Trading standards involvement and 'summons'

[skytecuk]

Dear All;

I run a small family online business. Over Christmas we had a number of issues with supply on products which became incredibly popular.
This flood of mainstream orders (we're quite a niche company), swamped us, and the delivery delays caused huge difficulties in managing orders and communicating with customers.

Trading Standards has contacted me, citing a number of complaints from Nov- Jan- the period we found very difficult.

They relate to orders not received - from what I can understand. Although, most if not all of these will now have been rectified. I maintain we did everything possible to keep people informed, but some did have long delays. I know I shouldn't make excuses, but honestly, I questioned human nature from the behaviour of some of our customers during this time which was nothing short of foul.

I have asked for more information and they cite Regulation 3 - Professional Diligence as a possible breach. Furthermore there may be grounds for breach on misinformation- which I will strongly contest.

Is there any preparation one should do for this meeting in particular? I note some people end up in battles with T/S and I would like this to be as painless as possible and move the business forward.

On my conscience, and as well as for my general wellbeing, I don't want a repeat of the stress from that period, and I have already implemented steps to ensure this doesn't happen.

The meeting is causing me a fair amount of stress, especially as the officer involved seems to quote chapter and verse in all dealings via email so far. I have been extremely cooperative so far, and yet he keeps labouring the point about his powers and the implications of not being cooperative, which doesn't help the anxiety.

 

[kulture]

I always like to see if I can move the goalposts. To see if I can change the objectives and indeed the meeting as a whole to my agenda rather than their agenda.

I would look at every aspect to see what I could sensibly change to increase my comfort against their comfort.

Starting with location. You say "summoned" does this mean that they expect you to go to their office, where you will automatically feel at a disadvantage. If so I would say that you are too busy, and it would in any case be better for the meeting to be held at your premises where you have available any and all documentation/details that they may require. You will inevitably feel better in your own location.

Secondly agenda. Personally I would try to shift the focus of the meeting from what went wrong in the past, to what is being done to ensure it cannot go wrong again, and what further steps you are taking to improve still further. Try to get TS to advise and agree with your steps, rather than letting them pour scorn over the past. You could try to do this by producing a document summarising what went wrong, what you did at the time, what could have been improved by what you did, what you learnt, what you are doing now, what you plan to try to do in the future, and ask what suggestions TS may have. Then send this in prior to the meeting and have a covering letter asking that the agenda of the meeting should cover the future and what you can do to ensure no repeat of this problem.

Then in the meeting, if the TS try to stick to their original agenda, you just say, I have covered all this in my document and I would rather focus on getting it right in the future. You should try and get them wrong footed. It would be very difficult for them to refuse to advise and help you get things right. You cannot change the past. Every time they drag up a past problem, try and re-focus them back to the present and future saying why that cannot happen again and ask for their help/advice on the process that ensures it will not be repeated.

Also do not forget the simple things. Even down to the arrangement of the meeting room. Sit behind a desk, have all the details to hand. If you want to be really petty have your desk full with information and leave the TS guy with no room to perch his paperwork, this will automatically make him uncomfortable.

Above all else, be confident. You are honest, you want to provide a good service, and at the end of the day TS should want to encourage good businesses. You SHOULD be on the same side.

 

[kulture]

I would even be tempted to refuse to have any meeting UNLESS it was to my agenda which is how to do better from now and in the future. They would look bad if they refused to do this. There is little point having a meeting simply to drag up the unchangeable past.

 

[eventdomain]

They relate to orders not received

Don't sweat it - as long as you deliver what was promised - they can't haul you into ridiculous meetings. As long as you didn't do something illegal eg: non-delivery of a service, then you are perfectly safe.

Its just a few having a moan because of late delivery - just deliver their goods, inform TS with proof of delivery and forget about it.

Fire off emails (with proof of delivery) to all customers telling them that goods were dispatched.

