The Complaining Cow follows up on her Rip Off Britain advice
When purchasing items online it’s easy to get carried away when you see what you think is a bargain. But make sure you know where you are buying from and what your rights are before you part with your money, especially if the retailer is outside the EU.
If you paid extra for speedier delivery and it wasn’t delivered on time, you are entitled to this cost back. If the item is faulty (regardless of whether it is a bespoke item) you should not have to pay return postage and you should be refunded the full cost of any postage paid for sending the item to you. These regulations were put into place in the UK under an EU Directive and therefore you have this cover for purchasing all items online within the EU.
If the item costs over a £100 and you pay by credit card you will also have cover under Section 75A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which is worldwide. Notify the credit card provider if you get no redress from the retailer.
For items paid for using your bank debit card you may be able to use Chargeback. It is a voluntary scheme based on scheme rules set by card issuers such as Mastercard and Visa.
You also have cover when shopping with PayPal. However, completing a credit card transaction through a thirdparty payment service means that the credit card provider and the seller are no longer in a direct relationship, so are not equally liable. This applies therefore to services such as PayPal, Amazon Marketplace, Worldpay and Google Checkout. So you don’t have any credit card cover if you use these kind of services.
Rip Off Britain
On the Pop Up segment of Rip Off Britain I heard the case of Kathy, who ordered a dress online but didn’t realise the website was based in, and the product would be delivered from, China. The dress was not as described and was of poor quality. The company would not refund the postage costs. Their website however does say that “However you need to pay the return shipping fee on your own if there is no quality issue.”
As there was a quality issue I advised Kathy it would be worth arguing again that it was of poor quality. I suggested sending an email and including a picture from the website alongside a picture of what was received, as evidence, plus a description of the differences between any description of the item and what was actually received. I don’t know whether she did this so I don’t know the outcome.
That’s all she could do. So take care when ordering online!
How to spot a non UK website
The website only lists prices in US dollars or Euros.
Look for terms and conditions of returns.
Check for poor English. For example on this website in the “Rip Off Britain” case below was the grammatically incorrect phrase “item have stain”.
Search for the return address.
A website domain name is not always an indication of where the company is based. For example, a website address ending in .co.uk doesn’t necessarily mean the site is based in the UK
If you need help with a purchase bought from within the EU you can contact the European Consumer Centre who should be able to assist you.
The outage – what happened?
01 June 2018 – the country came to a standstill. Well almost. It did at shops, garages, restaurants, tolls…. Over 95% of debit cards are run on the Visa network. And on a Friday, roughly between 2.30pm and 10.30pm, whilst people were trying to get home, treat themselves to a meal out, use the cashpoint, buy travel tickets, get ready for the weekend… Visa stopped working. People couldn’t get money, couldn’t pay for anything and some later found that where they had tried several times to pay for something, then paid for cash, that money had left their account.
Visa said “The issue was the result of a hardware failure. We have no reason to believe this was associated with any unauthorised access or malicious event.”
The problems were in the back-end payment processing system. Normally the trader takes a customer’s card payment and then the Visa system liaises between the trader’s and customer’s banks to enable the payment to be taken. On Friday this all went down, intermittently. It even affected some Mastercard customers.
Our goal is to ensure all Visa cards work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Due to a systems failure, we fell well short of this today. We apologise to all our partners & especially to Visa cardholders. We’re currently operating at close to normal levels. https://t.co/JGlzs8anbI
What to do if affected?
A Visa spokesperson said: “The technical issue we experienced has been resolved. Our network is working normally. If you attempted a Visa transaction that did not complete as a result of this issue, you should not be charged.
A small number of cardholders may have pending transactions that could be limiting their spending ability. We are working with your banks to resolve this.”
Usually, when things go wrong with a payment you would contact the company with whom you have a contract. So, for example if you buy a jumper from a shop and it has taken two payments you would contact the shop.
However, Visa has stated that customers affected by the issues should contact their banks. There is still confusion around regarding what you should do. But in reality, given the current advice (which is not much) from Visa and banks you should contact your bank in the first instance.
