Which? Trusted Traders: how we’re helping to improve standards

Thanks for the clarification, David.

I tend to favour sole traders on personal recommendation and I doubt if they would wish to pay the fees and do the paperwork required to join WTT. Most of them have got an order book many months long. Another point that might disqualify them is that usually they will only do emergency call-outs for established clients.

I am much obliged Malcolm. There was no indication in the Intro that this partnership was limited to Hertfordshire. Which? Trusted Traders covers the whole country so i am still at a loss to know how the face-to-face interviews are done everywhere else . Perhaps other trading standards departments do the same as Hertfordshire. I noticed on the WTT site that the involvement of Trading Standards in the evaluation process was stressed although both sides seem to be coy about what this actually involves. Norfolk County Council has had a Trusted Trader scheme for over seven years; it seems to be based heavily on references and it has similar limitations to other such schemes but at least it has a large number of entries.

I find limited-circulation ‘district’ magazines [like Norfolk’s Village People as recently exposed in the ‘missing words’ round on TV’s Have I Got News For You] quite good for advertising the better firms in the area – no selection process is involved but I have not found a duff one yet. I tend to notice the state of their vehicles, the turn-out of the operative(s), their general approach to work so far as can be seen from the street, and if the trader is available I ask for their business card and possibly have a chat about my requirements. Good, but not intense, supervision is the key to getting satisfaction.

As I wrote previously, I think it is a good scheme overall and at least has good credentials which none of the other trader-finding websites have.

As a matter of interest, does Which? meet the expenses of the local authorities whose TSO’s are involved with the assessments? We so often hear that Trading Standards are under-resourced and overstretched so it would be good if they were compensated for their contribution to Which? Trusted Traders to ensure that their statutory work was not affected.

@dquinton, David, it is good to have constructive responses to the questions raised. I am reassured that a selection of random customers have references examined before a trader is accepted. Can you tell me whether these references are gained directly from customers by Trusted Traders or Trading Standards, or are they provided by the trader?

You say Trading standards people cover the whole country for you. Are these County TS people?

Thanks David.

I am still a bit baffled. If the TSO’s are not employed by local authorities then they are not Trading Standards Officers. They might be former local authority officers who have obtained the trading standards qualifications but that is different. If my assumption is correct the description could be held to be misleading. If they are ex-TSO’s it would better to say so.

That last paragraph diesel , is that the standard Which charge to a company ? if so they are getting cheap publicity for the prestige of Which,s name have you checked out what advertising agencies charge or TV adverts ? . There should be an ascending scale on the companies worth £100,000 — several £100 million

Well the chart goes to £840 a year for up to 19 staff – which apparently includes subbies. Over that many employees you contact Which? for a special price. If you are a heavy national advertiser it must be manna.

I may be hallucinating but I am sure I saw a Stannah advert saying they were the only stairlift company to achieve the honour. I thought that is a little cheeky.

Well obviously Which is still not “Americanized ” the US equivalents know their own worth to the last red cent . No wonder the US website where I posted a good report of a company now wants me to do another —big bucks !

Firstly I was not hallucinating as it is a half-page advert in the Weekend section of the Saturday Daily Telegraph. It has been in several weeks running.

“Which TT logo Peace of Mind Guaranteed

As the first national stairlift
manufacturer to have gained
the Trusted Traders badge
you can put your trust in Stannah.”

My own understanding of Stannah is not favourable or unfavourable but I do have problems with the logic that – because they are the first to sign up you can put your trust in them.

More to the point the Which? name is linked to a manufacturer and any problems with the product is going to reflect on the charity mostly known for its product testing role. And generous salaries to its top executives.

I simply think this is not a trader in the accepted terms. Exports to 40 countries ….. what charge are they paying?

Try as I might I cant find anything really negative ,so far, on Stannah .Thats its a multi million £££ company there is no doubt , nor its International status in the US/Canada and elsewhere . It still seems to be owned -in house – by the family and is still based in England . No company is perfect but could you point out any negatives for me diesel ? as compared to many it doesnt seem too bad a company ,even endorsed by a Canadian medical organisation . There are many companies that Which “approve of ” , and I have criticised several on Which but this one seems “above board ” . Any comments ??

diesel – are we talking ethics here ? its a lot to ask of an organisation that deals with consumer products as those products in some cases prove to be below par but you think ? that Which should not be so “deeply ” associated with them in case they prove to be not as kosher as they seem . It seems to me that Which is straddling two fences but it isnt an easy job in this day and age where commercialism rules there are not many organisations that could be granted Sainthood , its the “name of the game ” now . If you take my own experience most of the radical US websites I have visited in the past all have to be crowd funded as they get zero money from businesses and certainly not the US government because they show up the lies of their own country . Which needs money to survive so some comes from ,well, if not from fully endorsing a product , at least giving it an “approval rating ” many US equivalent companies do the same but what stands out is that Which is willing to shift its “approval ” after many negative posts by the public and a public clamor to condemn the product in which they contact the said company to complain and get their answer to the criticism which they relay back ,which is democratic . many in the US dont do that as they know it would lose revenue but just keep quiet on the subject . I know you are saying –its a charity so it should be the the “purest of the pure ” with highly idealist values but even churches have been highly criticised because of priests/ ministers behavior . I have more faith in the Salvation Army as it ,in practical terms does more to help the poor than many churches so Which ,not being “perfect ” in a charitable sense still does help the public even though the coat it wears might not be the colour or style you like.

It is open to any other stair-lift company or installer to seek Which? Trusted Trader endorsement. I don’t see it as product approval but as an acknowledgment of satisfactory business practices that the customer can take some comfort from. To the extent that it will encourage competitors to raise their game and qualify for the endorsement it is positive and, in my opinion, not in conflict with any charitable objectives.

I feel, Diesel, that you seek to put Which? on the skewer all the time when the enemy is elsewhere.

The vast majority of Which?’s income comes from its members through subscriptions. Its commercial activities seem to contribute little, or are loss-making. So Which? could do what it was originally set up to do – use members substantial subscriptions to fund its activities. It could also cooperate with European consumer organisations to share knowledge, costs and benefits without any necessity to risk an conflict of interest with the commercial or political sectors. Deiseltaylor is, in my opinion, quite fair in pointing out the difficulties in the current blurred line that exists between the charity and the business. We have seen how Age UK abused this. I do hope this will not happen with Which?

I suppose I don’t see Which? Trusted Traders as a commercial operation but as an extension of its consumer service role and a legitimate activity for a charity to participate in. I also don’t see my Which? subscription as much different in essence to our subscription to the Radio Times. All charities that make money out of charging for something are at risk of blurring the lines but thankfully the scope is broad and little harm is done in the overall scheme of things.

Age UK’s actions were controversial because its trading arm was acting as a front for big commercial businesses and its client base – the elderly – were particularly susceptible. I know of no evidence that Which? is in that position.

Thank you for your comments regarding the use of the Which? brand name. It is rare that we have a proper discussion !!

I fully appreciate the fact that other stair companies are able to acquire the logo. You may well consider that in fact that one of them acquiring perforce makes it a necessity for the others and this is a benefit to the community.

Neither of you has played with the idea that Which? anonymously facilitate /support a national programme that would unite all or most existing schemes. All the benefits without compromising/confusing the product testing USP [unique Selling point] of the charity

There are two interesting but minor points to this.
1. A problem that exists and has been discussed in Germany where the awards by Test.de are highly regarded is the disproportionate benefit gained by large firms versus small firms in the advertising spend field. If the charge was levied per job that would be an interesting counter.

2. We already have a legal system and it is almost that we users will pay the tradesman more so he can pay a fee for the logo and an arbitration system

John, maybe not but Which? Mortgage Advisers charge a fee at the beginning of negotiations (£399-£499) and then receive commission from the lender when a mortgage is completed. (I thought Which? were against financial advisers working off commission as it might give a conflict of interest). Trusted traders brings a regular annual income of £480 or more per business depending on its size. Which? Best Buys bring in substantial income. The danger is that the wish (and incentives) to try to raise income might endanger its impartiality. As Which? is our only accessible consumer voice (CAB is now part of BEUC but I don’t see them as a substitute) I want to see its impartiality and championing of consumers retained.

As far as my subscription goes I am classed as a “member” (ordinary one in my case) and not a customer. Only members can receive Which?’s publications, unlike the freely-available Radio Times. So when i joined I was led to believe I was contributing to an organisation for members that gave them information on, in those days, in-house tested products and so on. If it operated as a “business” I’d expect it to put its regular publications on the news stands for all to buy. No – it relies on members financial support in return for privileged information; I pay for its work. Has that ethos somewhat evaporated? I’d expect constructive dialogue between Which? and its supportive members but I find sometimes a little like walking through treacle 🙁 .

Just in case anyone was interested the Open Letter sent to Council in December has been answered. You can see the thread here
http://member.community.which.co.uk/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3a406e2499-f621-4a50-a343-def5d243b41fForum%3a4de3cb67-23d5-4b0d-b7e0-aefdb8fe816bDiscussion%3a067616df-1dca-4f36-a772-e5a2ea904da4

I agree it is a very fine line, Malcolm. I was not terribly happy with allowing products to be advertised as Best Buys and I thought that went against all the founding principles, but the world moves on. I see commercial sponsorship on BBC 4 TV programmes now. It seems there is a further, non-financial, price to be paid nowadays for the the things we like. So far, what Which? has done has not offended me deeply but that is because it is being reasonably careful with leveraging its franchise in order to enrich its overall output. I realise this is a creeping process with no defined finish line but it might not be all bad and much good could come of it.

At the end of the day the trustees are the guardians of Which?’s good name and reputation. If that becomes devalued the organisation is sunk and they know it. That to me is the chief inhibitor of wayward commercialisation. If Which? Mortgage Advisers start placing a lot of business in the wrong hands purely in pursuit of higher commission then that would be widely condemned and it would undermine the entire organisation. Perhaps I am naive, but I hope that thought is enough to keep things on the straight and narrow and enable Which? to continue to offer a model advisory service and responsible loan-finding facility for people who find the usual commercial pressures and behaviours not only unacceptable but, in many cases, impossible to negotiate. So long as Which? keeps the purpose of raising standards throughout commerce, and setting the test for proper business practices, as the paradigm I feel these extensions into new areas are justified. Most of our consumer issues will not be resolved by product testing so new directions need to be explored.

Hello Malcolm, I just want to clarify that Which? Mortgage Advisers are salaried members of staff, so like you said this means advice offered is impartial. As they don’t receive commission they will only recommend a mortgage that is right for the person they’re advising. Which? Mortgage Advisers is funded through the commissions received from mortgage lenders and the small administration fee for arranging mortgages. Any profit from our commercial operations is ploughed back into funding all the work we do on behalf of consumers.

Your feedback is very much valued, it’s member feedback that drives improvements to our products and services. So I’m sorry that it feels like dialogue with us is like walking through treacle – we try our very best to reply to as many comments on convo as we can, but we do also share your views with the relevant parts of the organisation. The member forum is also a great place to discuss feedback like this.

I share your optimism John with reservations. it just seems members have no influence over the way their organisation behaves and that might not be for the best.

Many of these Convos revolve around product deficiencies – glass doors on washing machines, fire risk in tumble driers, breaking screens on Sony phones, unsafe pushchairs and child car seats, poor quality domestic appliances, telephones tvs, LEDs that interfere, garden hoses, ………I could go on (you’ll be relieved I’ve stopped 🙂 ) so I think Which?’s role in product testing should be undiminished. It is, if I recall correctly, how it started and for me remains the only source of essential (and hopefully correct) information that allows me, as a consumer (literally) make a choice.

To become a social campaigner is an extension, I think, of its original activities and if it can do that without being at the expense of protecting us from dodgy products then fine.

I still maintain in consumers interests it should take an initiative and cooperate with other consumer organisations to bring us more, better reviews. I hope its commercial aspirations do not get in the way of achieving this.

” Most of our consumer issues will not be resolved by product testing so new directions need to be explored.”

Sorry I thought durability was a trigger for many consumers and I am not quite clear who you think will cover this area. Any number of sites will tell you it works wonderfully when new but and almost all reviews by “owners” are generally very early in the ownership cycle.

And even now “Which?” testing of sunscreens has brought out information not included in the articles such as a 10% allergy to a common sunscreen chemical. The alternatives. And that EU sunscreens are superior to US sunscreens. Perhaps you would like to reconsider that the extent of testing is actually not that important.

However if you have other areas where Which? might usefully be active please advise.

Malcolm and Diesel – I am sorry if my meaning was less than clear. I am not in favour of reducing any of the product testing at all; I agree that it is the staple around which the rest of Which?’s activities are structured. My view is, though, that there should be room in a consumer organisation of the 21st century to examine things other than consumer goods just as rigorously and to pioneer ways of developing and improving the markets for services by innovative interventions. I don’t wish to over-emphasise this as it would distort the fundamental focus which should be based on testing. One of the advantages of in-house testing is that it cultivates throughout the organisation an empirical approach to the observation and performance of articles and functions, and this culture should infuse all other forms of product or service examination. Which? must hang on to this so product testing must remain the core activity. Therefore mechanisms need to be in place, in my view, to ensure that when testing is outsourced [as is now routinely the case] the objective scientific approach to testing is still recognisable in the reports and conclusions that flow from it, and that the people who specify the research and testing are just as disciplined in their engagement to it as if they were in the laboratory or workshop themselves. Moreover, the analytical and investigative processes involved in product testing should be applied just as rigorously to the study of other consumer concerns albeit many of the deductions might be of a subjective nature.

