GHD hair irons safety case result

mirandamayhem

don't really know where to put this. Put it in discussions, but don't think many people on here visit there often.
For anyone who got faulty irons from GHD you might be interested to know

Date: 17 May 2006
A Yorkshire based company whose haircare products are widely used in professional salons appeared before Cirencester Magistrates Court this week to face charges of supplying electrical products which were unsafe.

Jemella Ltd. of Bradford, West Yorkshire, the company behind the ghd ("good hair day") brand, pleaded guilty on 15 May to two offences of selling ceramic hair straightening irons which failed to comply with strict safety laws intended to protect consumers from the hazards of electrocution.

The prosecution brought by Gloucestershire County Council Trading Standards Service followed a complaint made by a Gloucester resident in January 2003 who had been alarmed to see flames and sparks coming from the product after the power cord failed.

As a result of the complaint, the Trading Standards Service commissioned an expert electrical safety report on the consumer's irons and two pairs of irons it subsequently purchased. In all three cases the experts reported that the irons failed to comply with the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations.

The product, which retails for around £90 and is only sold over the internet and through salons, is imported into the UK by Jemella from Korea.

The Trading Standards Service brought proceedings in January 2004 but for two years the company mounted a legal challenge to the case. It was only on the first day of what was to be a five-day trial before Cirencester Magistrates Court that the company finally accepted that their product breached safety standards.

In passing sentence, Deputy District Judge Champion remarked that the case involved potentially serious breaches of safety standards which could give rise to a serious hazard for the user and that the company must have been aware of the problems. He also remarked that Jemella had fought the case at every corner when prosecution expert reports clearly showed a breach of the law. Judge Champion fined the company £2,250 on each of the two charges and took the unusual step of requiring Jemella to pay the Trading Standards Service its full prosecution costs of £35,705.

Roger Marles, Head of Trading Standards, said: 'This service takes complaints about electrical safety extremely seriously. Where the circumstances require it, we will prosecute companies that flout the law. In this case, there was substantial evidence of a breach of safety legislation. These were very expensive items and consumers should quite rightly expect the products they buy to be safe.'

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/glos/newsitem.cgi?file=prss0302.txt

JoeyEmma

Interesting. I had a pair that did exactly that- smoke and sparks came out of the cord. They were 13 months old at the time, a month out of warranty.

I bought another pair straight away.

Astaroth

I think it is amuzing that they only were fined £2,250 but had to pay 15 times that if costs.... under normal rules costs have to be inline with the loss so you cant spend £5m in costs to claim back £100 of losses.

Wonder when the anti-bank charges crew will start saying that they should appeal against the £35,000 of costs and just pay the reasonable £2,250 fine

liz_uk

My hair salon had a duff pair early last year.. They sparked and smoked and gave my hairdresser an electric shock.

Can`t wait to show her the OP !

trisontana

I think the reason the costs were so high was because the company wasted two years trying to defend the indefensibly. As this paragraph from the news report shows :-

"The Trading Standards Service brought proceedings in January 2004 but for two years the company mounted a legal challenge to the case. It was only on the first day of what was to be a five-day trial before Cirencester Magistrates Court that the company finally accepted that their product breached safety standards."

Astaroth

The main difference is that civil law -v- criminal/ corporate etc - hence why the case goes to the magistrates court rather than the county court.

As a general question though... given the company was only fined £2,250 it does strongly suggest that the courts didnt consider the breaches to be that significant (though if someone knows what the limits are on these fines it would be interesting) and therefore was it truely worth trading standards spending £35k+ on pursuing them or could what is government money have been better spent on more serious things?

mirandamayhem

Astaroth wrote:

The main difference is that civil law -v- criminal/ corporate etc - hence why the case goes to the magistrates court rather than the county court.

As a general question though... given the company was only fined £2,250 it does strongly suggest that the courts didnt consider the breaches to be that significant (though if someone knows what the limits are on these fines it would be interesting) and therefore was it truely worth trading standards spending £35k+ on pursuing them or could what is government money have been better spent on more serious things?

They were given the maximum fines that they could be, is my understanding of it.
The thing is it was a serious issue. And it wouldn't have been £35k if GHD had just recalled the product in the first place.

bookworm1363

Just came across this, a mere few weeks after I had sent my daughter's straighteners back for the very same fault. They 1st said that it was normal wear and tear, and that if I wanted it fixed, I should pay £23. When I pointed out the Sales of good act etc..., they promptly fixed them FOC... I can't believe they had the nerve to say this AFTER they had had judgment against them for that very same problem!!!

bookworm1363

Astaroth wrote:

As a general question though... given the company was only fined £2,250 it does strongly suggest that the courts didnt consider the breaches to be that significant (though if someone knows what the limits are on these fines it would be interesting) and therefore was it truely worth trading standards spending £35k+ on pursuing them ?

Well, that's what TS do, so it's part of their budget, that's their job. Was it worth it?
Considering that the bleeding thing could had shot up in flames in my daughter's hair or face instead of her hand, and that the company knew of the fault and yet did nothing about a potentially life-threatening item, I'd say yes, it was money extremely well spent.

And in the end, they got reimbursed their costs, so even more so!

lushkat

I wasnt aware of this, and last week I sent a pair of GHDs back to be repaired at the cost of £23 which I have paid. They had sparks coming from the power cord, but the warranty period had ended.

What should I have said regarding the Sale of Goods Act, bookworm? And what are my chances now of getting my money back? I havent received the irons back yet?

Astaroth

bookworm1363 wrote:

Well, that's what TS do, so it's part of their budget, that's their job. Was it worth it?
Considering that the bleeding thing could had shot up in flames in my daughter's hair or face instead of her hand, and that the company knew of the fault and yet did nothing about a potentially life-threatening item, I'd say yes, it was money extremely well spent.

And in the end, they got reimbursed their costs, so even more so!

I am not saying it isnt worth it but £35k for costs and a max fine only being £2250 seems wrong to me. Either the level of costs is known and therefore "factored in" to the fine (which it shouldnt be) or the fine is simply inadequate... these arent a minor company and if they had just admitted issue in the first place would a £2250 fine really have been a deterant to any company? Certainly wouldnt have caught the headlines. Hell, we have reduced a single persons price by more than this on our price match promise.

Was there any form of injunction or forced action applied with the judgement too or is it purely a £2250 fine? If it is just a fine I would suggest that the level of deterent that it will be the money could be spent better somewhere else.