Visa made a statement on Twitter on 02 June 2018. It has not tweeted since (as of 07 June 2018) except to respond to all queries with details for the customer services team.
We’re aware some cardholders may have pending transactions that could be limiting their spending ability. We are working with your banks to resolve this. You should not be charged for transactions that did not complete https://t.co/UNLaJHixV7
In order to claim you will need to show copies of the transactions and any other evidence to show it was failure and should not have gone through. You should have been given a “receipt” to show that the transaction was cancelled. In the case of online purchases, you won’t necessarily have this but you will have a copy of the actual purchase if it finally went through. Show the copy of the receipt from where you paid in cash too.
You should allow 7 days for pending transactions to leave from your account. So it may be worth you checking with your bank to speed up the cancellation of any pending ones.
You should also send copies of anything that proves you were left out of pocket too. So for example, phone calls regarding the issue, bank charges because you went overdrawn due to the bank taking too much money etc.
If you don’t get satisfaction form the bank’s customer service, or let’s face it they are going to be a bit busy and you want to get to the front of the queue you can contact the CEO. Contact details for banks can be found here on the ceoemail.com website. You won’t get a response from the CEO but it will be escalated to his or her team.
There has been much discussion, including calls for the CEO of Visa Europe to face questions from Parliament. Nicky Morgan the Treasury Committee chairman wrote to the Visa CEO asking a number of questions. Visa has until 15 June 2018 to respond. After this time if the responses are not satisfactory Morgan has said that the CEO, Charlotte Hogg may be requested to provide oral evidence.
Hogg has been asked:
To explain what is being done to prevent anything like this happening again.
To specify how many cards were affected once the issue was resolved.
If any customers had money leave from their accounts despite the transactions not being completed. (We now know that they have so the question should be how many).
If both customers and businesses will receive compensation due to the inconvenience. (It is worth noting that many businesses lost huge amounts of money in lost trade and they will more than likely seek to claim their losses. Whether Visa will publicly announce their plans to do this or wait for customers and businesses to request this to lessen the amount they pay out remains to be seen!)
Visa and humour
Whilst thousands of consumers and businesses struggled on Friday some people used the issue to show off some brilliant wit! I love these:
At petrol station when #VISA went down. Bloke b4 me had no cash so they asked him to return+pay tomorrow. Said he would. Asked him 4 his phone 4 insurance. He said no. Asked for his name. He said “dave”. Didn’t take his plate, surname or address. Pretty sure he’s not going back
I wrote a shopping list, which for this section was:
6 tomatoes loose
6 tomatoes in packaging
500g cherry tomatoes loose
500g cherry tomatoes in box
seedless grapes 500g loose
seedless grapes 500g in box
250g mushrooms loose
250g mushrooms in box
3 peppers loose
3 peppers in plastic wrap
A cauliflower in plastic wrap
6 gala apples loose
pack of gala apples
6 pink lady apples
bag of pink lady apples
Pack of avocados
4 baking potatoes
bag of baking potatoes
We then bought the items at nine different supermarkets and retail outlets.
We found that biggest discrepancy in prices was with peppers. Here are the prices of 3 peppers bought loose and 3 peppers in plastic wrap.
3 peppers loose
3 peppers in plastic
M & S
In Marks and Spencer, peppers are the same price whether in plastic or not and actually 5p cheaper when bought loose in Waitrose. All the other supermarkets charge more for loose peppers, the worst culprit is the Co-Op where peppers are 51% cheaper in plastic.
Whilst we may expect to pay more for convenience, Emma Maslin from The Money Whisperer blog is frustrated that not only is most fruit and veg sold packaged, she also ends up having to buy more than she needs. “Co-op is my local convenience store and the place I tend to go for my mid-week top up shops when I need a few bits or have run out of something unexpectedly. If I want to pop in if I’m missing a pepper for a meal, or a piece of fruit for a lunchbox at the end of the week, I find it disappointing that most fruit and veg is sold packaged and not loose.”
Marks and Spencer and Waitrose led the way again with Gala apples. It was cheaper to buy them loose than in a packet. At the other end of the scale Tesco charges 24% to buy them loose than in a bag. Close on Tesco heels is Asda selling them at 23% more and Morrisons at 19%.
