Which industry do you trust the least?

Absolutely right, Malcolm. I also tripped up on the reference to mortgage repayments – if anyone is struggling today then they had better start to do some very serious thinking about where they’re going to live and how they’re going to pay for it when interest rates do return to “normal”. It’s also worth bearing in mind that since property rents are nearly always used to repay the landlord’s mortgage there will be an impact there as well. I forecast a downsizing rush that might entice the financial services industry, in all its shady guises, into yet another form of exploitation.

NFH – I would have thought 1.5% + vat was clearer than 1.8% (if you know vat is payable then this might lead you to wonder whether vat needs to be added to the 1.8%). Particularly when buying from trade sources, vat is often excluded, but shown as a statement on the price list.

For untrustworthy “industries”, how about double glazing – inflated prices and big discounts “if you sign up today” – and builders who seem to lack any regulation yet involve you in spending very large sums of money.

Most consumers expect VAT to be included in prices. Not only is this commonplace but it is a legal requirement (unless the price is intended primarily for business customers). To avoid any confusion, the estate agent could have quoted “1.8% including VAT”.

The practice by double glazing salesmen to which you refer is actually banned as an unfair commercial practice by Schedule 1 Regulation 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

NFH – Undue pressure by salesmen is indeed banned, but that does not mean that the practice has stopped. I had to remind an experienced car salesman of the law last year, the last time I made a major purchase.

Figgerty, I wonder how many other people are as honest as you in recognising that they bought CCP knowingly and therefore won’t claim? The trouble I find with these scandals is opening the door to compensation for people to maybe take advantage of – at our expense of course.

On the decorating front, I’ve just had decorating done and went cold when I saw the quote. However, in terms of days worked and the high cost of decent materials I was pleased to see I got good value. Worth checking what paint, filler and sandpaper might cost you if you did it yourself, and how many days it would take (£150 / day seems a sensible rate).

Malcolm R, I forgot to add:

Many people say that PPI and other misselling cost the financial institutions billions and they have a bloody nose. They either don’t realise or ignore the fact that we the public are the ones to pick up the bill in the end. The shareholders will still get their large dividend, the huge bonuses will still be paid to senior staff, we are the ones who will pay more for financial products now and in the future so the banks etc can recoup their losses.

Figgerty, quite right – we end up paying, inclidung any fines or other financial penalties imposed on public or private bodies. The only deterrent to malpractice is to penalise individuals with custodial sentences or disqualification from practising; financial penalties are not effective. What is worse, in the public sector losing your job through incompetence seems to release a large payoff – some penalty!

Energy told to be greener and help towards insulating peoples homes, who pays , everyone else.
Water companies through years of neglect needing to upgrade mains supplies etc who pays we do.

Yes, it’s a disgrace. If you’re at the top of the business tree and mismanage the company you get a huge bonus and a pension pot of millions. You can then take up another highly paid job elsewhere. If you’re at the bottom of the pile, public or private sector, and commit a misdemeanour you get kicked out.

Good move on your part. More people should do that. When getting quotes from home improvement companies – notorious for trying to bamboozle the customer over pricing – I always tell them they only have one chance and their first offer must be their best offer. Some firms won’t quote under those stipulations but that’s their loss.

Just as important as getting a satisfactory estimate is making sure that builders and decorators do the job properly. It’s essential to supervise the preparation of external timber very carefully to make sure they are exposing and treating correctly any damage or decay in the timber and not just painting over it. Luckily nowadays there are several highy-effective techniques for dealing with degraded exterior surfaces; however, the products are expensive so it is worth checking how they are pricing for any special treatments that might turn out to be required as the preparation proceeds. If they say “it’s all in the price”, be wary! Proper treatment will also affect the time it takes to do the job so make sure they do not skimp in order to stick to a time schedule. Best of luck with the work [I would recommend doing it during the autumn if you can – last winter did a lot of damage and the next one might not be any better].

Thank you for the very sound advise, John. I’m now having difficulty obtaining quotes, perhaps I’m too upfront with my requirements and I’m frightening them off.

Figgert, have you checked out Which? local?

Yes, but very few in my area with no more than a handful of reviews. I have just spoken to a neighbour and she is having a general builder replace her bathroom and decorate all her house. She knows about his work from a friend who rents out several houses. I will be able to check the quality of the finish in a few weeks and if I’m happy I will get him to price my works.

Malcolm – I agree that there is good and bad in all industries, and I’m sure that everyone will recognise this even if they are not keen to admit it. I take it we are being asked to identify the sector that we are least happy with.

My reason for picking on the food industry is that I don’t believe that the public is always in a position to be able to make informed choices, especially where children are the target of unhealthy foodstuffs. Dieseltaylor has mentioned sweetened soft drinks, and it’s something we have been discussing recently, in another Conversation. The food industry was a bit slow to respond to pressure take action on trans fats. Thanks to my involvement in research, I was aware of the problem at least a decade earlier. However, to their credit, it was the larger food companies that eventually acted and led the way in phasing out the use of trans fats in foods. I wonder how many people would be able to identify if a product contains trans fats.

You and I can look after ourselves at present, but what happens if we become decrepit and no longer able to make wise choices? I’m very glad we have Which? to help deal with the specific companies that treat the consumer poorly. I will try in future not to tar them all with the same brush.

On the sweet drink angle you can see who joined in earlier in the year on the campaign for a tax
http://www.sustainweb.org/publications/?id=263
Strange you would think most consumer organisations would be keen to save their subscribers from bad health practices.

A tax of 20 pence per litre, as suggested on this website, might not achieve much. An advertising ban on the products most likely to harm our children’s health might be better.

wavechange – I agree, tax is not a way to reduce consumption. Look at the variety of prices already charged for Coke (and other soft drinks) – offer, multipacks, pub prices, none of which seem to deter consumption so the effect of any tax would be lost in this. Cider is a refreshing drink but much more expensive as it carries both VAT and duty – no deterrent apparently.

You can’t ban advertising on everything that may have a negative effect. I believe the only way is for people to be able, and encouraged, to make informed choices – if they understand the negatives they can then exercise their choice sensibly. It is about education; perhaps we could call this counter-advertising, which is what the Government should be promoting. How to fund it? Place a tax on all advertising and fund it from the proceeds.

However if people choose to ignore the advice and carry on drinking sugary soft drinks, well it’s a free society.

Malcolm – I did not suggest we ban everything that might not be good for us, just the products likely to be most harmful to our children’s health. I think we can do this, but obviously not immediately.

Having worked in education, though not children’s education, I am very keen on your suggestion that we should try to help people make informed choices and like the idea of an advertising tax to fund this. I’m not sure how this would work with young children. Presumably the campaign would have to engage with parents, but how well would this work with parents who have grown up drinking Coke etc. since they were in a pram, sucking the stuff from a bottle with a teat. 🙁

As a ‘free society’, we have many products that are either banned or there is a restriction on their sale. I’m not keen on unnecessary legislation, but if a serious attempt at education is not successful, then I do believe that action will be needed.