MSE News: Retail ombudsman service launches today

unholyangel

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

Hi there,

Thank you for your comments regarding the story on The Retail Ombudsman (TRO).

MSE specifically asked TRO whether it's decision is final or whether complainants would be able to take further legal action (as is the case with other Ombudsman schemes). It initially told us that its decision is binding on the parties and it is final, so if either party was not happy with the outcome, they could not take the complaint to court.

However, once the story was published, TRO got in touch to say it had given us incorrect information and that once a decision had been made, if it's not accepted, it could be pursued though the courts. As a result the story was changed after ConsumerGuy0016 posted a reply to the article.

I'm going to get in touch with TRO on Monday morning to triple check this point.

Many thanks, MSE Paloma.

Thanks for that paloma,

could you also check what the actual basis of the company is, how it is set up, what their code of conduct is, how they are going to base their decisions.

And of course ask them why they would send out a press release stating if consumers didnt win, they'd be bound by their decision.

If they're making simple mistakes over basic stuff like that, I dread to think what others they'll make!

Former_MSE_Paloma

Hi unholyangel,

We researched TRO since it first announced the scheme at the beginning of December. It has been set up with BIS and Trading Standards Institute has also been involved. Both have confirmed their involvement with TRO.

From my understanding, once a complaint is received, it gets allocated to a caseworker who looks at the evidence from both parties. As you say, it does have a code of conduct which meets the criteria set out by the Ombudsman Association but I'll raise your points with TRO and those from earlier posts on Monday.

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

wealdroam

Dear TRO, can please explain in greater detail how your latest statement actually works?

For clarification, I mean this statement:

If the consumer doesn’t win can they go to court afterwards?

If the consumer agrees to be bound by the decision of the caseworker or ombudsman, they cannot then go to court at a later date.

However, if they disagree with the decision of the caseworker or ombudsman, they can either appeal it and then take it to court if the appeal fails. Or by-pass the appeal process and go straight to court.

I am particularly interested in the sentence "If the consumer agrees to be bound by the decision of the caseworker or ombudsman, they cannot then go to court at a later date".

Are you really saying that it is perfectly ok for you, TRO, to get a consumer to sign away their statutory rights?

That practice is specifically outlawed by The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, where Schedule 2 of that legislation lists terms that may be considered unfair.

Paragraph 1(q) therein states:

(q) excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

I look forward to your next update to your press release.

hollydays

I'd like to ask them if all the retailers they have put links to on their site to HAVE actually " signed up" , as you say on the mse article

"The Retail Ombudsman (TRO) is believed to be the first alternative dispute resolution scheme in the retail sector and it already has 3,000 retailers signed up as members."


Several of their names are misspelt and a code of conduct usually refers to the membership conditions .I find it hard to believe they would allow their names to be promoted on there under these circumstances.

Also the furniture ombudsman ,for example ,also exists so they are not the first.

giraffe69

An ombudsman or public advocate is usually appointed by the government or by parliament, but with a significant degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

Doesn't seem to me that using the word "ombudsman" to describe this service, whatever its supposed merits, is anything but a way to seek to con people into thinking the service has a status it doesn't.

hollydays

giraffe69 wrote: »

An ombudsman or public advocate is usually appointed by the government or by parliament, but with a significant degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

Doesn't seem to me that using the word "ombudsman" to describe this service, whatever its supposed merits, is anything but a way to seek to con people into thinking the service has a status it doesn't.

I thought that at first too, think in a way I still do. There is also the organization the furniture ombudsman , is that not a similar idea?
The bit I find distasteful is the addition the owner seems to refer to himself as " the retail ombudsman" , rather than it being a company.

hollydays

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

Hi unholyangel,

We researched TRO since it first announced the scheme at the beginning of December. It has been set up with BIS and Trading Standards Institute has also been involved. Both have confirmed their involvement with TRO.

From my understanding, once a complaint is received, it gets allocated to a caseworker who looks at the evidence from both parties. As you say, it does have a code of conduct which meets the criteria set out by the Ombudsman Association but I'll raise your points with TRO and those from earlier posts on Monday.

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

So you've seen the code of conduct?

real1314

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

Hi unholyangel,

We researched TRO since it first announced the scheme at the beginning of December. It has been set up with BIS and Trading Standards Institute has also been involved. Both have confirmed their involvement with TRO.

From my understanding, once a complaint is received, it gets allocated to a caseworker who looks at the evidence from both parties. As you say, it does have a code of conduct which meets the criteria set out by the Ombudsman Association but I'll raise your points with TRO and those from earlier posts on Monday.

Kind regards, MSE Paloma

When you say "set up with" BIS and TSI are "involved", what exactly does that mean?
Are those agencies backing this "company" as a retail regulator? Or are they just involved in the same way that they might be in advising any retail company?

Also, you quoted the "binding decision" bit initially, but it's very disappointing that you did this without any proper checking. Anyone with a modicum of legal knowledge understands that contract law cannot ever over-ride statute.
By suggesting that the decision could be binding, you are implying a statutory basis for this company, which is completely incorrect. They are little more than a mediation service paid for by retailers.

A very disappointing article, which in the interests of consumers should probably be removed.

cookie365

This has all the hallmarks of churnalism - regurgitating press releases with the minimum of actual journalistic investigation.

And if MSE claims to have researched the story since December, how come wealdroam and unholyangel were able to figure out who ran the company in less than 3 hours?

Honestly, these days I use MSE for the forums and nothing else. The editorial content is valueless.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I don't think I will bother with this "ombudsman".

I will stick with the traditional method of serving a notice before action and dealing with a matter through the small claims court.