Why online marketplaces need more regulation

How could our Government go about prosecuting sellers based outside the UK?

Some here have long asked for Trading Standards to be properly funded and brought up to strength. It will no doubt take time to re-establish the expertise I presume it once had.

My (outsiders) impression is we should retain local (county/city) offices for local issues but establish a national version to deal with country-wide issues, such as Whirlpool problems, Amazon, Currys PCW et al.

@brianllewellyn, Do you have views on how best to deal with the current lack of control, Brian?

Brian – It’s good to hear from someone who has had a little insight into what is going on because otherwise we are guessing and relying on what is published.

Our present system for dealing with safety and compliance issues dates from when there were far fewer products and suppliers, before online sales. It’s common knowledge that Trading Standards has inadequate funding, but even with ten or twenty times the funding and could take proper action against rogue traders that might not stop others offering dodgy products for sale online.

Malcolm: TS had their budgets slashed by 44% a few years ago and by a similar amount recently. The TSI officer testifying to the EAC reported that they have lost 59% of their officers in recent times, and most of those are experienced people. A good TS friend of mine quit last year. Her county had gone bankrupt and told its TS officers that they could no longer undertake ANY prosecutions – something the BBC tends to forget to tell us in their consumer programmes where they give the impression we are well defended by TS, the police, etc.

The lack of control is frightening and I don’t really have any answers. In my specialist area – furniture flammability – the problem is even worse because the government itself proved the UK regulations do not work but refuses to put them right. They were told by TS five years ago that they could no longer prosecute the Regulations because of that (aside from their budget cuts). Hence there has been only one prosecution under the furniture regulations in the past 5 years and that was just for mislabelling. It’s very clear that the industry is well aware of this and, believe me, this means you cannot rely on furniture manufacturers – large and small – to be producing safe products.

Wavechange: I completely agree. A few years back, a Trading Standards office wrote to Amazon to tell them they were illegally selling furniture to the UK market. As mentioned above, the UK has the most stringent furniture flammability regulations in the world (even if they don’t work!). Amazon was selling sofas from Belgium and other places, that did not comply with the UK regs. Anyone selling furniture in the UK must comply. Amazon wrote back to say they weren’t the supplier; they were just the agent, i.e. the Belgium company was selling from outside the UK to consumers inside the UK (which is legal under the regs). TS replied that in their view Amazon WAS the supplier, because it took the money, gave a guarantee and handled any consumer complaints. Amazon insisted that it wasn’t so TS paid for (expensive) legal advice which gave the view that internet sellers like Amazon and ebay ARE suppliers. What did Amazon do? Still refused to agree; took off its site just that one Belgium sofa, and continues to sell loads of other non-compliant sofas. This principle applies of course to lots of other products which come under national regulations. What is the OPSS doing about this? You guessed it.

Thanks Brian. It seems to me that product safety is so important to consumers that Which? should take a far more active role in demanding change. I’d willingly increase my subscription, if necessary, if there were more resources needed simply to deal with this.
@ddalton – Daniel, what are Which? intending to do about this?

Malcolm, I agree. For example, in the current issue of Which? there is a big review of mattresses. Fair enough, in terms of durability, build, comfort, etc. But it’s a shame that there is no mention of how toxic pretty much all UK mattresses are because of the large volumes of flame retardants used to comply with flammability regulations that don’t even work. The Environmental Audit Committee was particularly horrified to learn that organophosphate chemicals are used in UK mattresses as flame retardants, the same kind that were banned from sheep dip because they’re so toxic. The EAC recommended that the government put these regulations right and specifically recommended that children’s mattresses be taken out of scope. Unfortunately, the government, in the form of BEIS, responded to in effect say it’s going to continue kicking changes into the long grass for many years to come. Yes, I’d also like to know what Which? is doing about this.

Thanks Brian – Ever since I studied chemistry at university I have been concerned about how we use chemicals in everyday products and food, and how they can affect our environment. Many products are no longer permitted to be used for certain purposes. It’s now well known that indoor air can contain a cocktail of harmful and potential chemicals from plastics, furnishings, surface coatings and so on. The best we can do is to keep our homes ventilated. You might have thought that the well established dangers of organophosphate pesticides would have been a sufficient warning to ensure that they were not used in furnishings, but that did not happen.

The Amazon issue has been discussed periodically, though there is no Conversation devoted to it and we have had no input from Which? as far as I can recall. I don’t see their ‘marketplace’ or those that have followed as an adequate way of ensuring that safety issues are adequately policed, and Which? has recently found examples of dangerous electrical goods being sold on marketplaces. I’m not aware that Amazon or its marketplace traders issues recalls, just a link to the EU Rapex database.

