Consumer interest

You are currently browsing the archive for the Consumer interest category.

National Consumer Agency – No power but great bonuses

February 10, 2009 in Consumer interest, Regulatory Agencies by Anthony | 3 comments

Recently I had cause to ask some questions regarding property management companies on behalf of someone who is being ripped off by one of these mafia outfits.

I first checked out the website of the National Consumer Agency and came across the following on a question and answer pamphlet.

Are property management companies regulated?

No, property management companies are not regulated. However, the Government plans to introduce a law to set up a national property services regulatory authority in late 2007

(Yes, that’s 2007).

I next rang the NCA to make further enquiries and spoke to an obviously embarrassed spokesperson.

“Does the NCA have power to act against the mafia management companies?”

“No.”

“Has the Government introduced that legislation yet?”

“No, it’s still under consideration.”

“What government agency can a citizen approach to get action on these people?”

“The nearest you would get to a regulatory body would be the Private Residential Tenancies Board.”

“Do they have power over management companies?”

“I don’t think they do.” (So, he may just as well have recommended the Boy Scouts or The Legion of Mary).

“So, in effect, there’s no authority in the land with power to act against mafia management companies.”

“No.”

“What advice do you have for the many thousands of citizens being ripped off by these people?”

“Well, they could contact the Free Legal Aid Centre to check the legal situation.”

With immense self control I managed to politely thank the spokesperson and hung up.

But hey, it’s not all bad news. The head of NCA, Ann Fitzgerald, has just been paid a performance related bonus of €24,300 on top of her grotesque salary €186,891.

I say grotesque because, clearly, Ms. Fitzgerald has little interest in the welfare of those she is charged to protect.

For example, her organisation has a policy of not prosecuting car dealers found to be clocking cars. Despite the fact that this practice puts the lives of consumers at risk the NCA is of the opinion that such prosecutions would be too protracted.

(Cynical consumers could be forgiven for thinking that such prosecutions are avoided in order to keep the ‘performance related bonuses’ kitty in a healthy state).

Instead, criminal car dealers are politely asked to sign a formal undertaking not to clock cars again.

I can just see it now, ruthless car dealers all over the country throwing darts at their formal undertaking as they continue, with impunity, to put the lives of consumers at risk.

Copy to:
NCA

Share this:

Ticking bomb…

December 28, 2008 in Consumer interest, Government by Anthony | 1 comment

Ticking bomb warning.

Share this:

Nothing to do with us…

December 9, 2008 in Consumer interest, Regulatory Agencies by Anthony | 3 comments

The blame game has already started in the bacon crisis.

The Department of Agriculture said that monitoring the Millstream Recycling Plant fell within the remit of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA, in classic Irish logic, said that inspecting the factory up to now was not its responsibility as the agency had not licensed the plant.

Share this:

Is the FSAI doing deals?

November 20, 2008 in Consumer interest, Regulatory Agencies by Anthony | No comments

Joe Duffy and Liveline (Wed) have taken on the responsibility of protecting the public from danger because the so called Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) is adamantly refusing to do so.

The FSAI is refusing to name a company which was found to have had high levels of contamination in its bottled water nearly a year ago.

Innocent water bottle companies such as Tipperary Water, Uisce, Ballygown and several others are phoning the show to reassure the public of the quality of their product and to protect their business from further damage.

According to Joe Duffy, the FSAI is still refusing to name the guilty party and say they will never reveal the name of any company that they have reprimanded – because it wouldn’t be fair.

There was a new and crucial piece of informaton revealed on the show yesterday.

Four months ago the FSAI did name a company, Pure Springs of Monaghan; that had problems with the quality of their product.

This raises very serious questions. Why the selective naming – Are deals being done?

Previous post.

Copy to:
FSAI

Share this:

Consumers put in danger yet again

November 19, 2008 in Consumer interest, Corporate, Regulatory Agencies by Anthony | 3 comments

Yet another so called authority charged with protecting the interests of consumers has been found out.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) discovered high levels of contamination in bottled water nearly a year ago but decided not to tell the public. Whatever the motives of the FSAI, the actual effect was to put consumers in danger while protecting the manufacturer.

