Why we’ve had enough of fake reviews

Gus – I think this is a problem with a lot of traders who are franchisees. There seems to be an assumption that if one of the businesses performs satisfactorily it will be replicated across the entire operation and so the advertising is allowed to carry the Which? TT badge whether it is justified or not in the case of any individual franchise.

There are now thousands of franchised businesses covering a wide range of home services from lawn maintenance and driveways to gutter cleaning and glazing repairs. Many shops on the high street are also franchises. Personally, I have found the Which? Trusted Traders process unhelpful as part of the procurement exercise and the traders no more reliable than most others, although possibly better than those found on some other internet trade finder sites.

Using standardised advertisements, logos, liveries and products [where applicable] gives the impression of a uniform nationwide operation but that is far from the reality in my experience.

Brian – I agree with you up to a point, but I think there would be total turmoil if any bank could be shut down as soon as a full refund was not made from its funds – so it wouldn’t happen.

The cost of refunding would remain to be paid by the customers of the bank concerned. it would all be hushed up, non-disclosure agreements and so on, and we wouldn’t know how often this occurred. There has to be a way of penalising the management personally in cases like this for allowing it to happen.

Some people believe that all bank employees are honest and trustworthy and above any form of corruption to facilitate the opening of new accounts. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were possible to open an account on-line with just a brief visit and only one member of the bank’s staff would check the application and the credentials submitted: a quick credit reference check, a couple of vague testimonials or personal references, a name and address check, tick a few boxes, a nice juicy cheque with the application, and “there you are, sir, it’s all set up for you . . .”. No eye contact, photocopy the passport without looking at the individual, ask about his time in Malta, and hand out a set of instructions for on-line banking. Pure fantasy, of course!

It seems to me that, rather like the Consumer Rights Act where you need to justify a claim for a defective product (a manufacturing problem) – not down to abuse, misuse, not following the instructions – we should all need to justify a claim when we have fallen for a scam. The present philosophy seems to make the bank automatically guilty, with little regard to the part played by the “victim” and their responsible or irresponsible behaviour.

When a bank has been negligent then it should pay, and that should apply to banks that allow accounts to be opened and operated without due diligence. But just to expect banks to cough up – the money comes from you and me if course – is both unfair and does nothing to foster responsibility by their customers.

So many ways where people can lose money have been widely publicised, including “services” that charge money for what can be done cheaper by going direct to the provider, like a government agency. Those who don’t take notice of such warnings should simply accept they made an error and not expect me, and others, to give them our money.

I suppose it’s another grumpy day – the sun is shining but the rain has been raining and the temperature has been colding….