EEC Home Security
Options
Comments
-
dacouch - indeed.
MSErs - 1, newbie - 0. Perhaps we should be playing for England in the World Cup?
0 -
I know Mothballs
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people with no posts who register and then strangely post in favour of a company who have come in for flack on MSE.
What they do not realise is that what they have succeeded in is bumping the post back to the top of MSE so more people will see it and avoid EEC0 -
P.S Would you want to buy a security system from EEC???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK3bPOGrMCM
lol0 -
-
Or how about this...
Upheld in part
Complaint by Maxwell Hodge solicitors on behalf of European Environmental Fairness and Privacy Cases Controls Ltd
Old Dogs New Tricks, BBC1, 24 August 2006
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Summary:Ofcom has not upheld, with the exception of one element, Environmental European Controls Ltd’s complaint of unfair treatment.
[FONT="]This edition of the consumer programme Old Dogs New Tricks investigated a home security company called European Environmental Controls (“EEC”). The programme alleged that EEC: sold overpriced security product; targeted vulnerable elderly people; and employed questionable sales techniques. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]EEC[/FONT][FONT="] complained that it had been treated unfairly in the programme as broadcast in that: the programme made negative unsubstantiated comments about EEC; it had not been given an appropriate opportunity to respond to all of the programme’s allegations; the programme makers ignored information provided by EEC prior to broadcast; the programme makers sought an interview with the owner of EEC unannounced and while correspondence about the possibility of an interview with was still ongoing; and the programme misrepresented the company’s position with respect to whether it intended to make any changes to its business in the future. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]In summary Ofcom found as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Ofcom found that significant information from various sources had been included in the programme to support the allegations made against EEC. Furthermore, Ofcom found that prior to broadcast, the programme makers had provided EEC with an appropriate opportunity to respond to all of the significant allegations to be made in the programme.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Ofcom found that the programme as broadcast appropriately reflected all of the relevant information provided by the complainant, with one exception. In this instance, Ofcom found that the programme makers did not accurately describe one aspect of EEC’s dealings with one of the customers featured in the programme, and this resulted in unfairness to EEC.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Ofcom considered that it was reasonable for the programme makers to seek an interview with the owner of EEC unannounced. Ofcom did not believe this resulted in unfairness to the company as it had been provided with all the relevant information pertaining to the allegations prior to the interview, and the programme makers had exhausted, to a reasonable degree, other methods by which to secure an interview.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
·[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Ofcom found that it was not unfair for the programme to state that there had been “no news” from EEC about whether it would change any of its business practices or refund money to the customers featured in the programme. In Ofcom’s view this accurately summarised the fact that EEC had not provided details of any specific changes that it intended to make as a result of the programme’s investigation.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Introduction
[FONT="] [/FONT]
On 24 August 2006, an edition of Old Dogs, New Tricks, an investigative consumer programme presenter by Esther Rantzen and Lynn Faulds Wood, was broadcast on BBC1. This edition investigated a home security company called European Environmental Controls Ltd (“EEC”).
The programme explained that the owner of EEC, Mr John Ball, was the former owner of a company called Fireguard, which had previously been investigated in 2004 by the consumer programme, Watchdog. The programme stated that the earlier edition of Watchdog had exposed Fireguard as “pressure selling overpriced and unsuitable fire safety equipment to elderly people”. The programme posed the question, was John Ball “at it again?”
As part of the programme’s investigation, an undercover reporter was placed inside EEC as a call centre operator in order to expose, it was stated, the company’s sales tactics. The reporter was later dismissed by EEC, and secretly recorded footage of his dismissal was included in the programme.
The programme also enlisted the help of security expert Mr Graeme Dow to assess and comment on EEC’s products and services, and the prices EEC charged for them.
The programme interviewed a former employee of EEC, Mr Albert Mitchell, who said he was so shocked by the company’s sales methods that he quit after one week. Mr Mitchell commented that it was “one of the worst” companies that he had worked for.
Towards the end of the programme, the presenters ‘doorstepped’ the business premises of EEC and interviewed Mr Ball.
Maxwell Hodge Solicitors (“Maxwell Hodge”) has made a complaint on behalf of EEC of unfair treatment in the programme as broadcast.
The Complaint
EEC’s case
In summary, Maxwell Hodge complained that EEC was treated unfairly in the programme as broadcast in that:
a) The programme statements that EEC products were “wildly overpriced”, “ludicrous”, “outrageous” and that people were “done over” by EEC were unfair to EEC. Maxwell Hodge said the comments could not be justified as they had been tainted by the use of expert witness, Mr Dow, and by the failure of the programme makers to deal with valid points made by EEC about its pricing structures. In relation to this complaint:
i) Maxwell Hodge said that EEC had informed the programme makers, prior to broadcast, that the programme’s use of Mr Dow as an expert witness caused a conflict of interest. Maxwell Hodge explained that Mr Dow had once provided paid work for EEC and was made privy to confidential information concerning the manner in which EEC operated, its products and pricing structures. Maxwell Hodge complained that despite being informed of this conflict of interest, the programme makers included Mr Dow’s expert opinion that EEC’s equipment was “overpriced”.
ii) Maxwell Hodge maintained that the programme makers ignored explanations provided by EEC about costings and overheads, which affected the price that EEC could afford to sell its products.
b) The programme said that Mr Ball’s company, Fireguard had been put into “liquidation” and that “out of the ashes” of Fireguard had come EEC. Maxwell Hodge said the statements were factually incorrect and had created the false impression that something had been done that was wrong, underhand and detrimental to consumers. Maxwell Hodge said that Fireguard had ceased to trade (which is entirely different from being put into liquidation) and its liabilities had been taken over by EEC.
c) The inclusion of comments by Mr Albert Mitchell, about the sales tactics of EEC, was unfair. Maxwell Hodge said that Mr Mitchell was employed by EEC for one week and was never allocated to a sales team or went out selling on behalf of the company.
d) The BBC did not fairly present the reasons why the undercover reporter had been dismissed. Maxwell Hodge said the reporter had been dismissed for failing to follow telephone scripts provided by EEC. Maxwell Hodge complained that rather than give the true reasons for the dismissal, the BBC instead intimated that the undercover reporter had been dismissed for asking customers if they had a burglar alarm, which gave viewers the unfair impression that EEC deliberately provided potential customers with limited information about the purpose of the phone call in order to effect a sale and take undue advantage of them.
e) The programme makers did not properly consider facts provided by EEC prior to broadcast:
i) The programme reported that an anonymous customer of EEC, had been “ripped off”. EEC complained the way the programme dealt with this issue was one-sided and did not provide a balanced consideration of the facts. In reality the customer, as with all customers, would have been given a price for the security product from a specified price list. The price was accepted, paid and the customer would have had 14 days to cancel or change their mind. The customer did not cancel the order, but 12 months later commented that they had been “ripped off”.
ii) The programme misrepresented EEC’s customer dealings with a customer named Mrs Pike and failed to accurately describe Mrs Pike’s existing agreement with EEC.
iii) The programme ignored information provided by EEC, prior to broadcast, about the changes which the company had made since the last Watchdog programme (broadcast in 2004). As a result the programme unfairly portrayed EEC’s current trading practices.
iv) The BBC did not reflect the extensive and detailed information provided by EEC prior to broadcast. This was evidenced by the programme’s use of wording such as: “ripping people off”, “done over”, “how did they get him to fall for that”, “big expensive burglar alarms” and “overpriced products”. The use of such wording was therefore unfair.
f) The programme made two unsubstantiated allegations about EEC, which EEC had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to. These allegations were:
i) “the company is at the forefront of selling…to customers…more than they need and charging more than they can afford”; and
ii) “the Police say the survey is designed to make people frightened”.
g) The programme makers sought an interview with Mr Ball at his work premises unannounced and whilst correspondence about the possibility of an interview with Mr Ball was still ongoing. Maxwell Hodge said this was unjustified and unfair.
h) The programme incorrectly and unfairly claimed that there had been no news from Mr Ball as to whether he was prepared to make changes to the EEC business. Maxwell Hodge said the BBC had been advised prior to broadcast that no response could be made until EEC had viewed the programme. Furthermore the BBC had already been informed that changes would be considered by Mr Ball.
i) The programme’s comment that EEC had been “ripping people off for 15 years” was not justified.0 -
Continued...
