Ofcom tightens rules against mis-selling practices

bealtine

Ofcom tightens rules against mis-selling practices Tuesday 17 March 2009

UK regulator Ofcom unveiled new proposals to stamp out slamming and other forms of mis-selling in the fixed-line market. The regulator also confirmed the introduction of new rules to stop misleading sales practices in the mobile market. Slamming, where a consumer is switched to another provider without their knowledge and/or consent, is the most complained about issue to Ofcom in the fixed-line market, averaging almost 1,000 complaints each month over the last year. In the mobile market, Ofcom receives a large number of general mis-selling complaints where consumers have been given false or misleading information when purchasing services. Despite the introduction of a voluntary code of practice in July 2007 in the mobile sector, Ofcom said it had not seen a significant reduction in consumer complaints, prompting the regulator to introduce the new rules.

Under the proposed new rules for the fixed-line market, communications providers would have to keep better records, including voice recordings of all telephone conversations relating to sales. Better quality records will assist Ofcom in taking enforcement action against providers that are engaging in mis-selling. Ofcom also proposes to simplify the regulations by explicitly banning mis-selling under the General Conditions, the set of rules to which all communications providers have to adhere. Communications providers breaking the rules could ultimately be fined up to 10 percent of relevant turnover. The proposed new rules would require communications providers to give better information to consumers by reminding them that there may be consequences from switching, such as possible termination charges for leaving a contract early. Ofcom opened a public consultation on the new rules, and comments can be submitted until 27 May.

For the mobile market, the new rules will come into force in September 2009 after which Ofcom will start an enforcement programme to monitor communications providers. If providers breach the rules they could be fined up to 10 percent of relevant turnover. The rules state that providers must not engage in dishonest, misleading or deceptive conduct and put provisions in place to ensure that those selling their products and services similarly do not mis-sell; make sure the customer intends and is authorised to enter into a contract; make sure consumers get the information they need at the point of sale; make sure that the terms and conditions of cash back deals offered by their retailers are not unduly restrictive; and carry out certain due diligence checks in respect of their retailers.

thebman

Wow, rules that actually help people. I thought that was fiction, maybe its just this country.

bealtine

thebman wrote: »

Wow, rules that actually help people. I thought that was fiction, maybe its just this country.

You only get rules that help people in countries that have a regulator. We, of course, do not have any regulator just some remote district branch of eircom that folds bits of paper, counts paper clips and collects money for old rope. A job 4 students could do part time in their holidays.

Having denied that they will do the same here (would mean thinking and defying their monetary masters) we can see that they are useful as your average ashtray on a motorbike. They need to be reformed root and branch or better yet abolished and a real regulator installed.

crawler

We already have a lot of what is said above along with the potential to enforce them.

The communications (amendment) act 2007

thebman

crawler wrote: »

We already have a lot of what is said above along with the potential to enforce them.

The communications (amendment) act 2007

If it isn't enforced, it doesn't exist or might as well not exist.

That is the government saying we tried and washing their hands of it when they know the regulator is a joke but won't reform it because that would involve actual work.

crawler

thebman wrote: »

If it isn't enforced, it doesn't exist or might as well not exist.

That is the government saying we tried and washing their hands of it when they know the regulator is a joke but won't reform it because that would involve actual work.

I was only making the point the legislation existed like any rule/legality/act etc - teeth only hurt if you are actually bitten by them.

bealtine

crawler wrote: »

We already have a lot of what is said above along with the potential to enforce them.

The communications (amendment) act 2007

How long are they in force now...2 years.

I'd hate to have been holding my breath waiting all this time for something to happen...too many paper clips to count I suppose:)

bealtine

crawler wrote: »

teeth only hurt if you are actually bitten by them.

Dentures anybody?

thebman

We need to send them one of these to do the work for them:
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/1/b/7/5/1194983915745485782chomper_charles_mccolm_01.svg.hi.png