 

[Andrew46]

Without knowing the detail, it does sound as though the Trading Standards official is on a mission. The "charge" against you appears to relate to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made
Reg. 3 states that "unfair commercial practices" are prohibited. A commercial practice is unfair if it contravenes the requirements of "professional diligence" and materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product.
This regulation is about stopping such practices and you will get an idea of the type of practices by looking at the list of outlawed practices in Sched 1 of the regulations.
In my view this regulation is not about mere delay in delivering orders, unless you deliberately or recklessly misled customers about delivery dates which I'm sure is not the case.
It is probably better to co-operate and show you are on top of the situation and have delivered all or nearly all outstanding orders.

 

[The Resolver]

It would only be a breach of Regulation 3 if you represented a delivery period knowing full well, or where the circumstances are such that you ought to have known, at the time you made the representation that you could not satisfy that delivery promise.

There is no power with TS to require your attendance. I presume you have been invited to a meeting but if its inconvenient you can suggest other forms of communication. I would be happy to set you up, at no charge, with a casefile on my company's dispute resolution platform (www.modria.com) where you and the TS can enter into an online discussion with posting of documents etc and if you do not reach a resolution I will be prepared to mediate on the matter using the same platform. I will raise no charge even for the mediation. I will explain it to TS. Just PM me if you wish me to set this up.

 

[paulears]

The added benefit to Graham's offer is that the introduction of a 3rd party makes the Trading Standards department realise you are serious in defending your action. Rwally nice of him to offer!

 

[skytecuk]

Just a quick line so far to thank you all very much indeed for your input on this. It really has been very helpful and has changed my attitudes about this meeting in a much more positive way. I will post updates here and any further queries... Your input would always be gratefully received!

 

[skytecuk]

Just a quick addition to this. I mentioned we run this as a husband and wife team; this led to the officer asking for my wife's details and contact information, saying he will need to speak to her too. I explained she is not a director. However, he insists he needs her information, has given a deadline for this, and has cited numerous rules regarding if one "intentionally obstructs an officer of an enforcement Authority in pursuance of these regulations".

I didn't want to involve her- she has enough stress at the moment. Is it necessary?

 

[arcon5]

How many customers and what sort of money are we talking here? He can quote this & that but I wonder, realistically how likely is he to take it to court? I'd be inclined to offer him an interview a your premises with you as the director and tell him you will not be providing him with details of staff members - cite data protection act or something.

 

[Marketing King]

What ever you do do not under estimate trading standards .They have rules of their own which don't come under criminal law.THey will not help you they never do they are there for the customer infact their focus is to fine as many as they can ( companies)that's how they survive.I have had my run in with them and was not criminally charged but they took a civil case against me and won.Trust me get a solicitor they have no rules none at all.....

 

[arcon5]

Can you give more details about the case brought against you...

I also had them contact me a couple of times a few years ago in writing, this was a time I was so snowed under with work and wasn't answering the phone... I didn't respond to them and never heard anything more from them after that

 

[Marketing King]

They don't play fair trust me they don't and everyone on here can tell you what they like but once they get their teeth into you they don't stop biting.The bloke who wants to help you take his offer up it can only help you.Get a good solicitor cause no matter how little they are accusing you off they don't have same rules if they go to civil court.My case was the first of its kind I had 6 people within my company working as commission reps and they brought us all to court.Once in court they are not bothered about the customers they just want a RESULT ... To cut a very long story short I was charged with conspiracy to defraud( I never sold anything) the total cost was £14.768.75p...Now this is what I mean criminally I would have got a telling off and maybe a fine for not looking after my staff better but no I got given a custodial sentence ... 2 years and that was with me not selling anything as my reps did and there were 6 others involved.The customers will not get any of their money back ( even if they were supposed to) as now I have no company and wait for it a criminal record because they put a PROCEEDS OF CRIME ON ME .... Of which I cannot pay so its like a debt never to be paid... I am not saying what my company did wasn't slack but that's all it was.. My point being THEY ARE SLIMEY TOADS...
And before any one judges me you want to see THEIR UNUSED EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T USE....