[FONT="]The BBC prefaced its response to EEC’s specific complaints by stating that although Fireguard and EEC were separate legal entities, the companies’ underlying interest was identical and that being the case, so too were their moral interests. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]a) Comments about the pricing of EEC products were unjustified and tainted by the use of expert witness Mr Dow[/FONT]
[FONT="]The BBC’s response to complaint[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] The BBC said Mr Dow was an expert witness listed on the Expert Witness Register used by the courts. In 1999, Mr Dow was retained by the court (at EEC’s request) as a defence expert during a case where eight employees of EEC had been tried for fraud under criminal law. The BBC said that Mr Dow is not and never has been a professional adviser to EEC.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The BBC noted that since 1999 EEC has subsequently changed its equipment, policies and practices. The BBC said that any inside knowledge Mr Dow may have had, therefore, was not only necessarily stale, but rendered obsolete by EEC’s own changes in both its equipment and its policies. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]In summary the BBC did not accept that Mr Dow’s necessarily outdated knowledge constituted a conflict of interest, and therefore there was no question of unfairness in broadcasting his opinion in the programme. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]b) The statement that Fireguard had been put into “liquidation” and that “out of the ashes” came EEC[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] The BBC queried whether comments made about Fireguard could result in unfairness to EEC and noted that to make such a complaint would appear to suggest that there is no practical difference between the two companies. Notwithstanding this, the BBC said the relevant programme narration did not result in unfairness to the complainant. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] The BBC said the relevant part of the programme did not leave viewers with an unfair impression of the company, as complained of by Maxwell Hodge. The BBC said that there was no necessary implication of impropriety by the programme’s use of the term “liquidation” as the term could include “voluntary liquidation”. The BBC explained that during such a procedure the directors of a company would make a statutory declaration of solvency. In relation to the phase “out of the ashes” the BBC said that one clear implication of such a phrase was that there was a link between the two companies. BBC said that EEC’s complaint made it clear that EEC took over at least some of Fireguard’s liabilities and Mr Ball is or was in control of both companies. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
c) The inclusion of comments by Mr Albert Mitchell
The BBC said the programme made clear that Mr Mitchell was an experienced salesman with other companies and was shocked by what he had heard from EEC’s senior staff during his training. Mr Mitchell decided to resign rather than put the methods demonstrated during his training into practice.
The BBC said that it did not understand how, had Mr Mitchell been on his own with a sales prospect, he could have learned anything further about EEC’s business practices.
d) The undercover reporter’s dismissal
The BBC said that the programme had not intimated that the undercover reporter had been fired for asking customers about burglar alarms (as complained of by EEC). The BBC said the programme showed the reporter being told by an EEC supervisor that he was fired for not sticking to the script. The BBC said the point about the burglar alarm had been included because it was one example of the reasons given to the reporter for his dismissal (i.e. an instance when the reporter had asked a potential customer if they had a burglar alarm, had been cited by the EEC supervisor as an example of how the reporter had not kept to the EEC telephone script).
e) The BBC responded to the complaint that the programme makers did not properly consider facts provided by EEC prior to broadcast, as follows:
i) Anonymous customer’s allegation of being “ripped off”
The BBC said it took steps to verify how much the anonymous customer had spent on his alarm system from EEC and had had the alarm system examined by security expert, Mr Dow. The programme reported that Mr Dow had found it to be “very, very overpriced”.
