Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Robert,

I think you quite rightly highlight the severe risk that the big companies will be operate un-regulated by UK regulation and in an un-competitive monopolistic manner whereas the small company will be damaged by autocratic and possibly corrupt local regulation.

The only safeguard for the UK against these big companies power is the European level of regulation. (Where battles against Microsoft and Intel have been fought and won.) So I am please in one sense that the UK is relying on this EU based regulation on the largest companies but on local regulation to maintain a balance between consumer of business at the local level. So provided that the Government is happy with ceding regulation to Europe and also to loose its power to nationally regulate in the UK then that is fine. (Robert you were strangely silent on the role of the EU - why?)

Big business must be quaking in its shoes at the thought of going into battle with the CAB!

Meanwhile already stretched trading standards officers will be expected to take on major multinationals. Does this government really believe that they will have the resources, expertise and sheer will to go after offenders?

I smell major deregulation posing as yet another "necessary" spending cut.

I think Robert P has been very restrained in his concerns about these changes. Not only is the transition issue from a well established state body to a very devolved local CAB service which is highly dependent on volunteers but there is also the expertise 'infrastructure' that will take years to develop. Put crudely will the saffron warden cab be knocking on O'Leary's door telling him to change his cunning charging schemes?
Also cash strapped councils have been reducing the funding of CAB's forcing closures - will these need to be reopened? What happens to Consumer Focus who deal with the privatised energy privateers? Is it the case that a semi amateur localised organisation is expected to impact on consumer issues that are corporate, national and even globally based.
OMG Cameron actually believes devolution and big society policies are workable - the corporates and conglomerates will party on this.

Hmmm...interesting! The political and expertise points have been well made here but the real issue is the practicability issue. Is the government going to shuffle some additional ring fenced money at Local Government? If not then forget and action by them. My local Authority has been cutting Trading Standards staff due ot lack of funds.

The "Big Society" thing isd all well and good but what about the funding for it?

You are right to question this Robert,

'Because the big question is whether local trading standards offices will have the resources or expertise to really challenge the behaviour of giant businesses.'

Quite simply, they won't. If Banks can run rings round the FSA, the BOE and the Treasury what chance has the local trading standards office?

And 'localism' and 'big society' is about politicians using the 'Average Joe' as a human shield for when things go belly up.

As a trading standards officer I feel I can't allow comment #1's suggestion to stand that local enforcement is possibly corrupt.

Robert, you male a very important point about expertise and resources.

I work for a small local authtority where trading standards and environmental health servcies are combined. At present there are six trading standards officers to deal with all consumer protection issues in our area. This is to cover routine inspection work as well as investigating criminal complaints about rogue traders and local/national businesses.

It is a fact that to do this work, the department's budget is miniscule when compared to other local government functions like education and social services. This results in a risk averse culture where the council's legal department will allow cases to be taken only where there is a good chance of conviction.

The result is that currently cases are taken against small traders but the Tesco's of this world have a bigger legal budget than the council and as a result solicitors shy away from the prosecution. Imagine the outcry if, Tesco for example hire a very expensive QC and win their case. The court could then award costs against the council which could be very substantial for local council tax payers.

The proposal from the government apears to be that a network of poorly funded local offices (rather than a well funded central body) take on the 20% of the OFTs work load that was enforcement based whilst presumably still having to face the public sector budget cuts. Much more work for much less money. If as a logical outcome local TS offices only take easy cases I dont beleive that makes us corrupt.

In my little experience Consumer Direct provided a worse customer experience than the initial rogue traders that prompted the reference. It remains to be seen whether CAB provides a more effective interface, but the bar has been set close to ground level.

Big business gets up to much more than 'advertised' - some tidbits for the uninformed:

- usage and utilisation of direct links in government for policy 'persuassion'
- operation and collaboration of (what are effectively highly illegal) databases for 'vetting' of prospective staff
- private investigation of its own workforce (personal lives of staff reported and recorded without their knowledge)
- and a complete and utter disregard for data protection, to name a few.

This is not merely a bit of hot air blowing - I have observed all of these first hand, with some of the biggest corporate names in this country.

Put very politely, the CAB really has no chance against all this. The OFT kept only the bare minimum in check.

Here's the irony. Interesting that the OFT (among other organisations) stood up to Rupert Murdoch in the past few years against some of his more dubious attempts at market play...

It would seem David Cameron in fact does not run the country with 'big society'.

Well judging by the OFT's 'blind' ruling on pub competition this morning, I don't think it could get any worse.

Clearly this plan is a joke - I mean the CAB is totally overwhelmed most of the time - and in recession it's flooded - I don't think they're in a position to pick up any extra work. I would suggest this is a move to reduce consumer power by moving the responsibility into a body which won't be able to cope - total lockup of complaints will be the result.

Meanwhile, lets be more concerned about this shall we?



Once again the what, the who, the where and the how are mostly irrelevant - it's the why which is the question standing out here.
As I understand it they already have enough capital for Basel III (and probably Basel IV!) - which is their claim for needing to raise the money.
Maybe the capital race has begun - after all, he who acts quickest gets the shareholders lolly first - leaving nothing but crumbs for the rest.

I don't have to tell you who is most at risk of this - I mean surely one of those 'well managed banks' can't be at risk - they're so well managed!

The dilution of regulation of the major UK companies is a severe problem. As the action of the EU has shown on Mobile Phone companies there is "a case to answer".