 

[ClubberLang]

If you refuse to have a voluntary meeting then they can ask you to a formal PACE (recorded interview) -which is still voluntary unless they have you arrested - in which case you say no comment if you still don't want to talk.

For a matter like this an arrest is probably unlikely. That is usually saved for 'proper criminals'.

If you refuse the voluntary PACE interview then they can prosecute you anyway - the interview is partly your chance to give your side of the story but if you refuse then its no skin off their nose. There is no need for them to HAVE to have an interview with you if they can prove the offence.

If you really feel it was a one off and there is no wrong doing on your part then just go to the meeting. If you are asked for a tape recorded interview then seek legal advice.

As a general point - if they have a lot of complaints about you how do you expect them to resolve it without knowing the full facts? If you can demonstrate it was out of your control and you want to comply then it is unlikely they will take formal action.

Finally their powers are listed in the legislation already quoted - they have powers to enter premises and take copies of or seized goods/documents. Said powers override the Data Protection Act and it can be an offence to obstruct an officer.

 

[ClubberLang]

They don't play fair trust me they don't and everyone on here can tell you what they like but once they get their teeth into you they don't stop biting.The bloke who wants to help you take his offer up it can only help you.Get a good solicitor cause no matter how little they are accusing you off they don't have same rules if they go to civil court.My case was the first of its kind I had 6 people within my company working as commission reps and they brought us all to court.Once in court they are not bothered about the customers they just want a RESULT ... To cut a very long story short I was charged with conspiracy to defraud( I never sold anything) the total cost was £14.768.75p...Now this is what I mean criminally I would have got a telling off and maybe a fine for not looking after my staff better but no I got given a custodial sentence ... 2 years and that was with me not selling anything as my reps did and there were 6 others involved.The customers will not get any of their money back ( even if they were supposed to) as now I have no company and wait for it a criminal record because they put a PROCEEDS OF CRIME ON ME .... Of which I cannot pay so its like a debt never to be paid... I am not saying what my company did wasn't slack but that's all it was.. My point being THEY ARE SLIMEY TOADS...
And before any one judges me you want to see THEIR UNUSED EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T USE....

You got sent down for 2 years and had a POCA taken out against you and you did nothing wrong?

Sales reps on commission and you were slack...why do I feel like an awful lot of consumers got ripped off by your business?

 

[ClubberLang]

Thought I would mention 2 more things..

The second poster talks about talking about the future - I agree that it is worth putting a positive spin on things and it really depends what the TS officer wants to achieve - don't forget that te poitn of the criminal law is to punish past behaviour. If your business has raised a lot of complaints then they will want to resolve it one way or the other

As mentioned there is not offence for issues with delivery outside of your control but there will be for taking orders when you had reason to know you couldn't deliver them

 

[paulears]

Trading standards is a local authority department charged with protecting the public using available legislation. It's not some code of practice or advisory body, so their ultimate sanction is to use civil, not criminal law to prosecute offenders - criminal action involves the police and is a different beast. In this case, they seem to believe that a prosecution, based on evidence is the ONLY solution to whatever the problem is. Most civil cases are resolved out of court - this one seems to be talked about in big brother v poor persecuted businessman. We're talking about refusing to meet them, unwillingness to be recorded and to me, this surely must be the last line before court. A customer or customers presumably want something that the business cannot provide. We have no idea what it is, or what sums are involved. Bad publicity in most cases means that even if you eventually win, it's a hollow victory - a trader winning generates a couple of sentences in the paper, if that! Losing generates paragraphs and a permanant Google record!

To me, in this position I'd be faced with the decision of no matter what the reasons - did I do something illegal? If I did, then settle it quickly. If I didn't - then is fighting it going to be cost effective? You can spend a fortune to win, and along the way again generate bad press. Heart may say FIGHT - but the wallet could tell you to bite your lip. It isn't about right or wrong sometimes. If you are totally innocent, then possible there could be an element of counterclaim - bringing your business name into bad repute could be legally something the council cannot afford to do.