ii) EEC’s customer dealings with Mrs Pike
The BBC explained that the programme makers were provided with conflicting information from Mrs Pike’s son (who had power of attorney over Mrs Pike’s affairs) and from EEC. The BBC said it took due regard of all the information provided and gave a fair summary of the situation in the programme as broadcast when describing that for “Over 15 years Stella Pike has paid John Ball’s companies in excess of eighteen thousand pounds. They’ve refunded a third of that”.
iii) Unfair portrayal EEC’s current trading practices
The BBC said that it accepted that the company had made some minor changes to its operating procedures since it was last featured on Watchdog in 2004. However, the BBC maintained that the company did not make any fundamental changes to its business approach, as discovered by the programme research that was carried out three months immediately before transmission.
The BBC said the programme took due account of the changes made by Mr Ball’s company to his operating procedures.
iv) Reflection in programme of information provided prior to broadcast
The BBC said that the “extensive and detailed” information that was provided by EEC prior to broadcast was an attempt to bury the producers in excessive paperwork. The BBC stated that it fairly reported clear facts that were provided by the complainant prior to broadcast.
f) Unsubstantiated allegations without fair opportunity to respond
i) “the company is at the forefront of selling…to customers…more than they need and charging more than they can afford”.
The BBC said this point was put to EEC at least twice, once in a letter to the company dated 9 June 2006, the other during the programme’s interview with Mr Ball. The BBC said that on both occasions an appropriate opportunity to respond was given.
ii) “the Police say the survey is designed to make people frightened”.
The BBC said Mr Ball was asked this question directly during his interview. The question was based on Mr Alan McInnes’ assessment of EEC’s survey (Mr McInnes is a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers). The BBC said it was a direct question asked during an interview and maintained that Mr Ball had an adequate opportunity to respond to it.
g) Approach and timing of interview with Mr Ball
The BBC stated that it did not understand how the matters complained of might result in unfairness to EEC in the programme as broadcast.
The BBC acknowledged that the presenters called on Mr Ball unannounced, but noted that Mr Ball consented to an interview.
The BBC said the decision to approach Mr Ball was taken after careful consideration. The programme makers wished to ensure Mr Ball was given a full and adequate opportunity to respond to the issues it had uncovered, and the long letters sent by him to the programme makers dwelt on relatively minor points while ignoring the big issues. The BBC said the letters were typical of the pattern of obfuscation often seen in this kind of case.
The BBC said the fact that Mr Ball went ahead with an interview in such circumstances suggested strongly that he recognized it as a fair way to proceed.
h) Presentation of consideration of “changes to business”
The BBC noted that the relevant programme commentary stated:
Commentary: “There’s no news from John Ball about whether he’ll change any of his business practices or refund money to the customers Lynn and Esther met.”
The BBC said the programme makers asked Mr Ball in pre-transmission correspondence whether he would refund money to any of the customers featured in the programme and whether, in light of what the programme makers had told him, he would change any of EEC’s business practices. The replies (from EEC and Mr Ball) at no time accepted there were any shortcomings in EEC’s practices. The BBC maintained the script line was factually accurate and therefore fair.
i) “Ripping people off for 15 years”
The BBC stated that the programme demonstrated without a doubt that EEC customers had been sold overpriced equipment. As such the expression “ripping off” was entirely appropriate. The BBC said it could be easily demonstrated that this had been happening since the time the company started in 1991. The BBC noted that Mrs Pike had been a customer of EEC for 15 years and for the same period the BBC, Trading Standards and other authorities received related complaints about EEC.
Complainant’s response to the BBC’s statement
A summary of Maxwell Hodge’s comments is set out below:
In response to the BBC comments relating to the connection between Fireguard and EEC, Maxwell Hodge said that the broadcaster completely ignored the fact that no Fireguard customer suffered as a result of the decision to cease trading through Fireguard and indeed EEC took over all liabilities and responsibilities of Fireguard.