It would be a cruel irony if a largely Conservative measure lead to the EU exercising more and effecive regulation over oligopolistics markets and largely uncaring and profit maximising institutions and companies of the UK.

Too many to consider but for starters; Banks, Insurers, Utilities, Phone Companies, Multiple Retailers, and Vehicle Manurafacturers who for the most part need to be shamed in responding to customer concerns or pricing abuses.

At 10:02am on 14 Oct 2010, Rocketman wrote: The "Big Society" thing is all well and good but what about the funding for it?

--

That's the whole point of the Big Society, it doesn't need any funding. Apparently we'll all do these skilled and complex jobs, sans reward, out of the goodness of our hearts, because we've nothing better to do. :)

Like many people ... I stopped referring complaints to my local Trading Standards office years ago ... as 'they just can't be ***ed' and are nigh useless.

The question is will they now get off their bums to to extra work when they have not previously enforced even the 'bare' minimum of what needs enforcing?

4. At 10:02am on 14 Oct 2010, Rocketman wrote:

"The "Big Society" thing isd all well and good but what about the funding for it?"

Sadly the big society is David Cameron's effort to provide 'localised communism' - but with the private sector still existing you'll find that others will profit from the goodwill of the big soco's - which will dishearten them and make the whole thing a waste of time.

I'm quite happy to help out in my community (more than I do already) - but I'm not going to take my own rubbish to the tip so that the private refuse contractor can pocket the difference and the CEO can buy a nice new Jag.

It's so disappointing when Government abuses the general goodwill of it's populus to meet it's (or it's supporters) own ends. This is how you can tell the Government is not representing you - but representing the various lobby groups who fund the parties in power.

Maybe Mr Cameron would like to come down to my estate and help me dig over the new community vegetable patch, or perhaps assist in our plan to take over our own gardening duties to reduce the bill the LA have to pay - oh no, wait a minute, I bet the small improvements grant which this is done under will be one of the 'small cuts' the LA will make on behalf of the Government.

It's all a lie I'm afraid - David cameron isn't looking for a volunteer workforce - he's looking for a slave workforce.

I'll back up poster #6 too. Effectively claiming that local trading standards officers will take bribes in order to drop cases is an outrageous slur. The few times I've got in contact with trading standards the people involved have gone above and beyond to help me out.

One thing that hasn't been considered apparently is how CAB is meant to cope with this massive increase in workload. My mother is a CAB councillor (unpaid of course) and each session she does is massively oversubscribed and she's turning people away at the end of each day. Much of the workload is simply offering para-legal advice to people who either can't afford a solicitor or over matters too trivial to involve the law system- small debts, legal aspects of relationship (not marriage) break ups, people renting rooms in private homes without written contracts etc. A remarkable number are demobbbed soldiers having problems just after leaving the army... as the wife of an ex-TA Colonel she's in a good position to advise them.

Ignoring the fact that increased workload is likely to lead to volunteers quitting if CAB is now meant to handle major cases of corporate dirty dealings who's meant to look after the person who's been ripped off by their landlord for £100? Are CAB meant to tell them 'sorry you're not important (or rich) enough, sort it yourself'?

As a previous employee of consumer direct, and having seen just how toothless an organisation Trading Standards was even before the further proposed devolving, I don't think I can see anything being improved by it. Stripping the functions from the OFT can only be for good though, as they were the most inefficient and out of touch element of the entire hierarchy involved in the operation in my previous time there (2008/9). The saddest indictment is that even as a clued up consumer direct adviser, with full knowledge of my legal rights and despite taking reasonable measures to avoid it, I've still been fleeced a couple of times since by unscrupulous or unhelpful traders, and knowing the complete ineffectiveness of the system haven't even bothered to report it.
Businesses rely on Joe Bloggs giving up if the brick wall is high enough, and invariably it always is. Only the most heinous of offenders or those who endanger peoples health tend to feel even the slightest pressure from TS or the OFT currently, so maybe any reform would be a good one, it honestly cant be any worse.

9. At 10:20am on 14 Oct 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
Well judging by the OFT's 'blind' ruling on pub competition this morning, I don't think it could get any worse.



From a consumer's point of view their ruling was spot on: the price of a pint in a brewery owned pub is little different from that of an independent. The problem with breweries is that they overcharge the landlord and his profits are being squeezed, hence so many pubs going bust. The drinker at the bar however is not being robbed.

It is disingenuous and downright laughable to claim that the CIB is equipped to take on energy companies and the local trading standards office will be able to take on banks.
Instead we have what looks like a concerted attempt to fragment and confuse the consumer - which is precisely what Marketing Departments for large organisations do every day.
Consumers won't know who to turn to whilst banks and large organisations who operate at both the micro and macro levels will out manoeuvre them every time.
The consequence is likely to be a sense of disempowerment and apathy on the part of the consumer (and politicians love apathy).
And how fortunate for the banks that the CAB which is experienced in taking on the banks should be denied that role in future. Pardon my suspicions and no disrespect intended to the late Mr Cameron Snr, but isn't this another example of Messrs Cameron and Clegg (the sons of a broker and a banker respectively) conveniently helping the banks whilst appearing to curtail their powers?
Big society? It appears that some groups in big society are going to be a lot bigger than others.

6. At 10:15am on 14 Oct 2010, llanranger wrote:

"As a trading standards officer I feel I can't allow comment #1's suggestion to stand that local enforcement is possibly corrupt."

I have to agree - I don't think it's corruption that's the problem, it's understaffing, underinvested and totally undermined by the courts and the legislator itself.

You can see this clearly in any 'Rogue traders' type programme where trading standards are always keen to prosecute but the burden of evidence required means they have to invest a lot of time and money in every case (which they don't have). I haven't met a TS officer who isn't keen to protect consumers (they are one themselves) - but the task they're required to do is impossible given the tools they have to work with.

This is simply Tory cuts by the back door - they hand 'responsibility' to the local level under the guise of 'localism' and then they cut the LA's budgets forcing them to cut the very services and bodies they just handed over.

There was a poster outside Tory HQ in London during the election - a copy of the Tory poster and DC saying "we won't cut your frontline services" - under which someone wrote "no, we'll get our councils to do it for us" - never has a truer word been spoken (or rather written).

I'm pleased to say I have found a solution to my personal angst about the failure of the state to protect the people - I have requested to be put back in the mine in Chilie where the miners have just been rescued from - I suspect this is the only safe place to ride out this depression!

I really think the whole ConDem project (mostly Con, I suspect) is to hand over the reins of power to business. Everywhere I look it seems that business has got us over a barrel, whether it's the woeful train companies, the utilities who can increase prices at a whim, the mobile networks with their vast range of complex tariffs which make it impossible to compare one with another; the list goes on and on.

Just because the government and their friends in some parts of the press keep telling us that quangos are A Bad Thing doesn't make it true. This whole thing is a (very thin) smokescreen trying to disguise deregulation as necessary spending cuts. I don't believe a word of it. And I voted for Mr Clegg et al last time round!

11. At 10:24am on 14 Oct 2010, Martin Greenaway wrote:

"That's the whole point of the Big Society, it doesn't need any funding. Apparently we'll all do these skilled and complex jobs, sans reward, out of the goodness of our hearts, because we've nothing better to do. :)"

Maybe I got it all wrong - maybe David Cameron's vision is actually a replay of Marxist theory. Perhaps DC knows that Capitalism is going to collapse and that when it does there won't be much production going on - people will have nothing to do and take up tools to help their community for free - and like Marx said "the state will wither away".

...it's just a shame DC is leaving in those private sector corporations who will earn from doing the same tasks we're doing for free - nice idea Dave - but I think most people won't be happy about it. -especially when they work out there isn't much difference between the Big society and voluntary slavery (whilst it remains voluntary - I'm guessing any 'criminal' - which is defined as someone who falls foul of the law, not neccessarily a criminal to you and I - will be coercsed into doing this work as a punishment)

Interesting idea Dave.

The complaints process is (fraudulently) rigged in every Company and Government Regulator up to the level of the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman*.

Complaints are closed automatically by CYA (Cover Your Arse) Complaint Teams.
(Legal Rebuttals)

It's up to to stand your ground and fight it out in a long term battle to prove they have acted incompetently or fraudulently and illegally breached your rights
(Legal Acquittal).

*(Warning - By hook or crook they use every dirty trick in the book).

Well I'm not sure the consumer lobby groups, such as Which, or the business lobby, including the CBI, will be overjoyed.

Tough!

There's been too much law created that's been at the behest of lobby and special-interest groups.

Does the CAB advise people on where they can hire cement trucks?

"Truck rams into Irish parliament in banks protest"
London Evening Standard 29.09.10

9. At 10:20am on 14 Oct 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
Clearly this plan is a joke - I mean the CAB is totally overwhelmed most of the time - and in recession it's flooded - I don't think they're in a position to pick up any extra work. I would suggest this is a move to reduce consumer power by moving the responsibility into a body which won't be able to cope - total lockup of complaints will be the result.
--------------------------------------------------------

Some posters just think you are a Marxist and therefore take what you say with a pinch of salt.

The government through the deregulations relevant to this article are perhaps showing themselves to be anarchists. Will anyone comment on this?

As a somebody that works within the department of Trading Standards this is an impossible situation. How is this going to work we are under funded under resources and under staffed as it is at the moment. We can't carry out all of our functions as it is without this additional burden been added. My question is are we going to get the support, training and funding from Central Government. The likely answer to this question is no. Some companies are going to have a field day now that OFT has gone. There are nine people in our department that has a population of over 250,000 people and rising. We are facing further cuts to our already small department.

This is either an example of gross stupidity by an administration that believe its own (or should that be just DC's) rhetoric over the power of localisation and "the Big Society", or blatant cycnicism that will see the Tories natural big business allies free to exploit the consumer with little prospect of being held to account over dubious practices.

Which expalnation do you think is more probable - that DC is a wide-eyed believer in people power, or a dyed-in-the-wool fully fledged Tory politician?

As markets decend into oligopoly eg energy, commnunications, grocery etc and the influence of a small number of extremenly powerful people on a government of business inclined politicians grows, we need an organisation like the OFT more than ever. The shift of its enforcement role to LA trading standards departments can only be regarded as evidence of a lack of concern about the consequent effect on consumers. As has been pointed out the financial risk of taking on the large corporates will millitate against decisions by LAs to prosecute. The EU can take action where matters have effect across borders (except in the unlikely event of infraction proceedings)but day to day consumer enforcement is a matter for states. These are retrograde steps and at a time of rising inflation and job losses consumers can ill afford to lose their champions. I stopped believing in the good will of politicians after the invasion of Iraq and stongly suspect that this is not just a matter of saving money.