Understood, John.
Back to Trusted Traders. I wonder if ongoing assessments of registered Trusted Traders will include customer experiences provided directly from randomly selected customers and, if so, will these results be published as a score of some kind for each trader? I don’t really like the 5 star system – a % is more useful. And at what point might a trader be removed from the register?

@ldeitz, Lauren thanks for a speedy reply. I’m not sure that because Which? Mortgage Lenders receives commission rather than its employees addresses the point about possible conflict of interest. Maximising the company’s income might well figure? Does commercial income not contribute to the bonus scheme for example? In the past I believe Which? has criticised financial Advisers (firms) receiving commission on the products it sells. Personally I would rather see the whole business done on a fee paying basis – the client ends up paying the commission indirectly anyway.

Sorry about the walking through treacle, but I have listed on a conversation elsewhere some of the questions I have raised over a longish period that simply required a factual response, where none had appeared. I know you and Patrick have your work cut out dealing with Convos, so no criticism there. But I do expect Which? to respond fairly promptly when facts, or expert opinion from their staff, can clear a point.

I do use the Members Forum, and emails, with mixed results. I have been fobbed off with standard-sounding replies in the past, and getting a view on a point of fact or a Which? opinion seems to take a long time. I am currently asking about the legal view on the Whirlpool fiasco, and I’ve had a long-running discussion about Which?’s campaigning on car emissions that they agreed was misleading – eventually – but have not altered appropriate text. It does seem sometimes that interested members are seen as a nuisance, rather than as entitled to reasoned responses when reasoned questions are asked.

Nil desperandum however. Keep up the good work!

You are right, Malcolm – there needs to be some form of ongoing customer satisfaction appraisal because, apart from anything else, and like athletics, one would expect one of the benefits of such a scheme is that standards are continuously improving across the competitor field such that last year’s winning performance is no longer good enough. It would be interesting to know how this theory is incorporated in the process [and communicated to the participants]. There is no doubt that consumers will increasingly regard the Trusted Trader scheme as the gold standard such is the reputation of Which? and what it stands for [notwithstanding our occasional personal disaffection].

One of the criticisms of quality assurance procedures [rather than quality control] is that it is all about process and not about the quality of the goods or service supplied. Not entirely true, of course, but if a company specifies and sets out to supply a cheap and basic product using poor materials and production processes then so long as it does that consistently it is compliant [and indeed any deviation from that specification in the form of an improvement in the product or service could be regarded as a non-conformity]. We must hope that the WTT assessment method does not concentrate on company processes to the detriment of knowing what the customer experiences and feels, and another aim as the scheme matures should be to ascertain the extent to which firms are researching and developing new ways of providing a better service based on feedback as well as their own innovations.

I agree with you that percentage scores are better than stars for indicating customer satisfaction, and encourage a more thoughtful and methodical approach by customers in their reviews.

Removal from the register? – Good question!

@ldeitz, Lauren – I have an email today from Which? Mortgage Advisers offering to find me the right mortgage. It says “Our adviser’s don’t get paid commission – so we only recommend a deal that’s right for you”. It does not mention that Which? Mortgage Advisers get paid a commission though. This really is a bit misleading, isn’t it? Would you like to take this up with them? I wouldn’t like to see Which? slip into some of the habits that they criticise in some other commercial operations.

I would much prefer to see the lender pay the whole cost due, both the amount for the consultation and what would be the commission from the lender. All transparent then, and you would no doubt get a slightly cheaper mortgage. And you could compare costs with companies that are only fee-charging.

Does that mean each individual franchisee is inspected?

Thanks David. I will send the links.

Cloudy2Clear has many branches around England, Scotland and Wales and I hope that that it has appropriate quality control measurements in place. The business seems to be largely replacement of failed double-glazed units so there is less to go wrong than where double-glazing companies tackle the replacement of all windows and doors in a house.

There are other, possibly smaller, independent [non-franchised] firms doing window replacements and repairs, for lower prices than Cloudy2Clear. A friend had a medium-sized double glazed unit and one d/g casement panel replaced for under £125 by a local firm that advertises in local magazines.

It depends how handy you are. I would find a local firm that manufactures double glazed units and have them make your replacements but refit them yourself – unless they are too large to handle.