[FONT="]a) Comments about the pricing of EEC products were unjustified and tainted by the use of expert witness Mr Dow[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
Maxwell Hodge said the BBC’s statement was factually inaccurate in this regard. Mr Dow was not “retained by the Court” as stated by the BBC. Rather Mr Dow had been engaged and paid by the officers and employees of EEC during litigation proceedings. Maxwell Hodge listed the 17 reports which Mr Dow had been asked to write for the proceedings and maintained that the areas of business covered by the reports overlapped all areas that Mr Dow was asked to comment on by the programme makers of Old Dogs New Tricks. Maxwell Hodge said Mr Dow’s independence was clearly an issue which the BBC chose to ignore despite the matter being draw to their attention.
Maxwell Hodge maintained that the programme makers ignored explanations provided by EEC about costings and overheads, which affected the price at which EEC could afford to sell its products. It was also noted that Mr Dow was made aware when acting on behalf of EEC employees and officers that the overheads of EEC were very different to the majority of companies selling burglar alarms because of their direct sales costs. Similarly the programme makers ignored the fact that EEC clearly informed its customers of the price involved and provided them with fourteen days in which to cancel their orders.
b) The statement that Fireguard had been put “into liquidation” and that “out of the ashes” came EEC
Maxwell Hodge said the programme reference to putting Fireguard “into liquidation” was untrue and designed to show EEC in a bad light. Similarly the reference to EEC coming “out of the ashes” was a deliberate attempt to suggest that EEC was a ‘Phoenix’ company, i.e. a company which is known to have a bad reputation.
c) The inclusion of comments by Mr Albert Mitchell
Maxwell Hodge said that EEC was never given an opportunity to comment upon the allegations raised by Mr Albert Mitchell.
d) The undercover reporter’s dismissal
No additional comments.
e) In support of its complaint that the programme makers did not properly consider facts provided by EEC prior to broadcast, Maxwell Hodge made the following comments:
i) Anonymous customer’s allegation of being “ripped off”
No additional comments.
ii) EEC’s customer dealings with Mrs Pike
Maxwell Hodge maintained that the programme makers did not refer to the information provided by EEC about Ms Pike, in the programme as broadcast.
iii) Unfair portrayal EEC’s current trading practices
Maxwell Hodge also commented that the BBC appeared to contradict itself when stating that EEC had “made some minor changes to its operating procedures” since it was last featured on Watchdog in 2004, and earlier in the BBC statement, that EEC’s “sales procedures went through a complete re-write some two years ago”.
Maxwell Hodge noted that the final purchases of the two EEC customers examined in the programme pre-dated the last Watchdog programme of 2004.
iv) Reflection in programme of information provided prior to broadcast
Maxwell Hodge said the manner in which the BBC responded to this head of complaint implied that most of the paperwork that had been provided by EEC prior to broadcast had been ignored.
f) Unsubstantiated allegations without fair opportunity to respond
i) “the company is at the forefront of selling…to customers…more than they need and charging more than they can afford”.
Maxwell Hodge said EEC responded in full to all allegations put to it, but the BBC chose not to use those replies. EEC requested further information from the BBC in order that it might provide a full and informed response to some of the queries raised but EEC’s response was apparently not to the satisfaction of the BBC.
ii) “the Police say the survey is designed to make people frightened”.
Maxwell Hodge denied that Mr Ball chose to ignore this allegation during the interview and stated that the tone of the interview was such that Mr Ball was not given an opportunity to finish his sentence in response.
g) Approach and timing of interview with Mr Ball
Maxwell Hodge said the BBC’s statement ignored the fact that Mr Ball had not refused to give an interview prior to broadcast, but was awaiting clarification on information from the BBC which never arrived. The interview was therefore contrived and conducted in a manner which the BBC unilaterally decided upon. By turning up unannounced, they gave Mr Ball no real option but to participate. Had he refused to be interviewed at that stage no doubt the broadcast would have shown that refusal.
h) Presentation of consideration of “changes to business”
Maxwell Hodge said the BBC’s comment that there had been no news as to whether Mr Ball was prepared to make changes to the EEC business was factually incorrect. A letter from the complainant to the programme makers on 18 July 2006 fully explained that it would be misleading to change the EEC telesales script in the way suggested by the programme’s presenters, as to do so would be misleading. Maxwell Hodge noted that this explanation was not referred to in the programme.