I wonder what OPSS is doing with the funding it does receive.

Good question regarding what is the OPSS doing? Having worked in its predecessor, I have a pretty good idea. First, the culture in Whitehall departments has changed quite a bit over the past ten years or so. There used to be a fair bit of wanting to serve the public. But that gradually changed until the department’s existence was the be all and end all, with the public largely fobbed-off (we were actually told by managers to do this: don’t answer your phones or if you just tell them to go to the website, even though there’s nothing on the website). In my last few years at BEIS, they introduced ‘Corporate Objectives’ for your yearly work plan. These were ephemeral to say the least but were meant to get you being more “corporate”. So it was that people would put on “French Evenings” for example; laying on cheese and wine for the team; or cleaning up the tea point for a few weeks. I knew the end was nigh they year our big boss announced that our corporate objectives were now more important than our work objectives.

Second, this has led to a kind of self-delusion accompanied by inaction, by which Whitehall civil servants actually believe that constant internal meetings and notes of those meetings is work. Which might start to explain how the OPSS can justify 300 people doing what 20 used to do (and most of them were hardly pushed).

My problem was the Regulations I dealt with were rare – UK-only, not EU. So while most of my colleagues could leave it to Europe, I had to actually do something. And of course my biggest mistake was trying to put them right . . .

I realise we are well off our topic of regulating online marketplaces. I was one of those who had hoped that the formation of OPSS would help here and in other ways, such as restoring Trading Standards as an effective service.

A year or two ago I identified several products on sale on marketplaces (by appearance combined with at least one review confirming the problem) and explored what action could be taken. Since it was not a local problem I contacted National Trading Standards and was told that it does not deal with the public. I tried to get action locally but was told that this would be very difficult without making a purchase.

In the past year or so, Which? has managed to identify potentially hazardous products and while these have been removed from sale, there has been no indication of any action to deal with those goods that have already been purchased.

We keep repeating this. I’d like to see Which? make proposals as to what is needed to improve the current situation, Consumer protection, especially safety, should be one of their priorities. Clearly the law regarding online market places needs to be clarified, amended if necessary, but punitive action taken against those who help in the distribution of dangerous and unsafe products.

Even without adequate legal sanctions I would have hoped that supposedly responsible traders like Amazon and eBay would recognise the dangers of their current control (lack of) of their marketplaces and simply act responsibly by putting a stop to the sale of such products. They need to devise the ways to do it. Meantime perhaps Which? would stop promoting Amazon as a seller in much the same way as it warns against Whirlpool.

I’ve said my bit elsewhere about Which? promoting retailers. The majority of members must be perfectly capable of doing web searches to decide where best to buy and the rest could be helped by Member Services.

Which? has demonstrated a problem with marketplace traders and I cannot see any viable solution other than the marketplace taking full responsibility for those companies that trade there. I’m not sure how this could be achieved in practice.

eBay is different from sites such as Amazon because individuals often sell on eBay. Never having sold anything on eBay, I don’t know the seller’s obligations but it seems unlikely that the expectations will be the same as those for a company.

I wrote to Which? a few years ago (and had a telephone conversation) about the fact the Furniture Regulations have been proven not to work, therefore the entire country is at risk. I gave them all the evidence which as said is on BEIS’s own website. See below for their response. Since then, of course, the Environmental Audit Committee has seen the same evidence and found against BEIS. Perhaps Which? would like to review its decision in light of this.

Let’s be clear: it is in no way hard for Which? to prove the points but even if it was, surely they have a responsibility to at least point consumers in the direction of the evidence so they can make up their own minds?

“I’m sorry to be slow to get back to you. We were both really interested by what you had to say and can see that there are clearly issues here. At the moment we feel this specific story isn’t something we’re going to take forward. That’s because I do feel it would be hard for us to prove some of the points you made about the proposed new test – I know that isn’t how you feel about it but the burden of proof is with the publisher and it’s a high threshold to cross.

“You have however brought the wider issues to our attention and I’m grateful for that.

“Thank you again for getting in touch, it was a valuable conversation to have – thank you so much for your time.

Alice (Rickman)”

It’s easy to contact Amazon. I posted this some time ago, and assumed everyone had it bookmarked.

There must be a way in which quality assurance systems and product certification processes can be used to attest the safety of merchandise. Where satisfactory assurance cannot be established then online marketplaces should not accept the listing. With power goes responsibility, so it is no good such operators saying that such controls would stifle trade or force up the price of goods. We have to educate the public to understand that some things are not open to compromise. Dangerous products could cause harm to people outside the immediate household; should the insurance industry exercise some influence and warn the government that it will no longer tolerate a slack liability and enforcement regime?

The insurance industry is equally flawed.

Where a problem has been detected with a marketplace I believe that it should be monitored to make sure that it is taking appropriate action to avoid its traders offering dangerous goods for sale, and that the costs involved in monitoring should be recoverable from the company providing the marketplace.

Those living in flats, tower bocks and staying in hotels are at greatest risk from other people using dangerous goods.

It would be good if the insurance industry would make some input.

Online marketplaces should have to comply with the same regulations as any retailer. That is, ensure that they sell compliant products. This requires effort for the retailers – they should properly check the integrity of suppliers, the documentation and test evidence supporting regulatory compliance, and unless they are sure of the product’s provenance not promote it. I see that as no different to what regular retailers are required to do.

As for individuals buying from abroad I see nothing we can do to stop that, but I’d suggest the numbers pale into insignificance when compared to what Amazon, for example, might assist onto the market place.

I would not only recover costs from the market place operator but, much more importantly, impose severe financial penalties to ensure they were diligent and responsible about what they helped onto the market – make it not worthwhile playing with consumer safety. Use the funds to support a much more capable Trading Standards organisation.

Our government and its predecessors have allowed the problem to develop and as it stands, marketplace traders rather than the marketplace itself is responsible for complying with regulations. We would like to see marketplaces having the same legal responsibilities as online retailers and those with shops but that will require legislation.

From the Which? policy paper: “Successive government administrations have also heavily promoted primary authority partnerships (PAPs) between businesses and local authorities, where the business receives tailored, assured advice from one local authority. In the case of Amazon, this is Hertfordshire Trading Standards. For eBay, it is Westminster City Council. There is also an e-crime National Trading Standards (NTS) team, hosted by North Yorkshire County Council, which co-ordinates national activity. Primary authority, however, does not help with those marketplaces or platforms that are based outside of the UK or EU, such as Wish.com. The OPSS is currently looking at online sales and has taken over the lead on this from NTS.”

I believe that local Trading Standards offices should go back to helping the public sort out problem with local traders and problems with online purchases be dealt with by a national service that can collect information and intelligence. At present, National Trading Standards will have nothing to do with individual consumers.

Nor will many local Trading Standards. The whole organisation needs rearranging so that local trading standards deal with local issues and act as a reporting point for other issues – all directly approachable by the public. National Trading Standards needs to deal with national issues – that affect all consumers – such as Whirlpool, Amazon, Currys PCW.

Has Which? made any representations to address this current lack of adequate consumer protection?

I contacted NTS two or three years ago and was told that they were a company that does not deal with the public. At least their website now has this information: “Please note: National Trading Standards cannot help members of the public with specific complaints or advice about goods, services or specific businesses.”

This needs to change.

Of course it does. That is what I have been trying to say. Both NTS and Local TS need to fulfil similar functions but for national and local problems, deal directly with consumers, publish what they are doing, investigating, listing non-compliant products and businesses……. I do not want to have a third party in between who record no information and do not follow up complaints or reports.

“Please note: National Trading Standards cannot help members of the public with specific complaints or advice about goods, services or specific businesses.”

This needs to change.

Yes it does – but to have any effect it needs to be staffed. It is one of many organisations that is now so pitifully underresourced….

The lack of funding has been mentioned many times in Convos.

NTS claims a good return on investment for its work, though it is not clear if this includes the cost of staffing: https://www.nationaltradingstandards.uk/uploads/infographic%20digital%20.pdf

If rogue traders are bankrupted as a result of enforcement action I will not be upset, but until we have legislation it seems that there is little opportunity to take action against the marketplaces that provide a vehicle for sale of dangerous and counterfeit goods.

Good comment, Alfa. Rong by name, wrong by nature.

This is sadly prolific in IP-cameras too. Ostensibly identical cameras with tens of different brand names differ only apparently by quality of software. I have to assume there are a handful of generic firmware configurations, depending on which boxes are ticked on a feature list menu at (bulk) purchase.

Edited to insert… could be that the middle men write their own software to the SDK sold with the base “white box” camera. Either way the principle concern applies [/edit]

It means that, with a very few exceptions, if one researches hard and buys one camera intending to test it out for a couple of months in situ (and at the same time explore it for back doors etc), if one finds a bargain with a clean bill of health, chances are it’s no longer available just two months later. I have been victim to that several times, pretty much having to start again with research for each of my cameras. I have now 15 I think in various places – includes at least 10 different models thanks to such fast turnover of models.

