Is it unBritish to haggle – or the only way to get a fair price?

Hi Jack – I should have pointed out that I have done a fair amount of haggling when I was working, sometimes saving thousands of pounds on specialist equipment. I know it is easy to get discounts by haggling.

My point is simply that to allow for people haggling, companies publish inflated prices in expectation that customers will haggle. That means that those who are unable to haggle end up paying significantly higher prices. There’s less problem if they are well off but some vulnerable consumers are really struggling to make ends meet. I far prefer discount prices that are available to everyone.

I’ve supported the Which? campaign for fair energy prices since the start. The present system disadvantages vulnerable consumers who cannot afford to heat their houses properly and may be paying more than they need thanks to being on the wrong energy tariff, for whatever reason.

wavechange, it is easy to change to the “right” – better – energy tariff. That, if anything, is what needs promoting.

Ever been to, for example, a builders, plumbers or timber merchants, or electrical “wholesaler”. Trade prices for some, retail for others. Why? Discounts for buying large quantities or substantial annual spend is one reason, but it shows the difference in profits that are available to be haggled over. Belong to a Trades Union or the Civil Service for example. Discounts available. It’s that sort of a world.

I do understand and have certainly taken advantage of these discounts. My concern is primarily over goods and services that are used by those who are struggling to make ends meet, where our discount means that they have to pay more. Essentially we are exploiting the vulnerable.

I continue to support the Which? campaign for simple unit pricing.

“I continue to support the Which? campaign for simple unit pricing.” But that is not fair pricing as it does not pass actual costs on to all consumers – rich or poor, vulnerable or savvy. We have to ensure what “fair ” is before we promote it. Indiscriminate subsidy is not fair, is it?

This Conversation is about haggling. Does haggling pass actual costs on to all consumers?

I was responding to the remark made about simple unit pricing, not haggling. They are, of course, separate issues.
Perhaps we should concentrate on haggling. 🙂

wavechange, we won’t change a haggling world, even if we want to. So banging our heads against a brick wall will get us nowhere. Simply make the best of what we have got.

If we can get enough support, brick walls need not be a problem. 🙂

I think the claim should be lowest income INEQUALITY. The UK seems substantially worse in this area. Certainly it is lower than many countries and there is a tradition of transparency alien to the UK.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/what_wealth_gap_denmark_using.html

If I were running a business I would definitely haggle if my profit margins depended upon it or if I were contemplating a large purchase such as buying a house or a car I would certainly haggle. For ordinary every day purchases I wouldn’t want to be bothered for the sake of a few pence.

If UK VAT increased to 25% as in Denmark (heaven forbid!) I could change my mind.

dieseltaylor, how come you pay so much? I have Which?, Money and Travel, for £24.75 a qtr, and Legal plus Online for £7.75 a month. £192 a year. You pay £1330?

: ) Its why I take it so seriously.

Ok it was a typo. So you are responsible for five of the 1.4 million subscriptions. I am merely two subscriptions.

The fact remains Which? is the most expensive consumer organisation to subscribe to. Though to be fair we also have the most expensive executives at £330,000 for the CEO and £250,000 for his deputy. And we put aside over £1m last year towards the potential bonus of £2.5m for the top four executives. The three year LTIP ends June 30th.

Perhaps some of this money should be invested in providing staff to answer a few more questions raised by these Conversations. What is the point in having a Conversation where there is no more input than that in the introduction?

Patrick – I have noticed recent improvements, especially in answering simple questions posed by new contributors. I’m particularly keen to know if Which? plans to take issues forward, possibly helped by suggestions made by contributors. That’s what I want to haggle about – in the right place of course. 🙂

Patrck, I am a fan of straightforward information. I’m sorry but this sounds like a marketing response or, worse, the sort of language a politician might use. 🙁

I would like Which? to concentrate on UK consumer problems and devote their resources to those, but without spreading their net too widely. My impression is a lot of jobs are tacked but only part-done. We still have illegal imports of dangerous products hosted by Amazon, Sony Xperia problems just drag on, you seem not to tackle the application of consumer law (SoGA) in a way that is helpful to consumers.

And yet you set up an ill-fated venture in India (why, oh why?) that has lost substantial money – shown in the accounts as £1.9m, Which? Mortgage Advisors in the last accounts showed a deficit of £5.8m and other ventures (maybe linked to India?) of Yellowfin Holdings Ltd (Mauritius) – who they?- and Which International – ? – with a combined deficit of £15m. I am not good at reading accounts – I confess – but it does seem that here are some poor decisions and management that cost substantial money.

Do we really need to set up companies to deal with mortgages, annuities (now wound up), will it be personal independent financial advice next? Why not, like trusted traders, simply identify good companies to go to without risking investing your members subscriptions in speculative ventures? Perhaps this is all driven by the bonus terms – to increase business turnover. What about increasing the current effectiveness of Which? as a requirement instead?

I don’t suppose that personal remuneration was reduced for these failures. So salary plus bonus is a one-way ticket?

I am not always this moodyl, but when many in these conversations look cynically at the activities of commercial organisations and the rewards for their upper staff I just wonder whether we should see this any differently?

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Gripe over. Mrs r just made a cuppa, then I’m back to cutting the lawn.

Diatribe errors – PaTrick, tackled (not tacked), and I mean to refer to your post (wavechange slipped his in between). Tea now poured out.

http://www.which.co.uk/account/which-member-community/

A little known, and little used, forum for subscribers started last November by Which? in response to very strong appeals for a forum to communicate more about governance etc, and what Which? does.

dieseltaylor, it is little used and I find it difficult to navigate round so tend not to use it. A pity, because there are always replies from Which? to comments made. I should try harder!

Patrick – I am a great fan of Conversations and some of these have been very informative.

It is not Conversations fault but it is a lightning rod for talk of where other parts of Which? seem to fall down. These could/should be beneficial as during the series of Conversations on Winter Tyres Which? has moved from its original position that attracted hundreds of down votes.

I am sure the anger of OERML’s members and Which? members was salutory discussion fodder for the Which? staff who do these investigation. Hopefully credit will now be more freely given where it is due.

The reaction to the news that we are to get more Regulation of Cold Calling as relayed here seemed very at odds what people wanted to hear. Again a useful sounding board that perhaps more chat is not what is wanted by the public.

I note that the feirce Belgium consumer body Test-Achat in the past has sued Apple in court to honour two year warranties. Currently it is organising a legal case for many Belgium football supporters ripped off in Brazil last year. I do hope that Which? may rember its more bolshy heritage and also it has powers to bring cases itself AFAIR under the Enterprise Act.

In any event it can set-up its own tame solicitor under ABS [ An ABS is a regulated organisation which provides legal services and has some form of non-lawyer involvement.]

A few juicy test cases, say on misleading pricing, business practices, and Which? will again have some credibility on its own account – not for what it has passed up to quango’s or Government bodies.