6 gala apples loose
Bag of 6 gala apples
M & S
Ethylene is released by fruits and vegetables which stimulates ripening and spoilage of produce nearby. This starts a chain reaction and can contribute to food waste. So if you have a rotting item of fruit stored with other fruit it will speed up their rotting. Most of us know that bananas of course will speed up the ripening/over ripening of fruit hence the banana holders! So supermarkets say that they need to package to prolong life. More work needs to be done to determine the food waste due to people buying more than they need and the damaging effects of plastics in the environment.
With this in mind it is hard to understand the lack of consistency in loose and packaging prices within and across supermarkets. Why can one supermarket make loose apples cheaper than packaged but not another supermarket?
Here is the situation with the humble baking potato, whether it comes loose or bagged:
Baking potatoes loose per kilo
Baking potatoes bag per kilo
M & S
Despite Tesco and Morrisons both charging more for plasticated peppers and apples than for loose, they both charge less (Tesco 30%, Morrisons 23%) for loose baking potatoes than for bagged ones! Lidl charge a whopping 47% less for loose potatoes compared with the bagged ones.
Marks and Spencer and Waitrose are the opposite! They both charge more for loose potatoes than bagged!
This becomes all the more confusing when checking supermarkets for overall prices.
Items available loose
Items available packaged
Items cheaper loose
Items cheaper packaged
M & S
Lidl, Aldi and Asda offered the fewest loose alternatives compared to packaged items.
Oddly many supermarkets offer grapes “loose” when in fact they still come in a bag as opposed to a box. None of the bloggers were able to understand why a cauliflower needs to come in open plastic either! I don’t think they are alone!
Michelle, who blogs as Utterlyscrummy and shopped at Asda, was disappointed with the lack of loose fruit, and especially vegetables, there. Eileen at YourMoneySorted researched Lidl and added “I am a huge fan of Lidl, because they offer really great value for money. However, doing this has really emphasised to me how few options there are to buy loose food, thereby making it more difficult to choose more environmentally friendly options.”
The money bloggers armed with their lists also found difficulty comparing like with like in some cases.
Faith at Much More With Less said “Principles are expensive! It’s frustrating when some packs are labelled with cost per item, like per apple, rather than per kilo, making it more difficult to compare prices. I was surprised how much food was cheaper wrapped in plastic packaging than when sold loose.”
The money bloggers looked at the deli counters where available and compared the prices of counter products with fridge prices and the types of packaging used. At the counter fish, meat and cheeses are displayed without packaging. Is there then a need to add plastic?
The shopping list for this section was:
Tuna 220g – steak fridge and counter
Prawns 200g – coldwater fridge and freezer
Cod fillets 250g – fridge and counter
Mature cheddar – 500g fridge and counter
Stilton – 200g fridge and counter
Ham cooked – 125g fridge and counter
Sausages – 454g 8 sausages fridge and counter
Here are the results of the mystery shopping for those items:
Items available at counter
Items packaged in fridge
Items cheaper from counter
Items cheaper from fridge
The products tended, in general, to be cheaper from the deli counter. However, is this less packaging and do the supermarkets do as much as they can to reduce the packaging further? The money bloggers asked staff at the counters if they could bring and use their own packaging. The answers were a little bemusing:
Tesco said they wouldn’t allow it.
Sainsbury’s said that if someone wants to use their own containers they can do so. But to avoid cross contamination they would have to weigh the items on plastic wrap, and it would then be thrown away. That would use the same amount of plastic as if someone hadn’t brought their own container.
Morrisons said it would be fine to bring in boxes. The counter staff would weigh food on their scales, then provide a sticker with the relevant info and hand over food to put in my boxes. It wasn’t clear if they would use plastic here or the trays.
Waitrose said they wouldn’t allow it.
Cross contamination was cited as a reason for not allowing customers to use their own containers or having to use plastic. But it wasn’t clear why different boxes couldn’t be put on one piece of paper on the scales.