14. At 10:33am on 14 Oct 2010, Peter_Sym

Peter - we share the same experience - whenever I needed the CAB the staff were always helpful and did their best with what little support they had.
They not only carry out the para-legal services but also an overspill from the social security as they assist in helping people find benefits they are entitles to (something the DSS is no longer doing)

This is the plan - they push as many services out to the overworked voluntary sector as they can get away with - the cost disappears off the balance sheet of Government and it can claim a 'saving' - in reality the cost are pushed onto the poor volunteers who will end up reluctantly leaving.

I suspect the climax of this will be when the social security office send you down to the local charity shop explaining that "you might have more luck down there luv"

...at which point I shall buy myself a giant top hat and start riding my handsome cab around the streets of London looking for 'urchins' to set to work in my workhouse.

More tea Mrs Miggins?

This is a genuine question: can such functions simply be given to the CAB without any procurement process? I would have thought that was against EU competition regulations.

16. At 10:37am on 14 Oct 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:

"From a consumer's point of view their ruling was spot on: the price of a pint in a brewery owned pub is little different from that of an independent. The problem with breweries is that they overcharge the landlord and his profits are being squeezed, hence so many pubs going bust. The drinker at the bar however is not being robbed. "

..and yet you can buy a can of the same lager for a fraction of the price in the supermarket. I can't find any independent pubs near me anymore so I cannot comment on the price differences between brewery owned pubs and free houses.
However it's probably safe to assume that any free houses in existence will not massively undercut the brewery owned pubs - I mean why bother when the price is set at a level which will make you greater profits. This is how cartels are created without any collusion between parties - contrary to free market beliefs.

Consumer Protection finally gets the life squeezed out of it.

Trading Standards close to breaking point with more and more cuts being made by local councils. That's a great time to get rid of the OFT role and put more responsibilities on them with next to no chance of any extra funding.

Some CAB offices having to cut their opening times to just one day a week (some open for only 2 hours or so) so what better time than to give them the Consumer Direct role? Will they get many volunteers to take on this unpaid role? It was just before the election that some Lib Dems said Consumer Direct was a very valuable organisation so what changed their mind on that one? The CONtrolling hand up their backs?

Amazing planning that should be congratulated for its ingenuity and foresight.

Are these cuts due to the recession that certainly wasn't caused by the banks?

You've got to admire the tories, they always look after their own don't they? Cynical? Me? You betcha.

We have a £100 billion annual deficit . Assuming 60 % of this is coming from "Savings" this equates to a minimum 500,000. So lets not pretend this budget adjustment is not going to hurt a lot , its going to be like the early eighties,but with the public sector fronting the main losses.
I just hope after all the pain the general public don't fall for Red Eds charm offensive and that he has a less painful way. The Labour party has no answers or courage only spending and borrowing.
The country needs to be run with balanced books year on year,Investments" via PFI and borrowing are not investments but liabilities that need to be funded...

CAB up and down the country are already over stretched and under resourced and rely heavily on volunteers (people who give of their time freely) to give advice and guidance to vulnerable people - their core client group.
Are CAB going to see any increase in the grants and income from local authorites in order to pay for the increase in services that the closure of the OFT and Consumer Focus will generate? Probably not.
Without increased funding, then CAB will be doing far more for less resources which will ultimately be to the detriment of the very people who need CAB the most - those that usually have nowhere else to go for advice, guidance and support.
It is unbelievable that a full scale consultation about these proposed cuts and impact assessments have not been carried out prior to the announcement of cuts. These cuts appear to be purely an exercise in political number crunching with no savings identified as a result, no idea of the number of people to be made redundant and no concept of the knock on effects to (un)employment figures. Disgraceful.

could always try www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/

24. If the government were anarchists then surely they would devolve the power of banks to a local level too?

24. At 11:10am on 14 Oct 2010, Kit Green wrote:

"Some posters just think you are a Marxist and therefore take what you say with a pinch of salt."

That's because they are prejudice - and a little bit thick. They don't see the difference between Marx's critique of Capitalism and Marx's Communist ideology. I find most people who have this problem haven't actually read Das Kapital - there's nothing better than attacking something you don't understand and preferring an ideology which suits your disposition rather than one that is correct.

"The government through the deregulations relevant to this article are perhaps showing themselves to be anarchists. Will anyone comment on this?"

There is an element of free market anarchy, but don't be fooled as this is only another pretence - because just as 'freedom' in a finite world becomes 'my freedom over yours' - so too will free market anarchy be 'anarchy for you and profit for me' as those who are already in a position of power can then ride roughshod over your rights in order to increase their profit margins.

#29: I'm not a lawyer, but I'd suspect that there's no problem doing so as A) CAB is a charity, not a for-profit organisation, B) no one else wants the work as there's no money available to do it & C) govt arms are exempt from competition regulations... lets face it Easyjet aren't trying to get the contract to provide air defence for the UK....... yet.

#28. Buy your top hat! My mum is already having clients sent to her from the local benefits office, often as an act of kindness by the benefits staff. THEY don't know what claimants are eligible for and so send the claimant to the CAB as their staff have a better idea how the benefits system works than the benefits staff themselves.

Where my parents live has a large 'traveller' population (mostly illiterate, often in trouble with the law, eligible for benefits) plus a lot of Eastern European agricultural workers (not eligible for most benefits unless they've worked continually for 24 months but often subject to illegal termination of contracts and exploitation) so its a hell of a job to do already without all this extra stuff being dumped onto them.