i) “Ripping people off for 15 years”
Maxwell Hodge did not accept that the programme “demonstrated without a doubt” that EEC had sold over priced equipment, as claimed by the BBC.0 -
[FONT="]The BBC’s second statement in response to complaint[/FONT]
[FONT="]In summary, the BBC responded as follows: [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]a) The programme’s use of Mr Dow as an expert witness[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] Neither the BBC nor Mr Dow accepted that Mr Dow had a duty of confidentiality to Mr Ball and EEC. Mr Dow’s professional code of conduct did not preclude him from giving interviews or evidence that may not be in the interests of his former clients. His comments in the programme reflected his professional judgement in 2006, and what he said in 1999, in a very different context, had no bearing on the matter. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
The BBC referred to the information provided by EEC prior to broadcast about costings and overheads. The BBC said the information provided was “all bare assertion and was not “backed up by any evidence”.
[FONT="]b) The statement that Fireguard had been put into “liquidation” and that “out of the ashes” came EEC[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] The BBC maintained that the programme contained no suggestion that any customer had been disadvantaged (beyond being overcharged) by the demise of Fireguard. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
c) The inclusion of comments by Mr Albert Mitchell
No additional comments.
d) The undercover reporter’s dismissal
No additional comments.
e) i) Anonymous customer’s allegation of being “ripped off”
The BBC said the programme makers advised Mr Ball of the case of the anonymous caller in its letter of 9 June 2006. Mr Ball responded to the letter, seeking clarification on a number of points, but did not refer to the anonymous caller or ask for details which might enable him to identify the precise case. The BBC said that Mr Ball therefore did not respond appropriately, rather, he simply ignored it.
ii) EEC’s customer dealings with Mrs Pike
No additional comments.
iii) Unfair portrayal EEC’s current trading practices
The BBC said there was no reference in the programme to changes in operating procedures, which were, in any event, not the same as sales procedures.
iv) Reflection in programme of information provided prior to broadcast
No additional comments.
f) Unsubstantiated allegations without fair opportunity to respond
i) “the company is at the forefront of selling…to customers…more than they need and charging more than they can afford”.
No additional comments.
ii) “the Police say the survey is designed to make people frightened”.
The BBC disagreed that Mr Ball was not allowed to finish his response to the allegation during his interview at the EEC office.
g) Approach and timing of interview with Mr Ball
The BBC said the correspondence between the programme makers and EEC would demonstrate that all the material supplied by EEC was carefully considered. The BBC said that though much time was spent arguing the same points, there were key issues and allegations that were repeatedly not addressed, which was why the programme makers ultimately visited the company’s office.
h) Presentation of consideration of “changes to business”
The BBC maintained that the programme’s statement that “There’s no news from John Ball about whether he’ll change any of his business practices or refund money to the customers Lynn and Ester met” was accurate and fair, given the correspondence between the programme makers and EEC prior to broadcast.
i) “Ripping people off for 15 years”
No additional comments.
Decision
Ofcom’s statutory duties include the application, in the case of all television and radio services, of standards which provide adequate protection to members of the public and all other persons from unfair treatment in programmes included in such services.
In carrying out its duties, Ofcom has regard to the need to secure that the application of these standards is in the manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression. Ofcom is also obliged to have regard, in all cases, to the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed.
[FONT="]EEC[/FONT][FONT="]’s complaint was considered by Ofcom’s Executive Fairness Group. In reaching its decision, the Group had regard for a copy of the programme, the programme transcript, both parties’ written submissions (including supporting documents), and copies of relevant unedited programme recordings. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]a) Ofcom first considered EEC’s complaint that the programme statements, that EEC products were “wildly overpriced”, “ludicrous”, “outrageous” and that people were “done over” by EEC, were unfair. Maxwell Hodge said the comments could not be justified as they had been tainted: i) by the use of expert witness, Mr Dow; and ii) by the failure of the programme makers to deal with valid points made by EEC about its pricing structures. (It should be noted that Ofcom will consider the description “done over” at Head e) iv) below.) [/FONT]
In reaching its decision Ofcom took account of Practice 7.9 of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code which states that before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation.