The recent Which? report on Shenzen highlighted this problem. There are manufacturers offering products to second parties who might customise them and on to third parties who sell them under a brand. It is the final “assembler” / “seller who has liability to the EU/UK retailer. The latter are the people who distribute many of these products and should be responsible for them, and for ensuring they are compliant. I’ll repeat that I believe severe penalties on any UK/EU distributor who passes on non-compliant/unsafe/dangerous products is a powerful way to put a stop to much of this activity and ensure distributors act more responsibly.

Malcolm, you are describing a different scenario involving exactly the same products. I found other dinosaurs with exactly the same markings, colourings, bumps, teeth, etc. but in different boxes, again with different brand names.

This one by DeeXop fulfilled by Amazon UK says:
Kind Notice:
1. DeeXop Online is the only legal owner of DeeXop.DeeXop takes full responsibility of all the DeeXop products.
2 .Please kindly check the name of seller store in case of buying fake and shoddy product.
3 .DeeXop offers best customer service for all the DeeXop products which are built with the highest quality standards and we stand behind for best after service.
Safety Warning NO
Safety Material: ABS Plastic

Funny thing is…If you look at the video, the box is labelled Rong Kai !!!

This one by Yier in a repackaged box with much of the writing the same sold and fulfilled by Amazon Warehouse UK in a used condition says:
Security Material for kids-Pass the toy CPSIA and ASTM F963-11 test by SGS

Yeah, right.

I noticed that the DeeXop-class T.Rex is described as “Educational, help your kid’s develop brain”. Really?

The Yier-class creature can, apparently, walk “with awesome dinosaur noises”. They must have discovered some prehistoric recordings.

How did we grow up without such rubbish toys?

I don’t think real dinosaurs used three AA cells, John. What do you expect?

Perhaps it is (was) an AArdonyx?

What a good subspecies a Teslasaurus would have made…

Don’t stand in its way when it charges. 🙂

Back in the ’50s / ’60s Hong Kong seemed to be the butt of most jokes about shoddy goods. “Made in Hong Kong” was a regular punch line.

“Empire made” was another unfavourable description.

I very much support having a UK representative for all products sold in the UK. We don’t need hundreds of branded/unbranded phone chargers, for example, but we need a selection of ones that are safe.

Many of the traders selling on eBay and possibly other marketplaces are selling in the UK and addresses shown are in the far east.

Maybe it is the retailer who should be responsible. They are the ones that should sort the tat and dangerous from the bargain and well made product. We know John Lewis as a long standing firm with a long back history in retailing. We should be absolutely certain that anything bought from or through them is a quality item, fit for purpose. A “trusted retailer” needs to show that their quality control is beyond reproach. Perhaps we need a list of those who can show this is true. I have yet to leave Boots with a sub-standard product, M&S don’t sell rubbish, even if they don’t get the stock that we want to buy. B&Q, Screwfix and Tool Station have the confidence of the trade what ever other shortcomings they may have. Television shopping channels may be strident, but they don’t sell dangerous items. The worry with them is that they flog second rate items that don’t perform all that well. That’s a different problem. Amazon and E.Bay are cavalier but their convenience means that they get away with it. They delegate quality control to their vast empire of retailers and thus remove the checks made by shops with a reputation to keep. Caveat emptor here.

Yes, the retailer should be responsible, but if they are located in Shenzhen there is little hope of getting redress if a product is not satisfactory, whatever fine words they put on their listing. Even stuff supplied from a UK address might just be imported, labelled and despatched from a lock-up with no known proprietorship. It would be interesting to know what checks Amazon and the others make on the credentials of companies trading in their marketplace. A physical and substantial presence means a lot to me but for many people the lowest price is the over-riding objective.

I did watch this and there was very little about market place deficiencies. The bulk of the programme was about how good amazon are about collecting data on their customers, through their purchasing, product views, visits to non-amazon websites, potentially conversations heard by Alexa as well as direct interaction with it.

I think collecting information directly down to customers buying and viewing habits on their site and tailoring those “you might also like” pop ups, is fair for a retailer wanting to get as many sales as possible. Collecting data in other ways is not fair. The worry is that collecting this “fair” data might well be OK now to “enhance the buying experience” but that data could be put to much more sinister use.

I’d suggest follow the advice of one of the ex-amazon big-wigs – turn off Alexa when you do not want your private conversations “overheard” and stored somewhere.

@ddalton, I hope Which? keep us up to date with the progress of possible legislation aimed at controlling market place responsibilities.

If two-thirds of 250 products selected for testing failed, just think how many more there are still for sale.

I am curious why binoculars failed safety tests and can only think of them not coming with a safety warning to not look at the sun through them.