So basically, the government is dismantling any organisation which might seriously challenge big business? They can't really believe that trading standards offices - which are probably about to be decimated by their own budget cuts, not to mention the fact that they operate locally not nationally - are able to take on the issue of bank charges. At least, if they say they believe it, they are either fantasists or liars (or possibly both).

But I suppose it's not really a surprise.

I am a qualified Trading Standards Officer. Trading Standards services are already severely stretched. In my council we have 8 full time officers to cover the county (250000 consumers and 40,000 businesses). We already enforce over 70 acts of parliament. Since the onset of Consumer Direct, advice services have been stripped out and staff transferred to other functions. To cope with all the enquiries dealt with by Consumer Direct, additional staff will have to be employed. Trading Standards Officers are not trained to carry out the same type of work as officers at the OFT. The OFT tends to operate in a wider industry focus way rather than prosecuting individual businesses and has a role in industry wide enforcement that local trading standards offices do not. Thes changes signify a massive reduction in effective consumer protection. Ring fenced funding will have to be given to pay for the incresed role as in most cases, when new enforcement responsibilities are added, funding is not ring fenced and is used for other costs such as education and social services.

As a profession, the average age of officers is over 40 and a quarter are over 60. It takes a minimum 3 years to fully train a TSO and there are few new entrants to the profession each year. We are an often hidden and forgotton part of Local Government and certain big businesses will now be given a free reign to do as they wish. The practice of attempting to bankrupt trading standards services with expensive legal bills will dominate. This is a sad sad day for consumer protection. Also, why has the LBRO been left virtually untouched. We managed perfectly well before its introduction by G Brown and 99% of its functionality is an additional burdon on the profession (much of its role sat with LACORS previously). Oh and in relatrion to the CAB (often reliant on local government grants for its existence) it's volunteers have neither the professional expertise or the time to take on the role of Consumer direct.

Interesting point Robert, but it is a bit of a side issue to the good news of the culling of unnecessary and unaccountable bodies, which in a large number of cases are duplicating work which should have been done by existing bodies.

You could argue - why do we need Trading Standards (with capital letters) at all? What we really need is easier ways for people to share their experiences of companies. In fact, Trading Standards hides these shared experiences behind paperwork and legislation.

I prefer to use a plumber recommended to me by a friend (or friends) or even several strangers. I greatly prefer this to using one just because it hasn't been closed down (yet) by Trading Standards. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to buying a car or washing machine, getting my car serviced or having your hair cut?

If a company knows that any bad experiences of it will be made public, they are much more likely to deal with problems than they would from the threat of 'I'll tell Trading Standards' - which rarely comes to anything.

That is the true 'big society' way of dealing with trading standards problems, just make them all public. Costs very little, takes very little effort from anyone, and has a greater effect in the end.

#30 I agree with a lot of what you're saying but the whole Pub issue is extremely complex and the issues involved go well beyond the price of a pint.

You're entirely correct that a Supermarket is selling a can of decent beer for 70p whereas the same beer on draught could be £2.50 (I live in the midlands!). However the Supermarket could be selling it at as a loss leader or using its bulk purchasing power/economy of sales to be making 2 or 3p per can profit. A pub can't afford that margin.

In addition the rates of business rates imposed of pubs is unjustified in many cases adding to the cost to the landlord. As a proportion of trade business rates to a supermarket are trivial.

Worst of all is the pricing of the brewery to their own pubs. A keg of lager they'll sell to an independent for £80 will be £180 to one of their own pubs. In part it suits the brewery to drive their own publicans out of business as the pubs (converted to flats) will bring in more than beer sales. Independent pubs don't have this problem. Its not illegal for the brewery to do this is just unpleasant.

Whats 'fair' and whats 'legal' are two entirely different issues but the report today seems legally correct. The OFT has no legal case to bring.

I'm certainly no Marxist but what you highlight is a frequent problem... by independently all settling on fixed prices the 'free market' often does not exist. I've argued my support for min legal wages because of this with Americans (who never accept my argument) based on my experience before the law came in of every shop/pub in my local town offering £2.50 an hour wages. There was no formal cartel but everyone offered the same as the other and it kept wages rock bottom. The problem is that its not illegal to do this and no law could be brought in forcing people to vary their prices.

#40 Can you find me a bank that doesn't get 100,000+ complaints a year or a second hand car dealer who's never sold a clunker? As I've pointed out in my post #41 its very easy for every trader to provide the min service they can or set the prices the same level.

To give you some recent examples of consumer problems I'm having: 2 weeks ago a major courier firm tried to deliver a parcel. I was out so they forced it through my electronically locked cat flap smashing it apart (£50 damage). The police don't want to know as its not a 'crime' and the company themselves are stonewalling me claiming it didn't happen. Both CAB and consumer direct have offered useful advice as to pursuing the case.

I'm also trying to upgrade to digital TV... a digital TV aerial is £15 but I can't find a company in my town to fit it for under £200. All 15 companies in the yellow pages quote the same £200. Not a bad rate for 30 mins work is it? Pretty much all of them have criticism on google so whats the alternative?

> consumer protection functions

The best consumer protection function is to publish the names and addresses of all the company bosses. Two tonnes of pig manure repeatedly dumped outside their houses would soon make them see the errors of their ways!