I did this once. Removing the beading without damaging the plastic is a challenge and it took all my strength to refit the beading. Definitely not the most rewarding DIY job,

We had a couple of units replaced some time ago and thought the cost very reasonable. It is definitely worth doing if the frames are in good condition.

The idea that you select ten customers and then check they truly exist , seek comments, and may request sight of a bill I think very encouraging indeed. I was taken with that answer.

Where it is a franchise operation I can see that there is a practical difficulty in that it would seem unfair to seek ten satisfied customers from across a variety of franchisees . They may all have satisfactory paperwork and systems but the happy customer approach surely is specific to that franchisee’s area.

I mention it as it would seem that a sole trader would be disadvantaged by this approach as I am guessing that 100 franchisee pay a lot less than 100 sole traders.

Thanks for flagging to me @malcolm-r, I’ve posted a reply to Paul’s comment above.

All procedures with W? & W?TT have broken down now.

I have patiently waited for 3 months for them to investigate the situation and have been told that “False reviews………are not in the remit of W?TT.”

They did agree to pay back some of the money £48 they stole but not all.

Furthermore I have been accused of making “false allegations of dishonesty and misrepresentation by Which?”

I repeat that there is a wealth of written and 3rd party evidence of everything I have said.

I can only conclude that Which? and W?TT are loathe to see their commercial cash-cow questioned.

W?TT should stand for What Trusted Trader!!!!!

I never thought I would say that people were being conned by Which?

The cure has become the disease!

PS. I will let anybody see this issue and documentation who wishes.

Paul-By posting your criticism of Which , Which I think, is being even handed ,open and fair ,I think that if Which recommended a TT or its company or the TT organisation , which is worldwide and you find a trader has mis-represented their abilities /performance /honesty that Which has acted in GOOD FAITH , IE- it did it with no ill intent to deceive the public. As such they cannot be held liable for a “rogue dealer” -criticised maybe, but there was no criminal intent implied .There are some that turn out to be “bad apples ” on websites over the whole of Britain and abroad , you cannot hold any organisation be it town council/regional council to legal blame because they were deceived by another. Your claim would be against the “rogue dealer ” .

I’ve not said anything in this discussion thus far but you’re making some very serious allegations, Paul. From the perspective of the disinterested observer it seemed to originate as a spat between two local traders – yourself and an unnamed “Competitor” – against whom you also made allegations.

When you say “They did agree to pay back some of the money £48 they stole but not all” it’s not clear to whom you’re referring. And claiming someone ‘stole’ from you is a serious allegation, so I wonder why you don’t simply take that and any associated proof to the police? If this “wealth of written and 3rd party evidence” exists as you claim, why not simply document it all and publish it on your own blog?

Exactly Ian .

Certainly sounds interesting Paul. Perhaps your best course of action is to send the details to the Council of the charity Consumers’ Association which owns Which? Ltd.

I have had mixed feelings about the scheme. Recently because it has included large manufacturers who even if they do fit what they make would not fall into my category as tradesmen.

Afraid that your reply is wrong as you have not seen the evidence yet.

Which? have never dealt with this matter fairly and open/even-handedly.

They have only ever paid lip service to integrity but read my other replies to others shortly coming up that will, I hope, elucidate matters.

I agree that if a TT mis-repesented as you describe then so long as they acted once they were aware of the truth then there would not be an issue now.

Sadly W?TT mis-represented the scheme and the checks they do to gain pecuniary advantage.

Who would ever have thunk it of W?!

Ian my allegations are not allegations, they are clear Statement of Facts that have repeatedly been proven to W? Corporate Affairs Manager, Richard Anderson.

Anderson’s mostly partial and inadequate replies are shocking and very tardy.

I do take exception to the term “spat”. It is far from “a short argument, usually about something that is not important.” Whilst we were a W?TT this retail shop tried to leave a malicious and fake review with Trustpilot. They were caught out by them and TP have produced evidence to this effect to W?.

At the same time they tried to leave fake reviews with Trading Standards online. Contemporaneous to this they also posted fake negative reviews to us and positives to their own account on Yell.com & Google etc.

As an honest business we wrote to all bodies that we were affiliated to, including W?TT, to show that we were being maligned and there was no truth to the malicious attacks.

About a week later the business applied to become W?TT and also join our other affiliates.

As part of the checks they were turned down by all EXCEPT W?TT!!!