What I don't understand is why you have not taken legal advice and followed it. Or maybe you have and just didn't like, or agree with it.

Trading Standards are overworked and rarely waste their time and budget - so they really must feel what you have done needs to be publicly defended. I understand that they have no power at all to arrest you and force you into an interview, but your refusal could be seen in eventual court as a feature in the case. As for the weight of the refusal? We don't know.

We don't have the facts, we cannot advise on this. You hopefully are fully justified in your belief you are in the clear,and the local authority are wrong - and if this is the case, and your legal advice is fight (and you can afford it) go ahead.

 

[Newchodge]

Trading standards is a local authority department charged with protecting the public using available legislation. It's not some code of practice or advisory body, so their ultimate sanction is to use civil, not criminal law to prosecute offenders - criminal action involves the police and is a different beast.

I don't know where you got this from. There are a lot of non-police bodies that have the right to prosecute criminal offences, including the RSPCA for animal cruelty matters, benefits agency for benefit fraud and trading standards for a number of criminal offences including counterfeit goods, loan sharking, rogue traders etc.

It is not possible to prosecute a civil matter - hence all those signs saying 'trespassers will be prosecuted' are meaningless as ordinary trespass is not a crime.

One of the clues to this comes in reference to the Proceeds of Crime Act. You cannot be subject to a claim under this unless you have been convicted of a crime.

So, OP get legal advice now, you may well need it.

 

[ClubberLang]

Many Local Authorities departments can prosecute criminal offences - trading standards, environmental health etc

The main purpose of a TS dept is to enforce the law by taking criminal prosecutions - I cannot post links but if you search for trading standards prosecutions lots of results will come up - the most famous recent one was Surrey v Scottish and Southern Energy who got fined £1.25m

However there is a lot of political pressure NOT to prosecute and achieve compliance - therefore unless you have done something seriously wrong I wouldn't necessarily go in expecting them to take formal action.

Just to complicate things - they can also use the civil law to take action - it usually involves taking out an injunction which stops you from doing something as opposed to fining or sending you to jail. However if you don't comply with the injunction you can go to jail.

It is hard to advise without knowing the ins and outs and the scale of what happened.

 

[paulears]

What I mean is that they can initiate a prosecution, but is dodgy trading criminal law in most cases? If it is fraud, theft, deception or those serious crimes, my understanding was the Police were always involved because of the rights a warrant holding Police Officer has - which a civil servant does not. If the offence that they suspect has been committed is serious enough to involve arresting somebody and depriving them of their liberty - this action is unlikely to be done by a 22 year old with a new suit and a degree hardly dry.

They certainly do have some powers granted to them - but they are quite limited. I found this information. They do appear to enforce some of the criminal aspects - and I mistakenly understood these as Civil, not Criminal acts - I really didn't know misleading signs, for example is a Criminal offence!

What powers do we have?

Our Officers have the power to enter and inspect trade and business
premises, inspect all goods and documents, make purchases and take samples.
Items can be seized and detained if the inspecting officers feel they may be needed as evidence if any law is breached.

It is a criminal offence to obstruct an officer who is trying to carry an inspection. The Trading Standards Officers have no power to close businesses down or to enforce refunds to the consumer.
All disputes involving poor quality goods or services, can be taken to the civil courts. It is the Civil Courts who have the power to close businesses down or to enforce refunds to the consumer.
Trading Standards may institute legal proceedings against a trade or business, if they are found to be breaching consumer protection legislation. If found guilty a fine may be imposed or in extreme cases, imprisonment can occur.
The main areas of criminal law that we enforce are as follows: - short weight or measure, safety of consumer goods, false or misleading descriptions relating to goods and services, product counterfeiting, failure to display selling prices of goods and misleading price indications, consumer credit malpractice and age restricted sales.

 

[ClubberLang]

The main power they don't have is the power of arrest. Therefore they can ask the Police to to do the arrest for them. You get arrested as part of the investigation process - nothing says it has to be the Police that is doing the investigation or prosecution.

