We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Consumer Ombudsman launches for shoppers with a gripe
Former_MSE_Paloma
Posts: 531 Forumite
If you've a complaint about goods or services, you may be able to take it to the new Consumer Ombudsman...
Read the full story:
Consumer Ombudsman launches for shoppers with a gripe
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
Consumer Ombudsman launches for shoppers with a gripe
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
0
Comments
-
So basically another useless service like Ofwat, Ofgem and Ofcom.The more I live, the more I learn.
The more I learn, the more I grow.
The more I grow, the more I see.
The more I see, the more I know.
The more I know, the more I see,
How little I know.!!
0 -
Another one? Well, I hope this one is just as successful as the last two...Squirrel!If I tell you who I work for, I'm not allowed to help you. If I don't say, then I can help you with questions and fixing products. Regardless, there's still no secret EU law.
Now 20% cooler0 -
I'm a typical optimist, but sorry to be pessimistic this time. From the companies' perspectives, why would anyone voluntarily sign up and pay a membership fee to an Ombudsman service whose only function is to make legally-binding rulings against its members? Ruling in favour of a company just means the Ombudsman agrees with the answer they've already given to a complaint, no better off than they were before. Ruling against the company means they have literally paid to be worse off. How many adverse rulings before they start threatening to stop paying their fees?
Best-case scenario, no complaints upheld and it's only cost the membership fee. Every other scenario is worse for member companies. I can't see any benefit in signing up. Perhaps good for consumer confidence, but will anyone choose a shop based on their membership of an Ombudsman?
Dodgy retailers aren't going to bother paying to be ruled against, and good retailers don't need to because they're already doing it right, or they wouldn't be "good" retailers.0 -
The article is misleading, and appears to align this new body to the official government ombudsman bodies. This really should be clarified.
With regard to decisions being legally binding, this is simply not true - irrespective of the voluntarily code the retailers may sign up to, they still have a right to dispute any decision in court, and as the ombudsman has no legal standing it is quite possible a court would not follow their "ruling".
What is really needed here is an unbiased evaluation of the new service - not what appears to be a piece of advertising
0 -
The article is misleading, and appears to align this new body to the official government ombudsman bodies. This really should be clarified.
With regard to decisions being legally binding, this is simply not true - irrespective of the voluntarily code the retailers may sign up to, they still have a right to dispute any decision in court, and as the ombudsman has no legal standing it is quite possible a court would not follow their "ruling".
What is really needed here is an unbiased evaluation of the new service - not what appears to be a piece of advertising
They wouldn't follow their ruling directly but surely as a consumer having an independent body agreeing with you is some good levy in court?0 -
I'm a typical optimist, but sorry to be pessimistic this time. From the companies' perspectives, why would anyone voluntarily sign up and pay a membership fee to an Ombudsman service whose only function is to make legally-binding rulings against its members? Ruling in favour of a company just means the Ombudsman agrees with the answer they've already given to a complaint, no better off than they were before. Ruling against the company means they have literally paid to be worse off. How many adverse rulings before they start threatening to stop paying their fees?
Best-case scenario, no complaints upheld and it's only cost the membership fee. Every other scenario is worse for member companies. I can't see any benefit in signing up. Perhaps good for consumer confidence, but will anyone choose a shop based on their membership of an Ombudsman?
Dodgy retailers aren't going to bother paying to be ruled against, and good retailers don't need to because they're already doing it right, or they wouldn't be "good" retailers.
One marketed themselves basically as a way for retailers to save money - as they could pass complaints to them rather than having to pay a staff member to do it.
However, I believe these companies are hoping that the government will make ADR mandatory and thus require retailers to sign up to a provider.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
-
ProMediate wrote: »:spam:
Marked as :spam:0 -
EE, the most complained about communications provider, you know the one!
Not covered by this scheme, pointless.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.6K Spending & Discounts
- 245.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.7K Life & Family
- 259.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards