[text deleted by forum team]

asbokid

GraceCourt wrote: »

if you make a payment via Paypal (even if you use a UK credit card) to a seller in Northern Ireland, you lose all of the consumer protection that you would otherwise have under

the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended by Reg.5 of The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002..

as well as your rights under S.75 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

You have got me completely baffled now!

The territorial extent of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 includes all countries of the United Kingdom, not least Northern Ireland.

You were disappointed with your purchases from a retailer in N.Ireland. Of course that's unfortunate. But why are you trying to discourage others from buying from the province? What's your gameplan? Are you trying to singlehandedly destroy the retail economy of the six counties?!

GraceCourt

asbokid wrote: »

I've never before heard of the business in question, but today its homepage certainly displays the business name and the business address in a banner at the bottom of the page.

The business is listed as being part of a group with two others. Without wishing to inflame you, they are quite nice websites, as well!

As such, the business is not "trading anonymously"...

Hi asbokid,

Yes, the business address and "trading style" are shown, but the problem is that whoever is behind the site is indeed trading anonymously. You can't take legal proceedings against an address or a trading style, only a person, partnership, or "body corporate" - for example, a limited company. Those details are required by law - see previous posts - and crucially they are missing from this site.

You won't inflame me... I completely agree that it's a nice site, but then so are many sites set up by scammers! :-) Put simply, the vast majority of genuine traders comply with domestic and EC legal requirements for Web sites, in the interests of consumer protection, and there's no reason why this one shouldn't - but it doesn't.

asbokid wrote: »

I'm not really sure what your grievance is here, but you got me curious over the Irish question...

I'm just being careful not to make assumptions over the application of the quoted legislation to Northern Ireland, because the devil is in the detail... for example, the Road Traffic Act 1988 generally applies to the UK, but Section 178 ("Taking motor vehicle without authority") applies only to Scotland, because Scotland has its own civil and criminal legal systems and neither the Theft Act 1968 nor the Theft Act 1978 apply there.

Apropos my comments above, if the quoted legislation does indeed apply in NI, then it's about time local Trading Standards enforced it in relation to this site and the anonymous trader behind it, to protect potential customers.

Thanks for the information subsequently provided about Small Claims in NI and the details of their equivalent of Money Claim Online... but even if I had known about that, I couldn't have used it, because this trader is anonymous - like I said, you cannot sue a trading name or style. And in respect of your comment that:

asbokid wrote: »

You were disappointed with your purchases from a retailer in N.Ireland...

... that rather understates the position... I was significantly out-of-pocket financially as well as disappointed, and my point is that I was - and still am - unable to enforce my consumer rights against this trader to recover these. However, I should add that my credit card company has since U-turned and offered an out-of-Court settlement after originally refusing to pay up, rather than be a joint defendant in EC Small Claims proceedings against Paypal in Luxembourg.

It's not often that MSE takes active steps to make it more difficult for a consumer to enforce their rights, but this is one of those occasions, because by censoring the thread they are protecting this trader's (unlawful) anonymity. However, I shall be patient, and bump this thread occasionally as a reminder that, in consumer protection as well as in politics (in the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis) "sunlight is the best disinfectant"! :-)

GraceCourt

... how is the investigation going?

When is the result likely? I hate to think that this company is going to carry on breaking the criminal law indefinitely (by trading anonymously in defiance of a consumer protection EC Directive and the corresponding domestic legislation) and yet remain anonymous simply because they have waved a big legal stick at MSE... that doesn't do your reputation as consumer rights champions any good at all, you know...

GraceCourt

GraceCourt wrote: »

... how is the investigation going?

When is the result likely? I hate to think that this company is going to carry on breaking the criminal law indefinitely (by trading anonymously in defiance of a consumer protection EC Directive and the corresponding domestic legislation) and yet remain anonymous simply because they have waved a big legal stick at MSE... that doesn't do your reputation as consumer rights champions any good at all, you know...

No update? This is looking awfully like censorship... however, it might be that the investigation is closed but the Mods just haven't gotten round to replacing the censored text. I shall assume that this is the case unless a Moderator posts a response in the next couple of days.

GraceCourt

GraceCourt wrote: »

however, it might be that the investigation is closed but the Mods just haven't gotten round to replacing the censored text. I shall assume that this is the case unless a Moderator posts a response in the next couple of days.

Now that the MSE investigation is concluded, and the original identity of the firm concerned is still missing, readers should note that the offender trading anonymously on the Web site referred to - despite this being a prima facie criminal offence under UK consumer protection legislation - is trading from:

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

I've checked the site again today and there is still only a trading style given... no details of the sole trader, partnership, or corporate entity actually behind the site. I will now forward a formal request to Trading Standards in Belfast to investigate this site and to prosecute those involved if there is sufficient evidence for this.

pmduk

I don't think the missing text is ever replaced in these circumstances

GraceCourt

pmduk wrote: »

I don't think the missing text is ever replaced in these circumstances

It's my only criticism of this site... MSE's "censorship" of factual and verifiable facts, at the unevidenced request of anyone seeking to cover up information that they'd rather keep quiet, even though it's true, seriously damages its reputation as a champion of consumer rights.


In this case, whoever is trading behind the name [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] is still trading beyond the reach of court proceedings, because he/she/it is anonymous, in contravention of the criminal law. Let's hope Belfast Trading Standards get their act together quickly...

GraceCourt

I have finally tracked down the names of the individuals behind this site, but astonishingly, (according to them) Trading Standards in Belfast do not have the resources to enforce compliance with the criminal law!

So, hopefully, you have found this posting through a Google search.... and if you need to take proceedings in the Northern Ireland County Court to enforce your consumer rights, you need to commence proceedings against [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]the two partners behind the trading style. There is no incorporated company and the two partners trade with personal liability.

I have to say that although this isn't the first time law enforcement has taken a back seat to financial cut-backs, this is the first time I've known Trading Standards to condone someone trading anonymously so that their customers cannot enforce their legal rights when the trader won't fulfil their legal responsibilities. This must be something peculiar to Northern Ireland... at least, I hope so.

And black marks to MoneySavingExpert, for - in this case - assisting these two in trying to remain anonymous... the whole point of the law in requiring traders to be identified is for consumer protection, and up until now, I had understood MSE to be on the side of consumers, as well. One hopes that the Moderators will respond with an explanation.

GraceCourt

GraceCourt wrote: »

One hopes that the Moderators will respond with an explanation.

Nope... no explanation... just censorship!

Proof that MSE is not really the consumer champion that it claims to be... one wonders about what other aspects of its claimed objectivity are as reliable as fairy gold... melting away in the glare of real scrutiny...?

GraceCourt

If you read the last couple of posts, you will no longer be able to see the names of the two individuals trading illegally and anonymously behind their trading style from an address in Belfast, because - yes, you guessed it! - the MSE moderators have redacted all of the detail from this thread as well.

So, you can't sue if this bunch rip you off - you don't have the names to put on the County Court (or NI equivalent) claim... MSE has decided that it's just bad luck for you, because they have a policy that personal details cannot be posted... even the details of people who won't comply with consumer protection legislation, and don't need to because Belfast Trading Standards can't afford to do anything about it.

The thing that really worries me is that neither the MSE moderators nor Belfast Trading Standards see any problem with this situation. Is it just me? Dear MSE Forum readers, please record your thoughts here on this madness... I thought that this site was supposed to assist the folks that get ripped-off, not the baddies!