I noticed Christmas lights were tested. Also needing testing are the plugs/adaptors/transformers for pre-lit Christmas trees. Ours came from a local garden centre, but it got so hot it felt dangerous so we stopped using it. The garden centre said they all got hot, felt the ones on show that were also very hot and dismissed our concerns. We replaced it with one that now just gets warm.

The ‘consumer minister’ needs to put a stop to made-up brand names on products especially electricals and toys. Looking at the list of government ministers, it looks like Amanda Milling MP needs a role.

I don’t think there is a consumer affairs minister yet in place at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. There are a few without designated responsibilities so perhaps there will be one for Monday’s work, another for Tuesday’s, and so on.

Whoever is given the role will have it added to a long list of other responsibilities and may have little prior knowledge of the subject. I presume that government ministers rely heavily on advisors and their own role is to communicate information. I wrote to one of the previous ‘consumer ministers’ and the response I received (from their office) showed a very limited understanding of the need to make consumers aware of recalls.

ICE LOLLY MOULDS Part 2

This red one has decent shaped lollies and is described as sturdy and durable silicone. Reviews are positive but when you only want one or two at a time are going to be very fiddly to undo and reseal. Silicone can have a pungent smell that could get into lollies. This one uses wooden sticks that have to be bought separately.

☹️

These blue ones look like dummies.

☹️

These umbrella shapes prove my theory that many “BEST whatevers” around the internet are sponsored by those pushing their products. They have been in a “Top Ten Ice Lolly Moulds” several times. Reviews say they don’t stand up well, look cheap, tops don’t freeze to the lolly, flimsy handles break easily. John Lewis sells these with a story of a company called Tala that has supposedly been making moulds for 100 years. Lakeland just calls them ice lolly moulds. On Amazon they are by Kitchencraft, Lumanuby, Dylandy, Forumall, Cuhawudba, Da.Wa, . . .

☹️

Then we have stainless steel moulds, again with a multitude of made-up brand names that leaves me wondering about the quality of the metal that can sometimes taint food. It can be quite painful when skin meets icy metal.

☹️

Conclusion
What a load of rubbish, much of it very quickly destined for the rubbish bin.

Can anyone suggest ice lolly moulds worth buying?

You mention the possibility of silicone rubber moulds tainting the lollies, but the same could apply with the plastic versions. I would be very suspicious of the highly coloured moulds in case the colouring agents have not been adequately tested.

I would only consider uncoloured plastic or the stainless steel moulds and wash the latter with boiling water before the first use. Trace amounts of metal tainting will not be harmful and it’s easy to learn to be careful to avoid cold burn.

Tala are probably best known for bakeware and other kitchen items but since most people keep their cake tins for years they have probably diversified.

Buying advice for silicone somewhere said don’t buy cheap silicone as that can smell. Not sure how we are supposed to know the difference when you see the same products with different names and prices.

You’re right about other plastic. Years ago, I bought a set of about 12 rigid plastic containers that I used for dry goods such as rice, sugar, pasta, etc. Within a couple of months the contents smelt disgusting and I returned the containers to the store complete with contents and got a refund after they sent them away for examination. I have never really liked plastic food containers since and either keep food in original packaging or transfer to glass. If I buy any plastic containers I always smell them first.

I have not heard of Tala before. Am I being unfair to the brand when there are so many other ‘brand’ names for the same product?

As far as I know, Tala is still a British Company. Prestige is a better known seller of cookware etc. but is now a foreign-owned brand.

The problem with plastics is that a certain type of plastic can contain a variety of different plasticisers and other additives, even though these are not identified in information provided to the public. These are what can smell rather than the plastic itself. Silicone rubbers also contain plasticisers.

I agree about keeping products in the original packaging or in glass.

This takes me back, Alfa; I well remember when the kids were small getting some moulds and trying to make lollies. Generally, they were a dismal failure. That was probably because of me, rather than the moulds, which I still have, somewhere.

My mother had a set of four interlinked white plastic moulds back in the 60s. We used recycled lolly sticks that had been soaked in boiling water to kill bugs. Home-made lollies will contain large ice crystals, whereas commercial ones avoid this by rapid freezing.

I had seen that on the ESF website, as part of some useful information: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/guidance/safe-shopping-and-counterfeit-products/

Earlier this year I was looking electrical goods on the Which? website and Amazon Marketplace appeared as a suggestion of where to buy. I seems daft to point out that marketplaces are common sources of dangerous and counterfeit goods and then to mention their names as places that offer the items at a reasonable price. Mentioning where to buy does not fit in well with the claim of Which? to be independent. Anyone who can use a computer should be capable of comparing prices online.