Bizarrely the research also threw up an unexpected issue for Jamie from ThriftyMummaThriftyBubba, who shopped at Aldi. “As a family we regularly shop at Aldi and like the low prices without compromising quality. Unfortunately, the Aldi staff in the 3 separate stores I visited were unable to give me the price per kilo of individual items. They were also reluctant to let me weigh an individual item on the till which would have allowed me to work out the price per kilo myself. They also had no idea if Aldi HQ would have this information. So, who knows if it truly is better value for money or not because I couldn’t compare price by weight in store!”
Waitrose came out best for prices, which were cheaper for buying loose than packaged. The other supermarkets were as bad as each other and the statistics on prices were mainly hindered by lack of availability of certain products.
All the supermarkets sold more packaged items than loose items.
Emma Bradley from MumsSavvySavings who shopped at Sainsbury’s was shocked at how much cheaper the packaged items were. Emma Drew from EmmaDrew has started to make a conscious effort to cut back on my plastic use, but found that sticking to a grocery budget meant that it isn’t always possible. “I am surprised at how much cheaper pre-packaged foods, with extra plastic, are than the alternatives. I would love to see supermarkets using less plastic, and making what plastic they do use recyclable.
So, which supermarket is better at encouraging consumers to buy loose rather than in packaging, where the item was available to buy both loose and packaged? Catherine from The Money Panel feels Waitrose still has a long way to go despite leading in the price of loose compared to packaged. It is still selling many more packaged fruit and vegetables than loose. “As a family we always shop at Waitrose because we love the quality of the food. I do get very frustrated at the amount of packaging I recycle within minutes of unpacking our order. It’s a huge waste.”
Ruth from RuthmakesMoney, who looked at Marks and Spencer, says “As I’m usually cooking just for myself, I find it hugely frustrating that it’s so often much cheaper and easier to buy a pack of items like peppers rather than buying them individually. It sometimes feels like waste is inevitable. I’d love to see supermarkets offering more items in smaller quantities, whilst cutting down on unnecessary packaging.”
All the supermarkets were asked to comment on our findings:
Morrisons said “It’s not an easy issue as the plastic on fruit and veg also has the function of preserving it and avoiding food waste. We’re working through it” and referred me to their statement on packaging.
Marks and Spencer said “On what M&S is doing on packaging and waste, we have a number of commitments and initiatives under way in these areas. (More details on their site).
Aldi commented “Aldi’s model is based on simplicity and efficiency, which creates operational cost savings which are passed on to customers in the form of low prices. Aldi does not have scales in its stores and loose fruit and veg is priced per item. Customers can purchase some of Aldi’s best-selling fruit and veg lines (by volume) in loose form including bananas, potatoes and peppers. Earlier this year Aldi announced a comprehensive plan to reduce plastic, including a commitment that all packaging on its own-label products will be recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2022”
Sainsbury’s said “We’re focused on offering our customers choice, quality and value. We will offer fruit and veg without packaging where we can, as long as it doesn’t compromise the quality and shelf life of the product. We’re also committed to ensuring our packaging is as recyclable as it can be and are one of few retailers to invest in recycling facilities at many of our supermarkets. In addition, we’re a member of the UK Plastics Pact and have committed to meeting collective targets by 2025.” (More details on their website).
Our colleagues also allow customers to use their own containers. As our colleagues explained in store, before we transfer the product to a customer’s container, we use a small amount of plastic to weigh and transfer the items for safety reasons.”
The Daily Mail asked the supermarkets for comment. Many of them said that the research wasn’t comparing like with like because some products were bigger than others! This is twaddle. Items were compared by weight! The reason I asked the bloggers to weigh everything was so that it WAS a fair comparison. (Rolling eyes emoticon!)
Lidl, get this, apparently said that they sell red peppers loose and the packaged ones were different colours! The price of a red pepper? 59p Pack of three coloured peppers? 95p So they are actually saying that a yellow or green pepper would be half the price of a red one?! They were all the same price in every other supermarket! Clutching at straws? And I don’t suppose they are environmentally friendly ones either!
The most bizarre of all?
