The new government must deliver for consumers

The recruitment & training and accommodation requirements make it difficult to spend so much extra money on the NHS; it hasn’t delivered on the last wad of cash yet.

Why would the UK wish to shoot itself in the foot and reduce these protections and thus make us unable to sell into the rest of Europe, a market that remains only 13 miles away, unlike India, Brazil or California? We have to stay competitive and keep up with European policies, especially since we created many of these rights and standards in the first place.

I’m sure I read somewhere that the super rich elite responsible for funding Brexit want the UK to leave the EU before 31 Dec 2019, to avoid the implementation of the latest EU DCA6 tax disclosure legislation in the UK.

Verrry interesting, Meester Bond…

From elsewhere: “The big one for super-rich (and a few less rich, very unscrupulous) at the moment is the permanent loan dodge”

For many purposes, sugar can be replaced by artificial sweeteners. Today I have been eating damsons that would be unpleasantly sour without sweetening. Many are not keen on artificial sweeteners but those based on stevia seem to have a clean bill of health, and I have been using them for years. Maybe we could produce it in the UK.

Never mind sugar, what about fish and fishing?

Are we going to be able to set our own rules now? We need to sustain fish stocks by not overfishing and taking young fish, but do we just have exclusive use of our territorial waters and compete on equal terms in common waters?

Here is a relevant article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/46401558

“But it’s worth remembering that fishing is only a tiny fraction of the overall economy both in the UK (less than 0.1%)…”

To some extent the propensity of the wealthier parts of the world to consume more than their fair share of certain foods sustains the economies of the poorer parts of the world. To what extent should that be taken into account?

I am not averse to protectionist policies [as I have advocated in relation to the threat to UK poultry production from a trans-Atlantic trade agreement] but it could contravene WTO rules and make it more difficult to enter into reciprocal agreements for our own exports. I would prefer universal free trade but I don’t think we can put the genie back in the bottle now. Perhaps the only way forward is for bilateral agreements only so we have different terms for different countries on different products as is generally the case already outside major trading blocs.

Lauren – I agree with Mapleshire.

There are a number of unsatisfactory practices used by management companies to charge leaseholders and landlords for various services of dubious value ranging from the high cost of insurance cover compared to other properties through expensive consents for alterations, and the cost of enabling lease extensions, to charges for tenant registrations. Ultimately these all impact on rental levels. I suspect they are designed to compensate freeholders for the ‘poor’ yields of ground rents but at a time when the stock market is depressed and investment returns are low I expect ground rents are quite lucrative. They also usually involve a commission element for the managing company and incur VAT.

I have a house on an estate with a management company who look after common areas and such like for an annual fee from each property owner. There is a committee of residents appointed to work with them, hold them to account, there is an AGM and minutes are issued together with annual accounts to show how each resident’s charge is arrived at. There was a change of management company instigated by the residents and charges have reduced slightly. It seems to work well and the keep the estate neat and tidy.

Some developments work well and the residents are in control, but for many others, typically where leaseholds predominate, that is not the case. Ground rents and management charges are seen as profit centres by the freeholders; fair enough, they are entitled to a fair return on their investment but charges should always be justified and reasonable. As Mapleshire indicated, the letting of contracts is not always done in a transparent manner with the interests of the residents uppermost. Where blocks of flats are managed commercially and most of the flats are occupied by sub-tenants, the leaseholders are generally unconcerned over these costs because they just pass them through to their tenants within the rents.

We know some elderly people who live, as leaseholders, in apartments in small two-storey blocks of four flats each, all of conventional and fireproof construction, self-contained with no common parts, where the annual buildings insurance is apportioned at nearly £400 per flat [including VAT and insurance premium tax]. This seems excessive and is far more than buildings cover for a typical semi-detached house yet the risk appears to be no greater overall; to my mind it suggests that the management company and the insurers have not acted primarily in the interests of the leaseholders. For reasons I don’t know the residents have found it impossible to join together to take over the management or buy out the freehold but possibly their age and other circumstances have prevented it.

Whether this is a good use of Which?’s time I am not sure about because it is a very broad subject with a lot of complexities and few identical common features. A superficial exercise would be of little benefit, but perhaps Which? could press other, more appropriate, organisations to look into it, take evidence, and make recommendations. I don’t know which organisations might be relevant to this; as a group of consumers, leaseholders and sub-tenants seem to have little representation and are not perceived to be experiencing hardship.

I think that Which? could prompt other more relevant organisations to take on issues that are rather out of their own remit and expertise. Then keep tabs on progress and inform us. That would maybe free them up to spend more time pursuing its own projects more thoroughly.

I’m aware some seem to have run out of steam. For example, little has been said lately about Whirlpool dryer and washing machine remedial progress yet I suspect many affected customers are still waiting? No proposals have been pursued for a product recall system. The lack of effective consumer protection remains with an inadequate OPSS and under-funded Trading Standards. Excessive plastics packaging and alternative materials has not been pursued. Unless it is all going on behind the scenes.

I think we need to complete jobs when we start them, or when on firm ground hammer away at those who should provide solutions. With limited resources only so much can be accomplished. Although, as Patrick pointed out, members contributions of £100million a year could have been spent more wisely and maybe still could.

I agree with you, Malcolm. Advancing on too broad a front means any achievements are always marginal and in tiny increments. I presume Which? has a campaign plan for general causes that are outside the bounds of its basic day hob – product testing and reporting – and uses some form of analysis to support it’s investment of time, energy and resources against an assessment of consumer gain. It slightly concerns me that Lauren wrote “I’m very interested in the issues around property agents and plan to look into it further”. I didn’t realise that was how it works.