When we approached W?TT we were promised a vigorous checking procedure that we have to pass. We thought this was true so agreed to pay the application fee. Only when we discovered that they had allowed the “rogue” to join did we ask how.

After the “vigorous checking procedure” (VCP) how could they have passed!?

Well the answer was the VCP was about as vigorous as a raindrop is to a car wash.

W?TT allowed a convict, a liar and a cheat to join. the scheme. Ipso facto W?TT cannot be an absolutely Trusted Trader organisation.

As for the “They” and the £48 I mean W?TT not the “rogue”.

I know that many here love W? and it would be improper to accuse all W?TT of being untrustworthy. However I know absolutely that the checks carried out on us and again ipso facto the “rogue” must mean the system must be questionable if not broken.

See my reply. Unfortunately people are wont to put words or interpretations into what I have said, that I have not said.

I would love to know how.

I would happily, at my own expense, provide my evidence, yet again, to W? in person.

W? is too important an organisation to lose its credibilityon the back of poor management.

Sadly it seems that W? only defend themselves by bringing the shutters down and drawbridge up when some integrity would solve the problems.

Please tell me how to send the details to the Council of the charity Consumers’ Association which owns Which? Ltd.

You can write to Tim Gardam, Council chairman, at Which?

Publish your company name and the other “rogue ” one here and let the regulars here form an opinion, as we are quite capable of doing deep detective work into BOTH sides . Surely this is the way to go to “clear your name” as being above all reproach and condemn the “other party ” as “rogues ” , until you do we will not have all the facts placed before us .I am honest to my own determent and will say exactly like it is and I am sure other regulars here will put forward truthful points , unless of coarse , you have a “hidden motive ” in that you have already spoken to a lawyer and are about to take legal action and you don’t want to prejudice your case ?

[This comment has been edited to align with our community guidelines. Thanks, mods]

My name is clear.

Only an ill informed rogue would say otherwise.

Just who are you Duncan Lucas?

Quite a ridiculous but not unsurprising reply.

Thank you this will happen.

I don’t think a Which? Convo is the place to debate grievances like this in detail. PaulAllan has pointed out what he regards as deficiencies in the Trusted Traders scheme and the way his complaint has been handled. To go into detail here would present a one sided case and we have no means to check the facts. It is a dispute between PaulAllan and Which? Trusted Traders and should be dealt with between them. As a Member of Which?, despite W?TT being part of “commercial” Which? and not the charity, I hope W?TT will be open in their examination of the complaints, make improvements to the scheme if necessary, and publish the outcome.

None other than my name Paul Allan ,whats stopping you divulging what Ian and I asked for unless you perceive some loss thereby ?

[This comment has been edited to align with community guidelines. Thanks, mods]

[This comment has been removed for breaking our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

Publishing such information could be unfair to the other parties involved. This Convo is not a kangaroo court and I don’t think we should let this become personal 🙂 Just my opinion.

I support both of Malcolm’s preceding comments and agree this is not the proper place to resolve a grievance between a trader and the “Which? Trusted Traders” organisation. It appears to revolve around allegedly bogus [and possibly libellous] customer reviews and the full facts are never going to be in the public domain.

[This comment has been removed for being off-topic. Thanks, mods]

[This comment has been removed for breaking our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

It will come out, just not tonight.

I assure you that as soon as all is published it will appear here.

[This comment has been edited to align with our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

[This comment has been removed for being off topic and against our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

I think it’s time to let the editors review this element of the conversation before any more unpleasant remarks are made.

Thank you Malcolm I agree absolutely.
[This comment has been edited to align with our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

[This comment has been removed for breaking our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

[This comment has been removed for breaking our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

[This comment has been removed for breaking our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

PaulAllan, with respect I think this would be a good place to terminate this topic, and allow you to pursue your grievance directly with Which? as you propose. If the Convo continues to go down a more personal route the Convo moderators will put a stop to it anyway tomorrow.
I hope your problem is properly resolved.

Agreed Malcolm.

To all those that have positively contributed to the furtherance of my grievance – Many Thanks!

Au revoir ;D

[This comment has been edited to align with our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

Hello @paulallan, I’m sorry to hear that you’re having problems with Which? Trusted Traders, I raised your comments previously with the team and I understand that they have been in contact. As mentioned previously, you’re welcome to share anything with us at conversation.comments@which.co.uk, but I do understand that you already have a point of contact in Richard Anderson (as stated above). I’ll speak with the team and let them know that you’ve shared this feedback on Which? Conversation.

