Feedom of Information and Town Hall meetings

I found it interesting that a number of people who addressed the committee on the Freedom Of Information Bill at Princess Margaret School said they had not read the document or were seeing it for the first time. This was reflected in their queries. The attendance was around 20 and only a few people spoke. This was the third Town Hall meeting I attended. All have had small attendances and few participants with recommendations based on rigourous reading. Being unable to attend the fourth meeting at Alexandra School Wednesday coming I would say that to date we have not had the public discussion necessary for such an important bill. I do intend to make a written submission ahead of the new deadline at the end of November. The Barbados Association of Non Governmental Organisations (BANGO) has been in touch with a few folk and I suggest that persons who are serious about making a contribution contact BANGO and Roosevelt King at admin@bango.org.bb or 431-8513 or email me at : caritel@hallamhope.com
At this late stage I am still inclined to work with any interested party on a submission, but time is clearly short. I am away for a week on Monday. Concerns about potential conflicts with other legislation (see Barbados Free Press) has led me to send an email to : freedomofinfobill@barbados.gov.bb and copy a lawyer on the committee, Ms. Monique Taitt. I have head from nobody and efforts to contact Permanent Secretary Capt. Straughn prior to my departure for a week overseas on Monday have been unsuccessful. I am concerned about the increased cost to taxpayers from any further bloating of bureaucracy; the limited attention to “information” compared with “documents and records”; the absence of even a definition of the meaning of “information” while one is provided of “documents”, the apparent absence of considering best practices in e-Goverment and use of the government portal to reduce cost and avoid another government “silo”. As a soverign nation and leader in the developing world could this legislation not have considered information held in private companies and encouraged access to information which senior civil servants have, even basic explanations? The top down approach to policy has for long been discredited, as against the bottom up approach, where the needs of the society are rigourously pursued. Despite the best intentions, Town Hall meetings do not work, but are necessary. The old and lazy way of public communication is reflected in these failed Town Hall meetings. Ian Bourne suggested using facebook, blogs and even promoting meetings via loud speakers. New Media thinking got Obama elected. When will we understand that advertising via the Government Information Service and wasting thousands of taxpayers dollars in press advertisements is not enough?

Information and documents conundrum

I thought I would share this query from Brutus and response at Barbados Free Press.
Brutus wrote : Hallam, you make some interesting points but can you clarify what you mean by “information in the broader sense”? What information are you contemplating that is not covered by the term “documents”. Can you give examples?
My response:
The intention of the bill, as stated at page 3 Section (a), speaks to giving citizens the right and freedom to receive idea and information. Not all information is held in public documents. In fact, I am suggesting that there is a lot of information held by companies which affects the citizen and which the citizen should have access to. As a communications analyst I want information that can be used to (a) argue a case for a better deal for citizens and (b) recommend after additional analysis policies that government should consider to provide citizens with improved education, business opportunities, jobs, access to telecommunicatons etc.Information, as defined as information contained in public documents, is therefore limited and incomplete as far as the interests of citizens are concerned.Further, while the section on page 3 speaks of "information" nowhere in the same section are the words "documents" and "reports" mentioned. However, replete in other sections of the draft bill are references to "documents" but not "information". So I also see something of a conundrum in the intentions of the bill and what it actually would seek to legislate.There are many other aspects of the bill which appear either unclear, inadequate or potentially at conflict with other legisation, such as the confidentiality legislation which comes under the Telecommunications Act and the Utilities Regulation Act of the Fair Trading Commission. For example, if an item of information that cannot possibly be considered "confidential" is contained in a document which Cable & Wireless provides to the Fair Trading Commission with an understanding of non-disclosure and Brutus wanted to access that information which legislation would take precedence?My basic point though was that my preference would have been for access to information, not just public documents. Do we always have to import legislation as defined by other countries and intended for the citizens of those countries? A lot of the information of interest to me is financial or numbers such as how any people do not have telephone service, how many people in rural Barbados compared with urban Barbados have telephones, where exactly are there pockets of poverty and how is this defined, company information that is ill-defined whch might be useful to potential stock purchasers, data that shows the earnings of various unregulated telecommunication services which would more than likely put a lie to the view that domestic telephone service is propped up by international earnings, cost studies held by the Fair Trading Commission etc, etc.
Hallam
caritel@hallamhope.com
(246) 424-0894