This week I had my Tesco order delivered. In my order were parsnips, cauliflower, carrots and onions. Tesco uses brown recyclable bags for fruit and veg. For no apparent reason, they were all put into separate plastic bags inside the brown paper bag. I cannot fathom why? Any suggestions?
So what can be done?
In January of this year, Theresa May committed to the UK eliminating avoidable plastic waste by 2042. This target, more than a generation away, has been widely criticised by environmental groups as “lacking urgency”. UK supermarkets still pay less for collecting and recycling their plastic waste than in any other European country! Tax payers pick up 90% of the costs.
Most of the supermarkets have signed up to a voluntary pact, whose promises include removing “problematic or unnecessary” single-use plastic by 2025, making 100% of plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable, with 70% effectively recycled or composted and all plastic packaging to include 30% average recycled content. None of this is enforceable.
In March of this year the world’s first “plastic-free” aisle opened in the Netherlands. Launched by the Dutch chain Ekoplaza in Amsterdam, the aisle will offer over 700 products with no plastic packaging. UK consumers and campaigners are calling for UK supermarkets here to do the same, but no supermarket has agreed to do this yet. It appears to be consumer pressure that gets thing moving in the industry. It is therefore up to us, as consumers, to keep up that pressure and get the change that’s so clearly needed.
If you want to contact a CEO to tell them what you think of their policies you can find their contact detail on ceoemail.com.
More than 2.8 million pounds uncollected in annual fines
Britain’s personal data watchdog has failed to collect millions in fines for breaches of the Data Protection Act (DPA).
The Information Commissioners Officer (ICO) is responsible for enforcing the DPA and new GDPR regulations, which come into force today (25 May 2018). Figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests by me show:
The total sum of fines issued under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR) for each of the last three financial years is:
2015-16 – £2,529,250
2017-18 – £4,809,700
But how much of this was actually received?
2015-16 – £748,100
2016-17 – £1,938,600
2017-18 – £1,923,655
So, in the most recent year, for example the ICO has failed to collect more than 60% of the fines it has imposed, for a total of more than 2.8 million pounds.
Whilst the total of fines has been increasing, the collection rate has been decreasing. The ICO is keen to point out that there are several factors that have an impact on the difference between the total amount fined and the total amount paid for each financial year.
GDPR means more cash for the ICO
According to the law, companies and other organisations must register with the ICO and pay an annual fee for the privilege. Dewdney has uncovered how the ICO will benefit financially from the new GDPR rules. Last year (2017/18) £21,299,976 was raised in data protection fees income. The projected data protection fee income for this year (i.e. financial year 2018/19) is £32,341,250. This represents an uplift of £11,041,274.
74% of the ICO’s income will be spent on salaries, that’s a massive £24,983,045 for around 400 staff!
Support for businesses
Although generally good news for consumers (Ten ways GDPR will help consumers) the ICO faces widespread criticism of its handling of the new GDPR legislation. Despite the massive hike in projected income and increase in staff, big business and sole traders alike are frustrated by the lack of support and consistent advice on the new data privacy law.
We are all seeing an increase of emails requesting consent to keep recipients on their mailing list which are unnecessary where they already have our permission. Laura Light, blogger at savings4savvymums is one of many sole traders who is frustrated by all the conflicting advice. “I was on the phone last week asking about opt-ins to then be told by a different advisor the info I was told was wrong! They need to get their facts straight and stick to them. How on earth can anyone be expected to get it right when the ICO doesn’t even know what’s right?” Naomi was left on hold for 1 hour 4o minutes before being cut off and then again for nearly two hours when she rung the ICO. To say nothing of the ICO website being down for most of the day yesterday!
Why is a registration fee needed?
Naomi Willis of Skint Dad, a small business, questions the need for a fee: “The whole idea of GDPR is that everyone should be doing it. I don’t therefore understand why most need to pay a fee to the ICO. Having a fee is just putting people off from following the new legislation. It’s not like the money has gone on any support!”
Jumping on the GDPR bandwagon
Unnecessary costs for small organisations
The cost of GDPR is hitting business across the board, especially in not-for-profit sector. Already strapped for cash schools and local authorities must spend thousands of pounds on privacy staff and external advice but are not being given any extra funding to do so.