This is a similar strategy to that employed by the so called Financial Regulator. Through a combination of stonewalling and secrecy laws, financial institutions are protected at the expense of the consumer.

It should also be noted that, once again, consumers only found out about this scandal through the media which, effectively, provides the only means of information and protection to Irish citizens.

Copy to:
FSAI

Share this:

Royal taxi regulator

November 7, 2008 in Civil Service, Consumer interest, Regulatory Agencies by Anthony | 1 comment

It seems that a majority of taxi drivers are against the recent increase in fares imposed by the Taxi Regulator, Kathleen Doyle.

The matter was hotly discussed on Liveline during the week but despite numerous contacts from RTE the regulator refused to discuss the matter on air.

Ms. Doyle’s press office is as far as RTE got before being contemptuously pawned off to a public relations company. This is the modern day equivalent of asking the peasants to use the workman’s entrance.

Ms. Doyle is a public servant and therefore, in theory, should be accountable to consumers. There has been a disturbing tendency in recent times for people like Ms. Doyle to adopt a certain royal distance from the great unwashed.

When public servants adopt such arrogant attitudes consumers are entitled to form their own conclusions. Here’s how I imagine Ms. Doyle would address the general peasantry if she ever deigned to dismount from her high horse.

Dear Peasants,

I have been elevated to a position of great importance and therefore feel it is entirely inappropriate that I should deal directly with ordinary people.

I have therefore, at great expense to you, employed a public relations company to deal with all awkward questions from an impertinent media. All questions of a suitably respectful and non awkward nature will be dealt with by my underlings – eventually.

Of course, I do acknowledge and indeed, on rare occasions, feel a degree of gratitude, that my high status, large pay packet, very generous expenses and myriad other perks are all paid for out of your meagre resources.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of you the very best of luck in your struggles during the coming economic depression.

I would ask you not to worry too much about my prospects as I am guaranteed regular pay rises, total job security and a very generous pension on completion of my reign.

Yours etc.

(Note to private secretary: Make sure that fellow Duffy gets a copy, it might keep him quiet)

Copy to:
Taxi Regulator
Liveline

Share this:

National Lottery suspicions

August 28, 2008 in Consumer interest, Government, RTE by Anthony | 3 comments

The National Lottery has a new game called Millionaire Raffle. Tickets cost €20 each and the game is limited to 300,000 players. There are 532 prizes, the first two are for €1million; the next five pay €100,000 and prizes range downwards after that.

The first draw took place during the Rose of Tralee Festival last Tuesday but players are not at all happy with the manner in which the whole thing was organised.

Most of these 300,000 people tuned in to the show in the expectation of watching a live draw in which all their dreams might come true. Alas, it was not to be. The draw had actually taken place earlier that day, behind closed doors, at the National Lottery HQ in Dublin.

Photographers were dispatched to all the winning agents where photographs were taken and emailed to Tralee in preparation for the ‘live’ draw later that night. The ‘live’ draw turned out to be just the live ‘announcement’ of the winners.

Slick, efficient, great for RTE and the National Lottery but many callers into Liveline (Wed) were very suspicious of the whole deal. Derrick Davis said people thought there were victims of a three card trick. Many also expressed amazement that one of the €1million winners just happened to live in Tralee.

The whole episode has echoes of the National Sweepstakes operation of which I wrote about recently and the common denominator is state involvement and control. The corrupt Sweepstake, which for decades robbed countless millions from Irish citizens, was set up and run by the State, even the draws were supervised by a Garda Commissioner.

Consider the similarities with the National Lottery. RTE is a State organisation that practically acts as the promotional wing of the National Lottery. Curiously, a spokesperson for the Lottery didn’t know what financial arrangements existed between the NL and RTE for the Rose of Tralee.

The Dept. of Finance ‘regulates’ the activities of the NL, I wonder what arrangements are in place here. The State’s police are still involved with a Garda drawing tickets every week in company with a representative from KPMG. And most significantly, it’s a government minister (Martin Cullen, I think) who decides who benefits from lottery funds.

