up to 2 weeks for your claim to be dealt with and put into the system.
The HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) have now set up and opened a centralised facility for handling civil claims and this will be known as the Salford Business Centre (SBC). The centre has been in operation for a little while but it took responsibility for all civil claims from 19th March 2012.
The HMCTS believe that this new streamlined service will cut turnaround time from five days to one and save up to £3m a year. Centre manager Jason Latham has said that the volume of incoming paperwork will rise by 25-30% but they will still be able to issue claims within one day of receipt.
Prior to the SBC becoming fully functional, the new centre attracted many complaints with people claiming that the new system wasnt as efficient as it should be. One solicitor in particular claims that the SBC lost her original claim form and then even managed to lose the replacement which was sent to them by recorded delivery. Doesnt really fill you with much confidence, does it. The centre even managed to lose a letter of complaint sent to them by a solicitor from Lincolnshire. Fantastic.
It will be interesting to see how this develops and whether the SBC/HMCTS is able to learn from its mistakes and truly provide a straightforward and efficient litigation process.
So remember – if you want to issue a claim, send it to the SBC and take a copy!
Have you already had to issue a claim to the SBC? Get in touch with us – hello@bitterwallet.com
Plain packaging on products- might make you smoke but good for your pocket.
March 9th, 2012 • 14 Comments
The Government are fiddling again, and right now they are poised to announce a public consultation on “plain packaging” for tobacco products. The idea is that, with all cigarettes in plain white boxes, there will be no brand recognition, advertising will become pointless and smoking will no longer be cool. But are they right?
In anticipation of this consultation, UK-based London Economics did some surveying and testing of 3,000 people and offered them a range of products, including crisps, cigarettes, chocolate, beer, bottled water, ice-cream and toothpaste. They tested consumers preferences under various scenarios in which combinations of information like price, brand name, brand imagery, product information or advertising were presented, and the results were consistent across the majority of products, for both smokers and non-smokers alike.
The “comprehensive” study showed that plain packaging would likely result in consumers switching from premium brands to cheaper products. This is good news. You can now legitimately go and buy that cheap cereal/coffee/gin you’ve always wanted to safe in the knowledge that your taste buds are wrong and your pocket is right. Just ask Aldi.
“Our analysis suggests that packaging imagery is a source of information that helps consumers differentiate between alternative product characteristics,” says Dr. Gavan Conlon, a Partner at London Economics. “If consumers can’t differentiate between brands in the market, they opt for cheaper brands, whether it’s beer, cigarettes or almost any other product.”
The boffins went on to conclude that, if plain packaging means falling prices, then everyone will suddenly start smoking, because it will be so ridiculously cheap. “If manufacturers respond by competing on price to maintain market share, prices may decline. In simple economic terms, when prices decline the demand increases and that’s what might occur with the introduction of plain packaging” finished Dr. Conlon, waving his cigarette enigmatically.
So is the Government so wrong on this? Previous research studies had shown that plain packaging would have a positive effect on smoking cessation. London Economics pooh-poohed previous research claiming it “relies on statements of intention of what people might do, rather than analysing people’s actual behaviour”.
As the report points out, reducing smoking rates should be the objective of any public health policy, advising governments to “base policy on robust evidence, and exercise some caution in interpreting the headline conclusions of policy-related research.”
Hmm. Perhaps they should also exercise caution, and practice their surprised face, when research funded by none other than Philip Morris International Inc. suggests that plain packaging on cigarettes is a bad thing…
OFT revokes Yes Loans Credit licence- but they can still lend you money
March 9th, 2012 • 2 Comments
Wonders will never cease. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the organisation in charge of most consumer lending, including the majority of payday lenders, has finally revealed it does actually have some teeth and had revoked the credit licence of Yes Loans yesterday. However, it appears the OFT is also wearing a muzzle, because the decision will not take effect, and Yes Loans can still lend and collect money, for the next 28 days, pending an appeal.
The OFT took the decision after a review determined that there was “ prolonged engagement in deceitful and oppressive business practices”. Yes Loans, and sister companies including Blue Sky Personal Finance Limited and Money Worries Limited, have 28 days in which to appeal against the decision. Despite the OFT ruling that the business is “unfit to hold a consumer credit licence”, the companies can still legitimately continue to trade throughout the period of appeal.
The OFT found evidence that Yes Loans had engaged in unfair business practices, including:
using high pressure sales tactics to persuade consumers to provide their debit or credit card details on the false premise that they were required for an identity and/or security check
deducting brokerage fees without making it clear that a fee was payable, and/or without the consumer’s consent
failing to introduce some consumers to the product originally sought, frequently arranging short-term, high interest, loans instead
misleading consumers into believing it was a loan provider rather than a credit broker
treating customers poorly by not providing refunds in a timely manner.
Naturally, this is not the first brush Yes Loans have had with the regulator. In July 2009, the OFT imposed 15 ‘requirements’ on them, and forced them to change their terms of business, warning that any breaches could result in a fine of £50,000 per breach. This new announcement, while suggesting that Yes really did not bother getting their act together in the interim, does not mention whether any fines have been imposed.
David Fisher, Director of Consumer Credit at the OFT, said:
“We will take decisive action to tackle businesses that fail to treat people properly, especially the most vulnerable. This action also makes it clear that belatedly changing business practices when facing the prospect of enforcement action by the OFT does not make a company fit to hold a credit licence.”