However, I would like to remind you (and the rest of the community) that we do not tolerate comments that are rude or offensive to others – this is clearly outlined in our Community Guidelines. As such, any comments that could be considered rude will be removed from this discussion. Please ensure that all comments are aligned to our commenting rules, continued breach of our rules could result in temporary suspension from Which? Conversation.

Thank you @malcolm-r, indeed we welcome a healthy discussion on relevant issues related to the conversation, but we will not tolerate personal and rude remarks. As such these comments will be removed for breaching community guidelines. Thanks

Sorry but I have not said anything that is rude or offensive to anyone.

However I will never allow people such a Lucas to threaten violence against my person.

I suggest you look again and in detail at what I said and in context.

I look forward to your reinstating my comments immediately.

It would be awful if what was really happening was that W? were stifling opinions that show its flaws wouldn’t it?

Please send me a full copy ofthe pre-moderated discussion here and you precise reeasoning for any deletions or edits as I will present it to Council as part of the larger picture.

Why delete the phrase “I have a ““Higher Moral Plane ” to catch?” Lauren Deltz?

PaulAllan, i see that most of the comments that could be regarded as slightly rude or offensive have been removed, but not those relevant to your problem. May I suggest that in the spirit of these Convos – essentially courteous discussions – you now leave this between you and Council to progress? Please keep us informed, and I hope Which? will do the same.

Your original complaint included the allegation that Which? Trusted traders were not assessing an applicant properly before giving them TT status. That is my greatest concern and I hope Which? will put our minds at rest. If they have in some instances not applied their checks properly then they should have the integrity to own up to that, put them right and, if necessary, remove unsuitable traders from the register.

Unfortunately not Malcolm.

I reviewed everything yesterday and in context and sequence I never made a rude or offensive comment.

However when I was threatened with physical violence I did comment, but again in context and time sequence there was nothing dis-proportionate.

The censor has however thrown the baby out with the bath water in some points and missed some of the antagonist’s offensive points.

I have raised this with them.

However it does lead me to conclude that W? should look at its self-control and policing systems.

Perhaps an Ombudsman would be a good start.

Unfortunately W? in all its forms seem sometimes rudderless, sometimes Captainless and heading for the rocks.

I am concerned that the Council may not exist or may be ruling ultra vires on this matter if indeed they can rule on it, according to others here.

The confusion of areas of control and remit between the charity (that incidentally W?TT think is a defence/ excuse) and the commercial profit arm that really is W? & W?TT is extremely disturbing.

Looks like this will be a long and painful slog for all concerned :'(

Paul: the council oversees the Consumers’ Association (the charity aspect) to ensure it remains within the appropriate guidelines. Day-to-day running is largely governed by Which? Ltd.

I request again that you give me a copy of the pre-censored convo here so I may present it as part of the picture of where W? is to Council.

If you cannot please state why either here or email me so that may be presented instead.

Great Ms. Deitz

Unfortunately as mentioned here before Richard Anderson refuses to communicate or investigate this matter.

It is his failures along with many others up and down the chain of command that have caused this situation.

It is Tim Gardam & Tim Gardam alone that can deal with this matter.

It is he that is kept in the dark by those wishing to stifle whistle-blowing!

Again please send my email details to him alone so that we can communicate without let or hindrance from w? employees!

Please answer my previous queries.

Also your interpretation of rude & offensive is beyond my comprehension (except for one statement I mentioned previously that I was justified in making but accept was meant to be rude). The fact that I find your, and W?’s in general, position Rude & Offensive does not mean that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would find it so and similarly with your interpretation!

The W? organisation is far worse than the worst Customer service”criminals” ever exposed by W? in the commercial world.

As a former W? Member and ex-client of W? I can state that you are heading for a major PR disaster that I will not let drop.

I expect that the next communication will be a private one from Mr. Gardam in person. Otherwise I cannot see that W? is doing the right thing!

While I accept Mr Allen has made some claims, there’s the potential for a dangerous precedent possible here, if anyone can make accusations and allegations without first offering evidence. I recognise the flaws inherent in any institution such as Which? but I’m somewhat disturbed that it’s possible to think that anyone can choose to make allegations without evidence to which Which? is then supposed to mount an investigation and report back to us.

Duncan has made the very sage point that by publishing these allegations Which? has exceeded what most companies or institutions would do in similar circumstances. But I suspect there may be more to this than meets the eye. We have heard only one side of the story from someone who clearly feels aggrieved and misrepresented. Mr Allen is able to publish his “wealth of written and 3rd party evidence” in here, so perhaps that should be the first step? After all, it’s easy to make unsubstantiated allegations.