ICO is making sole traders postal addresses public! For most sole traders this is their home address making them vulnerable to a number of issues. The ICO does not have to make these home addresses public. But, the ICO said ““Even though it is no longer a legal requirement under the GDPR, the ICO will continue to publish a register of data controllers because we recognise there is a public interest in transparency and accessibility. It is important that data subjects have a clear way to contact data controllers and to exercise their legal rights. Being a data controller represents responsibilities, one of which is to be easily accessible to data subjects. We will be publishing the postal addresses of data controllers, including sole traders. We will not be asking for consent to do so but we will be advising them that they can provide a PO Box address instead if they wish to do so.”
I think Naomi sums it up perfectly. “Information we need to provide must be “concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible” but the ICO seem to be having a hard job of doing this themselves! What I’ve seen from them is long winded, full of holes, late and the information on their site goes around in circles, let alone having a chance to speak to a human for support!”
Time perhaps for the ICO to get its own house in order before it starts looking at fining businesses?
 A spokesperson for the ICO said that "If the Commissioner receives full payment of the monetary penalty within 28 calendar days of the notice being sent, the Commissioner will reduce the monetary penalty by 20%.
Secondly, ongoing or successful appeals against a CMP will delay, or negate, the amount of CMP to be paid. In some cases, appeals to the FTT can lead to the reduction in the amount organisations are required to repay.
In addition, each monetary penalty notice issued will define a timeframe in which the CMP should be paid, which will be a period of at least 28 calendar days beginning the first day after the monetary penalty notice has been served. Therefore, in more recent cases, although a monetary penalty notice has been issued, payment may not yet have been made.”
It’s 2018 and 8 years since the implementation of the Equality Act 2010. You may be forgiven for thinking that companies and organisations had got their act together and were ensuring that all services were accessible. However, recent investigations into London Underground (LU) show there is much work to be done to improve services.
Let’s look at just one case. Last year Alison travelled from Walthamstow Central to Oxford Circus on the Underground with her sister-in-law Claire. Alison’s guide dog is not escalator trained. At most Underground stations, there is a choice of escalators or stairs. At Oxford Circus there are three escalators but no stairs or lift. A fellow passenger saw that they needed help and offered her assistance in carrying the guide dog up the escalator.
Claire then went onto St Paul’s where a member of LU staff told her to ‘phone customer services and inform them of time of travel back as it may be possible to stop the escalator so they could walk down. After ten minutes on hold, Claire gave up. At Oxford Circus another member of staff also said it may be possible to stop the escalator but at the discretion of the station manager. Alison needed to get back to Kings Cross but the Station Manager refused to stop the escalator as 5.00pm was a busy period. The nearest station was Green Park and not convenient. Alison and Claire got a cab to Kings Cross where the driver waived part of the fare.
“Switching off one out of three possible escalators to allow a blind passenger with their guide dog to walk down would not have caused any inconvenience to other passengers as they still would have had the option to walk down or wait for an escalator. The time that it would have taken us to walk down the escalator would have been approximately five minutes, however this was deemed too inconvenient” says Claire.
A recent poll on Facebook showed overwhelmingly that the general public agreed with her. People were asked if they would object to one of the 3 escalators being stopped for five minutes to allow an untrained guide dog and its owner to walk up or down the stairs.
Others, although significantly outnumbered said they would object were worried about overcrowding and safety, particularly at this station.
However, others were just as pragmatic, saying little different to finding an escalator broken.
A tube driver who wanted to remain anonymous said “To be honest, they seem more interested in targets and budgets rather than caring for the safety of customers, most outside tube stations are left unstaffed with just a phone number to call for help, how is that caring?”
There is certainly some confusion regarding policies and what if any of this is part of any training staff have to ensure everyone has the same message and treats people equally. The Accessible Network 2015 document states “We provide our customers with alternative travel arrangements, if needed, when lifts or escalators are out of service. This may mean a taxi provided at our cost.” So not if they are working but can’t be used?