TS literally enforce hundreds of laws from food, product safety, weights and measures and fair trading.

All of them come with standard criminal offences but they are often referred to as 'regulatory' matters rather than pure crime like theft. But you can still get severe penalties if you are doing something bad.

TS deal with lots of criminals - in particular rogue traders who are basically fraudsters.

 

[arcon5]

Looking at the number of dodgy used car dealerships and builders out there they are clearly doing something wrong then if they are focusing their efforts on the likes of op who appears to have been quite open and forthcoming with them

 

[ClubberLang]

To be fair the OP hasn't actually said they have had any discussion with TS yet - you cannot expect them to close a case and say its all fine without looking at the reason.

They will probably be complaint led which means they focus on areas which most consumers have complained about - if the OPs business had a spike in complaints then that will be why they will focus on him.

 

[Marketing King]

I had 7 complaints coming to a total of £14.000 approx of which some of the jobs weren't even carried out so actual work fitted was less than £10.000... I am not saying I wasn't guilty of not coping with the size of the company or some of the laws but for god sake 2 yrs for this was unbelievable. The fact is Trading Standards have different rules as my unused evidence I have seen proves this. I paid tax vat and had my vans sign written and was properly registered with every body I could get registered with.If you want advice from somebody that went throughout this mate let me know as until you have you and others have no idea... And they can presume things in their court but in a criminal court it has to be fact...

 

[ClubberLang]

So what did you actually do wrong? charge for work carried out? not do the job? how much did customers lose out?

Also when you say 7 complaints does that mean only 7 customers had issues or were there more that were not included in the court case?

the prosecution has a legal duty to keep all unused material and your solicitor should be able to look at the majority of it.

 

[Marketing King]

They tried to get more complaints but there were no more... All I know is they are very underhanded in how they do things . We had been prosecuted for fraud by mis rep ( not me ) my staff were the ones who lied I just took the fall not willingly. And we seen the unused evidence but due to the nature of the offence we decided to plead guilty as there was no sentence guide lines as this had never been done before. But don't you think 2 years is a long time?

 

[ClubberLang]

yes i think 2 years is a very long time for a trading standards offence - fraud is as serious as it gets and it sounds like you got done for conspiracy to defraud which again is another level up.

they appear to be saying you colluded with your staff to rip people off and they must have had a lot of evidence. even if TS are underhanded they would still have had to go through the court system

also you cannot get done for fraud if you didn't know what was happening and as a business owner the responsibility is yours

are you also saying you were never approached by any regulatory body to resolve the issues with your staff before they prosecuted?

 

[Newchodge]

I had 7 complaints coming to a total of £14.000 approx of which some of the jobs weren't even carried out so actual work fitted was less than £10.000... I am not saying I wasn't guilty of not coping with the size of the company or some of the laws but for god sake 2 yrs for this was unbelievable. The fact is Trading Standards have different rules as my unused evidence I have seen proves this. I paid tax vat and had my vans sign written and was properly registered with every body I could get registered with.If you want advice from somebody that went throughout this mate let me know as until you have you and others have no idea... And they can presume things in their court but in a criminal court it has to be fact...

If you got time inside it WAS a criminal court

 

[Marketing King]

Not disputing this but my point is I didn't deal with the problems and it snowballed...

 

[MASSEY]

I had a letter come a week or so ago, Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading 2008 - misleading claims on company website.

Invited to a formal recorded meeting. Says interview must be recorded and will follow a formal caution.

We used an organisations logo, and mentioned their name in the text on the page. The person who is a member of the organisation does the work that we get enquiries about. We even mentioned his company name, in conjunction with blah blah. The organisation in question suggests that the company we mention is not a member of their organisation, he is!

I took the logo down prior to them contacting TS as i could envisage it as being misleading, although i still mentioned their organisations name in the text, which must have prompted them to contact TS.