I note your rather mischievous reply that actually reflects the level of administration and type of attitude that W? have displayed.

I am not an idiot nor do I have any malice except where I see injustice.

Just what would W? consider substantiated/

The evidence has been offered AND given repeatedly to Peter Vicery-Smith. Richard Anderson, Raj Kakar-Clayton, right down the chain of command.

It is W? that today said that, in effect, I am liar, through Richard Anderson yet have produced no proof of any investigation having taken part.

I can publish here and elsewhere my “wealth of written and 3rd party evidence” and such action is in progress. Though please understand this that I have no wish to damage W?.

As I have repeatedly said to W? and Richard Anderson all I ever wanted was:

1. An immediate refund of £130, being £72 application fee that we were mislead into and £48 monthly subscription taken against our agreement. (Finally after several vehement denials W? admitted that they would repay the £48 taken in “error” though in my view stolen.) The £72 is still outstanding, and
2. That W? instruct the “Rogue” Trader/retailer to remove ALL their own fake positive google reviews from their site and their fake negatives from other businesses sites (including ours) IMMEDIATELY, and
3. That W? instruct the “Rogue” Trader/retailer to remove their anonymous fake reviews from others reviews sites such as Facebook, Yell.com plus others and desist in future from acting like this.

After this I was more than happy to have nothing more to do with W? &W?TT.

How can This “Rogue” be a TRUSTED Trader?

Regrettably Richard Anderson does not think this reasonable.

It is impossible to list everything here but as I have said previously to Patrick Taylor. I would happily, at my own expense, provide my evidence, yet again, to W? in person.

I am not a liar and I will happily go very public.

[This comment has been removed for breaking our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

[This comment has been removed for breaking our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

If you can publish a full, frank and detailed account of the evidence available on a web site, perhaps you would give a link to that site? Like John, I’m not sure in here is the best place, since this could serve to distract from the day-to-day business, but a link to an outside site would, I believe, be acceptable.

I wasn’t being mischievous; I was trying to be constructive. It’s clear you’re very upset and you’ve made some allegations which ought to be investigated. If you have evidence of these being investigated and evidence that your competitor was refused admission to all schemes except for the WTT scheme then this should be in the public domain because, left uninvestigated and unaired, it could have damaging consequences for Which?.

I understand you may not have intended mischief but regrettably to assume that a sustained, unprovoked and malicious attack by a W?TT on another is something as derisory as a “spat” was incorrect. I am sorry if the word was, perhaps, inaccurate but the precise word escaped me at the time.

It has all been put to W? over the last 4 months!

I repeat that the Head of Corporate affairs, Richards Anderson has had 2 months to do absolutely nothing and is not prepared to discuss the matter! (I have this in writing).

W?TT has had almost 4 months to mess up the whole situation and ignore blatant, incontrovertible and much very public evidence.

As I said yesterday I will give W? a final chance to put their house in order by putting this up to Council.

If the standard of (In)action is the same as W?Ltd so far then I will place everything in the public forum as you correctly feel it should be.

Thank you for that. The real issue is that you have, yourself, introduced this grievance into a public forum (it’s not restricted to W? members), so I believe it makes eminent sense to post all the evidence you have on a site and provide the url.

I used the expression ‘spat’ because that was my perception of the original grievance. It all seemed to turn on the behaviour of one trader to another. I also appreciate your grievance was aggravated by the affording of WTT status to the other trader, but that is where things become less clear and it’s why we would need to see evidence of exactly what has occurred.

The business of fake reviews can be vexing in the extreme; it’s a major problem in the hotel industry, for instance, and even Trip Advisor hasn’t been able to eradicate the concern. So I understand where you’re coming from. And I can also assure you that the team on here hold Which? to the very highest standards, as do we.

Glad you see mostly where I am coming from.

Fake reviews are part of the issue (both the -ves on competitors and the self-inflating ones).

Equally if not more important is the fact that W?TT do not take the actions they say they do or vet TTs as they should. If so how did a convict and liar get in the scheme.

Upon investigation why if the “randomly” check 10 customers did they ask us for OUR list and why is the average review list for a TT about 3 long?

The idea of W?TT is great but it is obvious that as soon as they look to expand or have to “make a profit” that mistakes, errors and intentional “Nelson’s Eye” actions happen.

The investigation procedures when W? become aware should be robust. Sadly they don’t even exist!

One is met with an attitude of ” How dare amere mortal question the mighty God Which?!”

Still no doubt I will say more here if necessary in a few months.