#40. Great idea! Let's get rid of the Police as well. We could ask friends who the 'bad people' are and then that way we'll be safe from any harm because it'll be public and therefore they wouldn't dare be naughty would they?

Check the internet for people who complain on forums rather than call the authorities, businesses quake in their boots at that sort of thing as they carry on ripping people off. Plus you have the risk of rival businesses making mischief pretending to be Joe Public.

Just because a friend bought something from a certain business and had no problems doesn't mean you won't face a problem yourself somewhere down the line.

The reason Trading Standards can't make it public about every business they've had complaints about is due to other legislation. (they don't make the laws remember, they enforce them, so it's a bit silly to blame them for keeping within the law set down by others)

philmus in total agreement with you on all your point. Part of the problem is the underfunding in training of Trading Standards officers ( in London anyway) over the past 10 years. I and a few officers had to fund our own training which as you can imagine isn't cheap. What on top of student loans its all adds up the Profession will die out within the next 10 to 15 years if things carry on the way they do.

To Ruth only TSI would make a statement like that and they are out of touch with Trading Standards departments within cites like London.

Having been a independant licesee for 50 years and dealt with every major brewer in that time the oft decision on ties gives a perfect reason to abolish it the average brewer makes banks look like good samaritans also having a major problem with a scottish utility company who doubled my tariff after tellig me what a wonderful deal I was going to get the help fro consumer direct was non existent and oft just as useless not only will they not be missed by myself but you only have to google a certain utility company to see how inaffective or downright incompetent
these quangos are

#46 As has been stated by myself and others the OFT can only enforce the law. They can't make up the law as they go along and what is 'fair' and what is 'legal' are too different things.

To give you an idea last year the Police caught a man trying to break open my gate with a chisel. John Major abolished 'attempted breaking and entry' as a crime to improve his crime figures and as the would be burglar had done no damage to the gate (in fact my Peter_Sym built gate made of fence posts and 1/4 Oregon pine floorboards held on with agricultural gate furniture snapped his chisel in half!) I couldn't even get him done for criminal damage. The cop who was forced to release the guy after catching him read handed actually kicked my house wall in frustration at having to do so. It doesn't mean the cops are useless but the govts who pass the laws are. If OFT was given MORE teeth rather than less it could do a better job.

The question is do you think this lack of teeth is incompetence or conspiracy by the govt?

I am an officer in Trading Standards in London (240 000 residents) and we have lost around 18 posts in 30 years with a further 2 in the last 2 years. We now have a team of about 12 and yet are one of the biggest authorities in London. Yet still, we cannot keep up with the number of complaints and investigations. Two of our neighbouring authorities have 2-3 officers each now, due to cuts over the past few years, and the only enforcement they can now do is write a letter to the business. Does anyone expect them to now take on multi-nationals?
This government are carrying out their ideals (Ie. less regulation of business) under the banner of budget savings and deficit reduction. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.
The OFT have teams of lawyers that take on the biggest multi-nationals on a massive range of issues. We have one lawyer that takes all the trading standards and licensing and environmental health cases.
The OFT have teams of officers working on individual high-profile cases with specific expertise in complex legislation (Such as Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) and take them to the high court. Trading Standards Officers have a workload of around 20-30 investigations, complaints and inspections each and take cases in the Magistrates and sometimes the Crown Court.
There is no way that Trading Standards authorities will take on the likes of Ryanair or PC World or Tesco. These type of big businesses will know that, and will now have carte blanche to do what they like.
Big mistake coalition!

#46 I trust you bumped your gums at Ofgem and found them to be amazingly helpful? They apparently regulate the gas & electricity markets in this country so perhaps you should be venting your spleen at them instead? It's easier to blame those without the enforcement power though isn't it?

Or better still in this new age of DIY UK you could take the utility company to court yourself? That looks like being something we will all have to think about from now on except we won't be able to afford the legal costs.

I work part time at our local CAB office where we service a population of around 65,000 people.

In a typical week we are able to open cases for approximately 30 clients, dealing primarily with welfare rights, housing, debt and mental health issues.

In the same typical week we are unable to meet the requests for help from another 50 potential clients.

Coping with a whole new raft of responsibilities is simply not practicable unless (and this seems highly unlikely in the current climate) there is a substantial increase in available resources or an army of hitherto unidentified volunteers appear over the horizon.

This is currently what life is actually like at your local CAB.

#48 " There is no way that Trading Standards authorities will take on the likes of Ryanair or PC World or Tesco. These type of big businesses will know that, and will now have carte blanche to do what they like.
Big mistake coalition! "

Maybe its a mistake... personally I'd wonder about out and out corruption. The Tory party's relationship with Lord Ashcroft should tell you Dave's attitude to large corporations.

42. At 12:10pm on 14 Oct 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:

> I'm also trying to upgrade to digital TV... a digital TV aerial is £15
> but I can't find a company in my town to fit it for under £200. All
> 15 companies in the yellow pages quote the same £200. Not a bad
> rate for 30 mins work is it? Pretty much all of them have criticism
> on google so whats the alternative?

A ladder?

This whole local vs centralised argument is a crock anyway. I remember, during the election campaign, watching a Conservative candidate make two clear points when talking about their policy on health.

First, he stated that more power should be placed into the hands of local health trusts and GPs because they know much better than central government what the needs of local patients are and where treatment priorities should lie. In itself, fair enough.

Then, he later said that it was a disgrace that the Labour Party had presided over a postcode lottery in which treatments readily available to patients in one area were not available to patients in another. Also, in itself, fair enough, but ...

... you cannot delegate the decision making power to local managers and, at the same time, produce a system in which the same services (treatments) are available in all parts of the country. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

The problem with this "bonfire of the quangos" is that it is just another way to avoid responsibility. Closing down the OFT and delegating those powers to LAs makes the service the councils' responsibility, not the Government. Same with other quangos whose roles are delegated to LAs.

Not to mention that you will suddenly find that the same issue is potentially dealt with in a number of different ways as different LAs interpret things differently.

And what about funding ... two issues, as I see it:

First, if there is to be no additional central government funding for the extra work, I doubt that councils will be able to provide an appropriate level of service.

Second, if central government is going to provide funding for this additional work, will it actually be any cheaper to fund a whole lot of Trading Standards departments across the nation to duplicate infrastructure than it would have been to keep the centralised OFT in place?

48. At 1:32pm on 14 Oct 2010, massivetoe wrote:

There is no way that Trading Standards authorities will take on the likes of Ryanair or PC World or Tesco. These type of big businesses will know that, and will now have carte blanche to do what they like."

No they don't! This is what Nanny States have made people think.

As far as I can tell, there is no one holding a gun to your head telling you to book your flights with Ryanair, buy your computers at PC World and buy your groceries at Tesco.

Consumer Power is far more powerful than Trading Standards or the OFT, but people are reluctant to use it, because they have been taught not to think by consecutive Nanny States.

Trading Standards and the OFT have no power to push 'ethical' agendas, but Consumer Power has done this regularly (think of the massive increase in Fair Trade & Organic products; think of Barclays Bank & apartheid, etc). If consumers can make Cadburys use Fair Trade cocoa, and make Barclays sell a subsidiary, they can do anything if the popular feeling is strong enough.

I don't use Tescos because I don't like their ethics. They almost certainly don't care, but if half the UK population starts doing the same, then they'll soon sit up and take notice - even if they aren't doing anything illegal, so the OFT/TS couldn't get involved.

At 11:53am on 14 Oct 2010, Paul wrote:

'You could argue - why do we need Trading Standards (with capital letters) at all?... I prefer to use a plumber recommended to me by a friend (or friends) or even several strangers. I greatly prefer this to using one just because it hasn't been closed down (yet) by Trading Standards. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to buying a car or washing machine, getting my car serviced or having your hair cut?'

That might work for small local businesses, or an industry where there is healthy competition which provides alternative suppliers. But what effect will that have when an industry is dominated by 4 or 5 Goliaths all carrying out the same practices? Epecially when the people who need help are already in a position where they are rightfully or wrongfully indebted to them? What am I going to do then? Move to another provider who will rip me off as much? Or not be allowed to because I owe my exisiting supplier money that I can't pay off? Brilliant.

I don't think I have ever seen one of your posts where the comments were so unanimous! The clear consensus seems to be that the plans are insane.

So the list is out (even though it leaked weeks ago)and would you believe it, they actually do serve a purpose! To save face the goverment is getting rid of a load anyway and creating new units in government departments to carry out exactly the same jobs. Saving no money at all. I though David Cameron wanted to slim down the size of state?

This was nothing else but an excercise in taxpayer scaremongering.

52. At 2:14pm on 14 Oct 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

42. At 12:10pm on 14 Oct 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:

> > I'm also trying to upgrade to digital TV... a digital TV aerial is £15
> > but I can't find a company in my town to fit it for under £200. All
> > 15 companies in the yellow pages quote the same £200. Not a bad
> > rate for 30 mins work is it? Pretty much all of them have criticism
> > on google so whats the alternative?

> A ladder?

Exactly, fitting an aerial isn't a highly skilled job, and there is no guild involved (as for gas/electrical work etc), so you can easily do it yourself. If you don't want to do it yourself, you pay for the convenience of someone else fitting it.

The company fitting it has to pay for the van, travel, insurance, risk etc that you don't have to pay if you do it yourself.

Hire a roof ladder for £30, get your aerial for £15 and do the job yourself, and save loads of money. If you think it's too complicated or dangerous - then that's what you're paying for if you get someone else to do it...

58. At 2:31pm on 14 Oct 2010, Paul wrote:
52. At 2:14pm on 14 Oct 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

42. At 12:10pm on 14 Oct 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:

> > I'm also trying to upgrade to digital TV... a digital TV aerial is £15
> > but I can't find a company in my town to fit it for under £200. All
> > 15 companies in the yellow pages quote the same £200. Not a bad
> > rate for 30 mins work is it? Pretty much all of them have criticism
> > on google so whats the alternative?

> A ladder?

Well its ok if you're healthly and able but not everybody is health or able within this country.

So in effect we have volunteers with a massive work load already having to fight the good fight and take on major corporations who have teams of highly paid high flying lawyers whose sole focus is that single issue i find it hard to believe the consumer won't be hurt badly by all this and if they do have a strong case against these corporations will be bombarded with delay after delay followed by appeal after appeal while other entities within the corporation are lobbying the polititions to overturn decisions (see judicial review of PPI to see what I mean) so the bottom line is these corporations will be running rings around us I have seen it first hand as union rep in the past. These major corporations are going to what they want when they want so everybody brace yourself your rights are going to diminish faster than a snowman in the tropics.