So, the State broadcaster, two government departments, the police force and an individual minister, all running or involved in the National Lottery. Sure, who could be suspicious of that?

Share this:

NRA promise: No surcharge on new toll system

August 26, 2008 in Consumer interest by Anthony | 1 comment

According to Hugh Creegan of the National Roads Authority (NRA) retailers will not impose a surcharge on motorists when they purchase their barrier free toll cards. For the record, here’s what Creegan said:

“No, there won’t be any surcharging; they’ll just be paying the statuary toll charge and nothing else. While it may be technically possible it won’t happen in practice.”

(RTE News, 4th report).

What Hugh means is that retailers are legally entitled, if they so decide, to skim off a little something for themselves under the new system. Hugh’s promise that it won’t happen in practice holds about as much credibility as a politician’s promise.

A few years ago when I went to purchase some credit for my mobile phone I was informed by an embarrassed shop assistant that there was a surcharge on the transaction. I told him that I would throw my phone in the sea rather than submit to such greedy extortion.

Motorists should adopt the same attitude when faced with the same rip off, as they inevitably will, despite Mr. Creegan’s promises.

Share this:

The untouchables

August 26, 2008 in Consumer interest, Fianna Fail, Regulatory Agencies by Anthony | 4 comments

According to the Sunday Tribune, Celia Larkin, Bertie Ahern’s ex-girlfriend, was paid almost €30,000 in fees and expenses for sitting on the board of the National Consumer Agency – a position she described as purely voluntary.

The NCA is a useless organisation that claims to act in the best interests of consumers but, for the most part, fails miserably in its mission.

This useless quango, which has a pitiful budget of €10 million, has a bloated board of 12 and has cost the taxpayer more than €330,000 in expenses and fees. Its chief executive, Ann Fitzgerald, is paid a disgracefully high wage of €182,333.

There is nothing new about this scandal. We know, and have known for years, that there are thousands of Irish citizens doing exactly what these people are doing – sucking the State dry of vital funds that could otherwise be used to benefit those who deserve help.

Does anybody really believe that Ahern, who appointed Larkin, is worried about these revelations, that he’s chewing his nails with worry about possible consequences? Is there anybody naïve enough to think that Larkin gives two damns what people think? Is there anybody fool enough to believe that there’s some state authority or some politician out there who will challenge these people, who will act in the interests of the people?

No, low grade people like Larkin and Ahern do not care what people think, they are confident that they operate in a jurisdiction where accountability is almost non existent, where they are practically untouchable.

None of this will change until the Irish people learn how to express their anger en masse – I’m not holding my breadth.

Copy to:
NCA
Fianna Fail

Share this:

Secrecy law remains unchallenged

May 2, 2008 in Banks & Finance, Consumer interest, IFSRA, RTE by Anthony | No comments

Mary O’Dea, Consumer Director at the Financial Regulator’s office was asked about the Bank of Ireland lap top scandal on Drivetime (8th minute) yesterday.

“It’s a matter we are investigating so I can’t go into the specific details with you.”

When she was asked how and what they were investigating O’Dea replied.

“I can’t; unfortunately, I’m prohibited by law from going into the details of the investigation.”

It was at this point that RTE presenter, Mary Wilson, should have challenged this civil servant with basic questions such as;

What law exactly are you basing your refusal to provide this information?

Are you absolutely sure that this law forbids you from informing Irish consumers of even the subject matter of your investigation?

Can you email a copy of this particular law to this programme so that we can have our legal team analyse its contents to confirm for our listeners that your interpretation of absolute secrecy is correct?

Is the Financial Regulator happy with this high level of secrecy surrounding its investigative activities?

Is the Financial Regulator happy with the fact that this law poses a serious disadvantage for consumers?

If the Financial Regulator is not happy with this law has there being any attempt to have it repealed?

Are you prepared to come on air again in the near future to defend your position regarding this secrecy law?

Unfortunately, Mary Wilson asked none of these questions and so, in effect, consumers have been let down by two state agencies.

Copy to:
Drivetime
Financial Regulator

Share this:

« Older entries § Newer entries »