Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
Every day many companies go into receivership,liquidation,administration or insolvency of one form or another.This can effect anything from an individual man/woman or small/medium business to multi nationals. But do you think that there is sufficient protection provided for the consumer, with the Law's dealing with this matter as they stand at present.
What would you suggest.
if you see me in the queue in front of you - back off as every firm i deal with seems to go bust leaving me in the lurch - :(
Jonah!!! abandon ship. ;(
Yes, but not everyone can afford to pay over £100 for each item bought or each transaction. There is no protection below this sum from your card company.
Therefore you should be prepared to lose £100 or do not buy...very simple really.
Taking up the point of credit card transactions and perhaps certain finance agreements, you may well have some protection within Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, but not everything (in everyday life) can be financed that way. Take for instant the recent FarePak Voucher issue. Many people of perhaps very limited means, subscribing to a form of 'savings' fund, only to find that their money is no longer available. In that particular case, a number of High Street well known names are offering to put money into a central fund, so as to perhaps help some very needy people. One person who also offered to support this fund to the tune of £100.000 of his own personal funds is a now ex-director of FarePak.
Taking this a step further, there are a number finance houses and bank's who are trying to get Section 75 abolished. And if they succeed, then that will provide even less protection for the consumer.Having had personal experiences of using Section 75,I can honestly say that the finance providers will fight you all the way,in the hope that your ignorance will prevail at the end of the day.
I have been looking through a number of documents dealing with 'bankruptcies', and some of the particulars make very interesting reading. In one particular case, a company that as filed for recent 'bankruptcies', owes many thousands of pounds both in money and in deposited goods to its customers. This company and its director had no less than 170 complaints that were reported to the Trading Standards.The Trading Standards stated that they could do very little, before or after the event, due to Data Protection Regulations and present law.
In the past, I have mentioned that I was personally involved on three different occasions with companies that had gone bust. Two of these companies were providers of computer equipment, and in both cases the director's of these two companies never lost out financially or otherwise. Many of their previous customers did. Returning back to the case of the company with no less than 170 complaints mentioned above. The director involved lives in a 2 million plus home in an 'exclusive' area. Drives around in a top of the range vehicle, belongs to a selected members golf club, yet states that he devastated for his past clients, and he wished he could do more for them. The house (which he is a tenant)
, car and all the other trimmings do not belong to him, but to another company, which fortunately he holds a directorship and majority shareholding.I am not saying this person or any other director of a 'bust' as committed any unlawful acts. They have worked within the laws provided, hence my original question: Do you think there is sufficient protection for the consumer....
Anyone who subscribes to something like Farepak needs their head examining: it locks you into one supplier of goods and it's not regulated by the FSA so there are no guarantees - as the Farepak families have found to their cost - that your money is safe. I feel sorry for them, but that kind of fund is a disaster waiting to happen.
'Anyone wanting to register a company selling anything to the public has to lodge a cash deposit equal to their planned turnover so that people can be compensated if the firm goes bust'...two minutes study of basic economics would show that this is not possible.
I am sure that the people that put CASH into Farepak would have realised that they would lose everything if the company went bust...this is not rocket science and they would ahve been much betetr puttign the cash into a bank account where they would have received interest; if they cannot trust themselves to do that then they are at the mercy of others.
I also am heartily tired of hearing the creditors whining on endlessly about how much money they have lost in Farepak, they have lost a Christmas...that is all, one day. Pensioners who have seen their pension funds go bust have lost everything for life.
Gandalf, you're bang on about the pensions fiasco.
that some people expect to have all of life's wrinkles smoothed out for them, so they can sail along, doing anything and everything without any sense of responsibility for their own actions.
Let's get real about this, and understand that when we enter into a financial contract of any description there's just a little whiff of risk in the air, and being adults we need to understand that sometimes things go wrong. They don't go wrong that often, because as a society we have introduced layers of legislative protection for people who are naive, greedy, impetuous, dilatory, blindly trusting, or just plain stupid. Our consumer-protection legislation is probably the best in the world, and most eventualities are covered.
Occasionally we hear of people losing out - particularly when a company goes bust - but there's no way that we can legislate to ensure that such people don't lose their money; it simply can't be done, and no sensible society should expect it to be done. We must all accept that there will be times when we're on our own, and have to fend for ourselves.
The people who paid money to FarePak weren't subscribing to "a form of savings fund' by the way. Had that been the case FarePak would have been regulated by the FSA, and the customers would have been better protected. Technically these people were paying deposits against future purchases, and that's why they've lost their money - Farepak didn't need to be FSA regulated.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.