Consumers of Barbados..the time to act is now

THIS WAS POSTED ON THE BDOS UNDERGROUND BLOG IN ANSWER TO THE CRY FOR A CONSUMER ORGANIZATION IN BARBADOS

You know guys, we at Bdos Consumer Watch are very intrigued by these discussions.
We are hoping, that . judging from what is happening, it appears that its only within the last two weeks or so that some Bajans are aware that ” a consumer organization is required”.
Our question to everyone who sees the consumer as the one with the power is ” Why are we not exercising that power”. There have been several attemptes at “consumer organizations” in Barbados and for what ever reason, they never seem to become vibrant. This is the main reason why we at BCW decided to try something different and see how much success we would have.
Until everyone, including the moderators and callers to Brass Tacts get up off their butts and put their hands up and either join or form that said consumer organisation, this type of discussion will go on ad infinitum.
We at BCW are ready……We await the readiness of the consumers of Barbados.

Freedom of information or access to records?

Dear Doug, colleagues,

I spent part of yesterday reading through the draft Freedom of Information bill (I hope you folk are reading it and will be attending the Town Hall meetings).

My position right now is that rather than follow the FOIA of the U.S and the Freedon of Information and Privacy Act of Canada, which the drafter of this bill seems to have done, as a progressive country we should be crafting a bill with radical changes to include :

Access to :
1. Access to information held by private companies that relates to the interests of consumers.
2. Access to information, via permanent secretaries and directors of state and statutory departments that is relevant to consumers.

Rather than continue the practice of importing foreign practices or turning to them as "best practices" we should look at other developing countries that have told these countries and their international agencies that their approaches are not relevant to the needs of our societies.

This is an opportunty Doug, for your organisation to stand up and shine.

The Freedom of Information Bill should not only relate to records because essentially it is an "Access to Public Records and Documents bill" but to "Information".

Clearly the former administration or their civil service person (s) took the old approach of rather than finding out the "needs" of people, they went to what obtains in foreign countries.

So we now have a document which the typical bureaucratic approach would lean towards tweaking rather than changing radically, which, in my opinion, is what is required. At this year's economics conference at the Central Bank of Barbados the point was authoritatively made that one of the reasons there is limited trading in the stock exchange is the limited information made available to potential investors. It's not just the balance sheet, it is the unknown details which apparently, are not shared with the public.

Hallam Hope
caritel@hallamhope.com
438-3211/424-0894/822-1414

Freedom of Information - Town Hall (1)

Hello Folks,
Well the first Town Hall meeting (at Cawmere, oops Combermere), came off on October 15th as scheduled on the Freedom of Information Bill.
It started with 10 members in the audience and another 10, incluidng some party followers, tured up later.
Four people spoke : Besley Maycock, a retired envoy, Carl Moore, a former Nation newspaper editor, Ian Bourne (former CBC anchor) and this blogger.
Well what we have is legislation taken straight from North America, where information means records/documents and really, not information.
Let me explain. Information for me is not only found in some report or document, but in the crania of civil servants. I suspect there is far more there of relevance than in documents.
So rather than access to information, as in access to senior civil servants who have information relevant to the public, what we have is North America-patterned Freedom of Information legislation.
Well, we managed to get the chairman, Mr. Orlando Marville, to state that the inappropriate deadlines were "not cast in stone". In fact there is a deadlne for submission of views etc. that precedes the end of the Town Hall meetings. This does not make any sense.
I raised the question of a possible conflict between the FOIA and existing confidentiality legislation. In other words, if I go to the Fair Trading Commission and they tell me a certain document is confidential, will the FOIA legislation "take precedence" over the legislation governing the Fair Trading Commission, on the grounds that I am entitled to the information.
Or would it be the other way, thereby rendering the FOIA still-born, or useless in this regard.
Should Barbadians not have a bill that is broader in scope and depth than the North American legislation. Should our national strings not say "we want something that os relevant to our needs"?
The message though as we always say on this blog is get the facts, get the information and let's get off our buns and make a contribution.
Hallam Hope
caritel@hallamhope.com/438-3211