However, Sarah Brooks, Director of Financial Services at consumer action group Consumer Focus, said “the OFT has sent a very welcome message, that firms have to treat their customers fairly from the start. Yes Loans was first censored for its practices in 2009, so while the decision to revoke the licence is the right one it appears long overdue.
“To ensure the OFT can step in early to protect consumers, the regulator should have the ability to immediately suspend licences when serious misconduct is evident, rather than the current lengthy process.”
In a statement, directors of Yes Loans said they had worked “tirelessly” to implement changes to the business and expressed their disappointment at the OFTs decision. They said they were “currently taking advice with regard to lodging an appeal against the decision” but confirmed that no jobs are at risk “regardless of the outcome of any appeal.”
Call me a cynic, but that statement suggests that even if Yes Loans’ licence is revoked, the directors could be planning to transfer all the staff, and business practices, to a new phoenix company, with a shiny new licence from the OFT.
Perhaps they could call it No Way Loans…
Energy complaints down: Are the Big 6 learning?
March 8th, 2012 • 7 Comments
The number of complaints about the UK’s major energy suppliers fell by 4% in the final three months of 2011, according to some watchdog. This takes the average number of complaints to 83 in every 100,000 customers, Consumer Focus said.
Of course, it is worth pointing out that this fall comes after a staggering 26% increase in complaints across the Big 6 suppliers, but still, progress is progress is progress. A lot of work needs to be done though, namely, convincing us that they’re not wholly ruthless swine.
Of the Big 6, complaints dropped for SSE, British Gas, Npower and EDF Energy with E.On recording a 7% rise and Scottish Power remaining unchanged.
Consumer Focus said that some progress was being made to deal with problems surrounding EDF’s implementation of a new billing system and the subsequent difficulties that customers are having when trying to get through to the company on the phone.
“Any fall in complaints is clearly welcome but there are still many problems energy customers are experiencing which need to be resolved,” said Audrey Gallacher, of Consumer Focus. ”Giving consistently good customer service and tackling any problems which do arise effectively is key to rebuilding faith in the distrusted energy market.”
Your consumer guide to buying goods and services
March 7th, 2012 • 4 CommentsBuenos días to you, my sacos vacíos de la felicidad. It is I, Len Dastard, full time litigation executive and masked consumer champion back to fight for you. Consider this to be as triumphant a return as El Rumble Clásico in ‘79. Where have I been? I cannot tell you where I have been but I can assure you that the streets of Tijuana have never been so crime free. Silencio, we need to begin…
Buying goods and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SoGA)
Key points:
When you buy goods from a shop the law (SoGA) says that the goods must be:
• S14 (2) – of satisfactory quality. That is to say that you would expect the item to last for a certain length and time and certainly be free from any defects. If you are aware of defects prior to your purchase, you may not be able to rely on this section.
• S14 (3) – fit for purpose. Consider the main use of the item and then ask whether or not the item is indeed fit for the intended purpose. An exception to this rule may be that your intended use was not in the contemptation of both parties when you entered into the contract.
• S13 (1) – the item should be as described. Description could also be what the trader has told you.
If the goods do not meet these rights, you may be entitled to:
• Refund
• Repair
• Replacement
The above rights only apply to goods purchased from a shop. If buying from a private seller, the only rights that apply are:
• The goods match their description.
• The goods belong to the seller.
Points to note:
Always check the retailers T&Cs. Whilst they cannot exclude your rights in relation to the above, there may be other conditions which you ought to be aware of. Such as the point at which the contract is formed because until you have a contract, you may not necessarily have rights under it.
Always keep proof of purchase – receipt, bank statement etc.
Buying a service and the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982
Key points:
When you buy a service it should be:
• Undertaken with reasonable care and skill to a good standard. You should therefore expect there to be no faults or flaws.
• At a reasonable cost. Obviously be aware that any communicated quote should be adhered to unless agreed otherwise.
• Within a reasonable time. Obviously reasonable depends on the circumstances. As an expample, you would not expect a mechanic to take 3 days to change a tyre.
Points to note:
Almost request a quote and make sure that is covers exactly what work you need undertaken. Do not agree to work “for the sake of it”. Make sure the work is actually required.
Cancelling an order or changing your mind? – Distance Selling Regulations 2000
When you do not deal “face to face”, the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 allow you to cancel the contract as long as you are within the “cooling-off period”. This is usually within a 7 working day period on which you receive the goods or the service is due to start. However, the trader has to provide the following information before the cooling off period starts:
• Your right to a cooling off period
• How to cancel your order
• Who is responsible for returning goods
• Who has to pay the cost of returning goods if you cancel in the cooling-off period
• Information about any after-sales service
• The address to use for complaints
If the trader doesn’t provide you with this information then your cooling-off period extends up to a maximum of three months and seven working days.
There are of course some exceptions to the cooling-off period. These are:
• Goods made to a personalised specification
• Perishable goods, such as foodstuffs and flowers
• Audio/video recordings or software where the seal has been broken
• Newspapers, magazines or other reading material (not books)
• Gaming, betting, lotteries
Points to note:
Strangely enough, you cannot rely on the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 if you used a public payphone to order the goods/service!
You are usually responsible for the cost of returning the item if you simply change your mind.