They sent a few emails and i only ever bothered replying to one to tell them i had removed the logo and that there is a grey area here. One would think they would have called to discuss the matter if they had such a grievance?

I don't like the sound of what i have read in this thread.

What we have done is not something that would affect a consumer. They are told clearly who will be undertaking the work and that they are a member of the organisation that is basically set up to ensure quality in the industry. This is not something that would have affected a consumer making a decision, because they're getting what they think they are.

We don't intend to get a legal bod on board because we feel that they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If they organisation in question are adamant they they do not wish to be mentioned, i'll gladly back down if it avoids incurring costs by the mole hill being blown yet further.

The letter says that it is to discuss the use of the logo, which wasn't there at the time they contacted TS, and the mention of their name. If TS want to deviate in any manner it will be no comment. I intend to make the situation clear, that a member of the organisation is doing the work, and that if there is something misleading, how can it be put right?

What worries me the most is that they will hand out some stupid fine.

I'm thinking of emptying my bank accounts if they do fine, because i'm not paying. I'd rather do time than get fined

 

[ClubberLang]

Why should they ring you when they have emailed you and you have 'ignored' them?

It is possible that the isuse could have been resolved by email if you had engaged with them - although I don't know the scale of what has occured and the number of victims or serioussnes of what has happened.

If it is minor then chances are you may end up with a warning/caution.

For this type of offence it will have to go to court and the court will hand out a fine.


'What we have done is not something that would affect a consumer' - soudns to me like a consumer could have read your website, seen someone was a member of an organisation - presumably they then carried out substandard work or something - and the consumer is saying they were misled by your website as said person is not a member of the organisation.

The fact that the logo is not on the site is not relevant - the question is why it was there at the time.

An interview is your chance to put forward you explanation and if you can showyou took reasonable precuations then you will probably be OK.

 

[MASSEY]

Why should they ring you when they have emailed you and you have 'ignored' them?

I never ignored them as such, i acted on what was requested because i had realised they had a slight point. But on the point of emails, i email people all the time who don't get them, or don't reply because the mails get missed. Serious issues are better discussed over the phone because not only is it quicker, it's more serious than sending a poncy email. Plus, for all i knew they wanted us to join their organisation so they could have been taking a punt on telling us not do something we were legally able to do.. Introducing trading standards before even phoning to discuss the matter is pretty odd as far as i am concerned and i will point that out to the bureaucratic toss pots i end up dealing with.

It is possible that the isuse could have been resolved by email if you had engaged with them - although I don't know the scale of what has occured and the number of victims or serioussnes of what has happened.

Potentially yes, but as i said above, phoning is always better.

If it is minor then chances are you may end up with a warning/caution.

For this type of offence it will have to go to court and the court will hand out a fine.

'What we have done is not something that would affect a consumer' - soudns to me like a consumer could have read your website, seen someone was a member of an organisation - presumably they then carried out substandard work or something - and the consumer is saying they were misled by your website as said person is not a member of the organisation.

The fact that the logo is not on the site is not relevant - the question is why it was there at the time.

No consumer complained, just the organisation. Every customer, as said, gets exactly what they are thinking meaning that they would not have acted differently, thus the 2008 law they mention doesn't seem to have any legs to stand on.

It was there at the time because there should be nothing wrong with us inserting it when a member of the organisation is doing the work. I took it down because i envisaged that there may be slight confusion, although if they had read the websites text they would have had the full picture.

This will be a splitting hairs issue if they try to make it go further.

 

[ClubberLang]

The 2008 don't need an actual misled consumer - just that you were engaging in a practice that was likely to mislead a consumer - so it depends on whether you had misleading information on your website.

Whether consumers were affected does not need to be demonstrated but clearly the more consumers mislead the more serious.

Aside from that it is difficult to comment without knowing more.

Am I right in thinking the trade association has contacted you but TS only contacted you by letter?

If so I presume the atrde asosciation has told TS that they have tried resolving the issue with you but you have ignored them.