Ofcom considered the two elements of this complaint in turn.
i) Ofcom noted that EEC had stated that it had informed the programme makers, prior to broadcast, that the programme’s use of Mr Dow as an expert witness caused a conflict of interest as he had once provided paid work for EEC, and was made privy to confidential information concerning the manner in which EEC operated, its products and pricing structures. Ofcom also noted from the correspondence between the parties that EEC believed that Mr Dow’s advice for this programme contradicted the advice provided by him in 1999 (when he provided his services to EEC).
Ofcom noted that it was agreed in the submissions provided by both parties that Mr Dow is a security consultant who has acted as an expert witness. Also that he has advised the Association of British Insurers and the National Security Inspectorate. In the circumstances, it is Ofcom’s opinion that Mr Dow was appropriately qualified to give his opinion as an ‘expert’ in the field. Ofcom noted that, in the programme as broadcast, Mr Dow was asked to inspect the security equipment which had been sold to the customers featured by the programme, and also to give his opinion about the value of that equipment.
Ofcom considered EEC’s submission that Mr Dow had once provided paid work for it, and as such it would unfair for the programme makers to rely on his “tainted” opinion, and had advised the programme makers as much prior to broadcast.
Ofcom considered that Mr Dow was an expert in his field. His specific knowledge of security matters qualified him to give advice to any individuals or organisations who sought it. In this instance, Ofcom did not see that any past employment with EEC would necessarily hinder his ability to lend his knowledge and expertise to the programme makers. Therefore it is Ofcom’s view that Mr Dow’s work history did not prevent him from acting as a security expert for the programme makers.
Ofcom also had regard to the complainant’s comments that Mr Dow’s opinion (as given in the programme as broadcast) appeared to contradict the advice he gave on EEC’s behalf in the past. Ofcom considered that it was not relevant that Mr Dow’s opinion of EEC’s product offering had developed or changed over a time span of seven years, because Mr Dow remained a current expert on security matters and as such was qualified to give his opinion in the programme as broadcast. In Ofcom’s view it was therefore not unfair for the programme makers to use Mr Dow’s opinion.
Taking these factors into account, Ofcom found that it was not unfair to EEC for the programme to include the expert opinion of Mr Dow.
ii) Ofcom next turned to EEC’s complaint that the programme makers failed to deal with valid points made by EEC about its pricing structures. Specifically that the programme makers ignored explanations provided by EEC about costings and overheads, which affected the price at which EEC could afford to sell its products.
[FONT="]In Ofcom’s opinion, the programme’s allegation, that EEC’s products were overpriced, was based on the assessment that the same products that EEC sold could be purchased for a much cheaper price elsewhere. In Ofcom’s [/FONT]0 -
-
Moral of this story?
Don't mess with Scousers.0 -
funny how judge16 responded saying they also worked for eec telling of how the training is, yes it is true they train u on camera so they can show ppl what there staff are doing and what there saying, but do u really think thats whats happening in peoples homes.
i used to go out with my manager into peoples homes, he used to basically play mind games to trick people into believing the rubbish that came out of his mouth.
it wouldnt suprise me one bit if judge16 is one of the managers there or even the director which i may ad is a complete tool. if someone could get a camera on him alone u could get the whole company shut down.
i was with him when i 1st started and he had an elderly women almost in tears frightening her about her electrical safety, she was saying no to the electric test for over an hour and a half, in the end she had to give in, obviously she cancelled her order...
if anyone is ever contacted by this company just put the phone down.
do not do business with them at all.
but also dont treat some of the sales reps poorly if u do decide to let them in, as there are some good lads working there.... which are looking for new jobs as they know what the company is like0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards