Jul/090
House of Commons transport committee: Higher ticket fares on the way
The House of Commons transport committee has criticised privately owned rail franchises for increasing ticket prices, up to 11% in the recession. The consensus amongst the committee was that the current relationship between rail companies and commuters is unfair, with passengers being treated unfairly. The franchising system means companies bid to run trains on a particular route and those that bid the highest premium payments win the contracts. The rise in ticket costs on regulated rail fares including all season tickets rose on average 6% which is contrary to negative inflation and disproportionate to the real economy.
Lord Ardonis, Transport Secretary reiterated that the report backed a policy by the government to limit fares to no more than 1% above inflation. The consequence being lower fare rates by January 2010. In reply to the criticism the Association of Train Operating Companies stated that the existing system offers a punctual service and that passengers are satisfied.
Jun/090
Not all on-line shops abide by consumer rights regulations
On-line shopping is becoming more and more popular, as it takes out the stress of having to visit shops, try things out, stand in long queues etc. however, research has shown that not all on-line retailers are sticking to the regulations of Consumer Rights.
Around 31% of on-line shops do not refund the full cost of the item returned, 40% of sites had hidden costs, 14% did not provide a land address and 15% did not make it known to consumers that their order could be cancelled 7 working days after they have received the goods.
Consumers who shop on-line are covered by the Distance Selling Regulations, who enforce their rights and the OFT are urging on-line retailers to check their sites and make sure they abide by the regulations there to protect the consumer.
Jun/090
Your Rights as a Consumer
As a consumer, you have certain rights that retailers must comply with. For example, if you are buying a product it must explain on the packaging what the product is, what it does, date of expiry if it is food, the colour of the product and the size. If the product doesn’t ‘do what it says on the tin’ so to say, the retailer has a “legal obligation” to rectify the problem. This also applies to the “28 day rule”, where as the consumer has 28 days to bring back the product in exchange for their money back, or an exchange, if the product is not what they expected or it doesn’t fit etc.
Another right that the consumer has that they are to be charged the price that is indicated. So if they get to the till and the product is more expensive than was clearly stated either on or by the product, they have the right to challenge the retailer then, or taking it to the local trading standards office, as this is false advertisement. Credit cards are also liable to for faulty goods and services if they have cost the consumer over £100.
Services provided by a plumber, joiner, electrician etc are covered by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This states that the work they do has to be done within a “reasonable time, price and skill”. If this is not the case the consumer has every right to ask them to rectify the problem, or go to their employer if they won’t to claim back the costs.
Jun/090
Consumer Guarantee - The Two Year Rule
A consumer who bought a TV from Tesco was not given the consumer rights he expected when his TV broke. EU regulations state that EU citizens are entitled to 2 years replacement cover if an item becomes faulty through general wear and tear but Tesco claimed that 1 year was the agreed length of cover.
Staff at the European Commission told Guardian Money this week that shoppers have an extremely strong case for demanding a repair, replacement or refund on items up to two years old – the minimum guarantee for all member states, including the UK. It is not a new rule, but it seems few shoppers or retailers are familiar with it. One reason stores are getting away with it is that the law in the area is complicated. The UK’s Sale of Goods Act (Soga) gives consumers a longer protection period – up to six years, although in practice consumers find it difficult to enforce.
While the European Union website clearly backs up the two-year guarantee, you will find no information of the two-year rule on the government’s Consumer Direct website. “Sellers … are obliged to guarantee the conformity of the goods with the contract for a period of two years after the delivery of the goods,” the EU says. An updated directive is being worked on, although it is not expected to become law for at least another year.
Jun/090
No Takers for Mystery Deposit
Last summer, a Natwest customer found £3,500 had been deposited mysteriously into her current account. She wasn’t expecting any such deposit, and when she contacted the Abbey (the bank from which it had been paid), they said it was from an off-shore account but could say no more. Since then, the consumer has been trying to either bank involved to take the money off her hands to avoid being involved in any sort of scam but both the Natwest and the Abbey still do not want anything to do with it.
The Abbey could only say that the money was deposited from an off-shore account.
A law firm in Leeds by the name of Lupton Fawcett advised that Natwest were not to be blamed in this case and that Abbey were responsible for obtaining the correct account number and sort code to which the funds would be deposited. John Eaton, the firms financial services director recommends that the consumer should contact Natwest and ask them to return the funds to sender. They will then be transferred back to the Abbey branch at which they were deposited.
 |
 |