As a TSO of some years standing I think the public needs to know that you won't know what you have lost until it is gone. The advent of sceond hand car dealers needing to hold a consumer credit license to conduct their business is a massive impetus to reign in rogue car dealers. Local services work with the OFT to ensure licensees remain fit and proper to trade. It is a significant weapon to ensure that secondhand car dealers treat their customers fairly, make no mistake if you think it is bad now - just wait.This is very bad news for the reputable traders in all spheres who work with local services. Bad traders affect the good businesses and compete with them unfairly.
The OFT is at the top of the pyramid co-ordinating action with the clout to take on the big companies, local TS Services will not have the resource to do this necessary work.
We have seen how ineffective the FSA has been as a regulator and whilst I have the utmost respect for the CAB then I cannot believe they are up to the task, and from experience before Consumer Direct I know they are not.

Did anybody notice that the people who contacted their banks complaining at being missold PPI were told that their claim was not worthy and they would not be getting recompensessed however of the people who then took their complaint further (to the banking onbudsman) 80% of those complaints were upheld and compensation was payed by the banks so I think for everyone who now makes a complaint they are going to be met by a brick wall where the big businesses know that there are not enough resources available for those people who want to pursue their complaint and the time it takes for this will deem the complaint not worth pursuing a total shambles and a dereliction of duty by the government this is a disgrace.

And why is this very important development not just the O.F.T. but other very important quango's being ripped to shreds been given so little airtime on the news about 2 mins on the teatime news because it certainly has major ramifications for the general public even your post Robert on this was followed very shortly after by a meaningless load of drivel about L.F.C. hardly in the same bracket I would think and i'm a scouser but the amount of posts you've dedicated to whether Bert and Ernie hold on to control of the club when there is a list as long as your arm of regulatory bodies going up in smoke is quite apalling

The CAB is a voluntary organisation, a charity- registration number 279057.

For Cameron to suggest handing over responsibility from a government funded organisation to a charity because they simply aren't going to bother funding it (even to the under funded extent it has been so far) is simply attrocious!

We need more enforcement of regulation on both big and small businesses, not less. We need greater resources not a reduction. Especially in times of recession when more wide boys are likely to be out there trying to take advantage, and more people are likely to be swayed by an apparant bargain.

I foresee an awful lot of increased calls to programmes like Watchdog in a couple of years, followed up by an increasing volume of newspaper stories about injuries and deaths that have come about from dodgy goods that should have been investigated and taken off sale many weeks/months earlier...

24. At 11:10am on 14 Oct 2010, Kit Green wrote:
The government through the deregulations relevant to this article are perhaps showing themselves to be anarchists. Will anyone comment on this?

I have a Monty Python-like image of the Lord, having taken delivery of the produce from all his lands, sending the peasant farmers home to prepare for the feast. As soon as they've disappeared over the hill for a kip and a wash, he's only gone and pulled up the drawbridge.

Peasanst then sit around talking/discussing what they are going to do as they scratch their heads and the minstrels play 'Lord-friendly' melodies off to the side of the fields.

We have a traditional Conservative government doing what Conservative governments do best - swinging the pedulum from everybody else to big business.

The members of this government want the lowest rates of business taxes, the least amount of business regulation and the minimum support for ripped off consumers. They'll get their reward when they leave office and take lucrative jobs with the companies that they're now helping.

The whole of the Big Society idea is predicated on charities and volunteers doing work that should be done by professionals and paid for out of taxes. It keeps both the consumer and the taxes on the big businesses down. One of those is good, one is not. Which is which depends on whether you're a wealthy conservative or not.

Rob

In my experience, the CAB already refer simple complaints to Trading Standards because they can't be bothered doing it themselves. The CAB advisers also frequently phone Trading Standards for advice on how to resolve complaints, because they don't know how to do it themselves. The CAB running Consumer Direct is a joke as far I am concerned.

Many of the Quangos - such as the Totaliser Board - are to be sold off. That word: privatised. Mister Osbourne and Mister Cameron do not mention it. But a large number of public functions - formerly carried out due to government payment - will be carried out for profit. That profit can only come from customers.

Examining who will pay for Former-Quango indicates the customer remains the taxpayer. Given the misgivings of many posters and comments from Top Shop Sages, is it not time for the Government to realise that Quangos are not a lossmaking enterprise but a leveraging tool for the taxpaying customer.

In short, this is the worst of possible stealth taxes: end the Quangos (many being good value for money) and commercialise them. Once commercialised the taxpayer is locked into a payment system that they cannot change, is not negotiable and serves only to give the government a short term cashflow on the books.

It did not work in the 1980's and it will not work now. Economies are not improved by radically unbalancing the relationship between customer and supplier. Especially when the customer is also the paymaster of the legislator.

Shifting various Offices relating to Trade - both on the supplier and the consumer side - is not something to be done simply to save money in the short term. In the long run, the unbalance in the marketplace will ensure that the customer has less to spend, the suppliers charge more and goods and services are shoddier.

One of the many Quangoes to be reviewed is the SIA. Visit your local supermarket and just look at the "self service" tills. Abolition of the SIA would create a situation where the tills will be managed by a person whose principal role will be to secure convictions for theft. A situation that would now be resolved through trading standards. No recommendation for an SIA licence withdrawal or for appropriate enfocement of the relevant "Security Act" will ever be made.

The abolition of Quangoes might well be a vote grabber in the heart of unreformed Thatcherite Condem-land. But that is a tiny minority of a minority party. Much like letting the Tea Party run America.