Transport for London also states in Help from Staff that “On the Tube, TfL Rail and Overground, station staff will also accompany you to the train and help you on board and, if needed, can arrange for you to be met at your destination. Anyone can use this service, but it is particularly used by blind and visually impaired passengers and people using boarding ramps onto trains.”
The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination. A company must make adaptions for people with disabilities where possible. Here it was possible? Even if the escalator could not have been stopped where was a member of staff to carry the dog to enable a disabled person to use the services?
The TFL underground policy with regards assistance dogs which are not trained to use escalators and believe restricting disabled passengers to non busy travelling times is discriminatory and therefore illegal. The Transport for London’s People with sight or hearing loss policy states that station staff will help find an alternative route however the alternative route suggested would have been a further distance away from the required destination and they gave no further help.
As a result of the service Alison and Claire incurred a black cab fare of £12.60 and despite paying money onto an Oyster card, did not make the journey from Oxford Circus to Kings Cross.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Alison is entitled to receive services carried out with reasonable skill and care. 1) The customer services line clearly does not have enough people to deal with calls, 2) staff from two different stations said that they should be able to stop the escalator showing a lack of training across customer facing staff 3) no alternative was provided and service was refused. This was refused on grounds of disability which is a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
Claire wrote to TFL about the issues and after chasing twice finally got a response from London Transport over three weeks later. She received an apology and the cab fare.
When I asked the Transport for London Press Office for some clarity regarding their policies regarding stopping escalators for untrained guide dogs, stations able and unable to do this and providing taxi fares, it took 8 days to find out saying that it had had to “…co-ordinate with a lot of different areas in the business which has taken some time”, indicating that there is not a clear understanding across the network. In a statement it said:
“We want blind and visually impaired people to be able to travel around London with confidence and we are putting more staff than ever before in the public areas of stations to provide assistance. Assistance dogs are very much welcome and for a number of years we’ve been working with Guide Dogs to provide a training package so that guide dogs can use escalators.
When a customer travels on the network with their assistance dog, they will usually be helped to access the platform via a staircase or lift. If the station only has an escalator, assistance dogs that have been trained can use that.
For their safety, dogs that haven’t been trained should, if at all possible, be carried. Where this option is not possible, a member of staff can stop the escalator to help a blind or visually impaired person and their dog walk up or down safely.
At some times of day the Tube can be very busy, so there may be occasions when, to avoid overcrowding, we are unable to stop an escalator. In that case our staff will offer blind or visually impaired customers a taxi.”
I emailed the London Transport Commissioner asking for comment on the following:
1) Why it took over 3 weeks to receive a reply.
2) There was not a thorough investigation as clearly shown by the very brief email from Vernon. Every single paragraph is a standard one and does not refer to the individual case in any shape or form other than a sentence acknowledging that a taxi should have been paid for.
3) The policies referred to in the letter were not mentioned at all. Where is any comment regarding the breaches?
4) No reference is made to the unacceptable length of time Ms Williams was left on the phone before giving up, please provide an explanation for this time and what you will be doing to improve wait times
5) No reference is made at all to identifying members of staff despite being provided with dates and times or how you will ensure staff provide correct information in future. “I will make sure our staff are reminded of our policy and apply it”. How, what parts and how will they apply it and over what period of time?
6) Vernon states that LT is not in breach of the Equality Act but makes no reference to staff providing differing information and not providing an alternative and how this does not breach the Act. How is this not a breach?
7) Vernon makes no reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the breach by not providing services with reasonable skill and care. Please do so.
8) Why weren’t these points answered in the email Ms Williams finally received?
The response? Back came the Managing Director, Customers, Communication and Technology.
“I am very sorry that you that you do not consider my response to have been timely and that I have failed to cover all of your points.
All I can add is that we are committed to making public transport accessible to all Londoners, backed up by record investment in new step-free station schemes and better information and other support to give people with disabilities greater confidence to use our services. We are also human and sometimes make mistakes, as we did in this case.”
As you can see from the extent of the above, London Transport does not appear to investigate complaints properly, does little to help disabled passengers and nothing to ensure that what help there is, is widely communicated to both staff and passengers.
Share your stories of transport and discrimination in the comments below. I have a feeling that there will be a few….