Freedom of Information

So we have a chance to help craft the legislation which should help us as Bajan consumers have access to more information from government and statutory corporations.
Starting at 7 p.m every evening Town Hall meetings on the Freedom of Information Bill at Combermere, October 15th (today); Alexandra School, October 22nd, Deighton Griffith School, October 29th and November 5th at Princess Margaret School are scheduled.
Citizens also have an opportunity to read the draft legislation and comment in written form.
Comments and other submissions should be emailed to freedomofinfobill@barbados.gov.bb
It should be noted that the ads. I have seen do not say where written submissions may be sent or that there is a deadline of October 31st, two days before the Deighton Griffith School public meeting and five days after the last Town Hall meeting.
There must be some logic or illogic about setting a deadline for submissions before the Town hall meeting process has been completed. (lol)

Questions?
To what extent will this legislation streamline access to information given that the citizen is expecting the wheels of Government to turn, in the event of an appeal against a government entity that refuses to provide information on request? Some information has a short shelf life depending on the urgency of the need. So approval of information when it is no longer needed does not contribute to improved transparency.

At what level will officers of government and statutory corporations have the authority to provide information in an expeditious manner.

Despite the fact that the Fair Trading Commission does not require a FOIA to provide basic information to the public will the new laws guarantee that this organisation starts to understand its role to be transparent and provide citizens with information they need to make comments of substance based on hard facts. Who will bell the cat for complaints against the FTC, the Ombudsman?

The point posed is that we have a considerable "culture change" challenge when it comes to accessing information in a timely fashion.
Will new rules and regulations change this?

Hallam Hope
caritel@hallamhope.com
(246) 438-3211

Victory for the Consumer

Well guys..


After contacting the cell phone provider service centre, and explaining the situation re the wrong money being credited to cell phone 254-8630 I was pleasantly surprised about the result.

The representative from Cable and Wireless was very sympathetic but firm. She explained that the policy of the firm was that they generally speaking did not transfer "error credit" unless it was done by the vendor . she explained the many difficulties that they have had with this type of transaction, but after I explained the special circumstances she said she would refer it to her supervisor.

she did so and moments ago, the moneis was credited to my phone.

good job ..Cable and Wireless
And consumers..if you don't stand up for yourself..no one else has to.

Thanks to all those who gave me advise and lets mark this one down to a victory for consumers.

Interest rates and bank charges

Quite recently Bank of Nova Scotia sent me a booklet of their new charges. Congrats to them. Well, my Gold Card fee is up by 15 dollars. Time pemitting I will try and get a copy of the previous charges and do some comparisons.
For example, it would be useful to consumers to know which fees have gone up and by how much.
Anyone want to contribute in this area? Post to this blog and/or email me at : caritel@hallamhope.com.
It's the foundation for a programme on my consumer site : www.ustream.tv/caritel.
The other observation is that interest rates are going down.
This is good and bad, since it should mean lower lending rates which people who wish to refurbish their homes or maybe add that extra apartment to increase their income could benefit from.
I am not an economist, but the move could also lead to more spending on needless consumer items, which is good for the banks but I personally think bad for the economy. This at a time when he need to guard against having mauby pockets and champaine tastes - and spending habits.
The other concern is that lower interest rates means lower returns and less incentive for the folk who have a few pennies to put in an investment income. I.e lower rates equal lower income.
So where do we go? Yes, invest, but the cost of investment as a result of the soaring increases in the cost of living limit what we can invest in.
Anyone for group investments?

Cable & Wireless to be renamed LIME

Just a piece of news off the press. One must wonder about this name LIME (Landline, Internet, Mobile, Entertainment) which C&W wants to change to. Is that the extent of the seriousness they can bring to such an important tool? sounds like all are about entertainment because the only word there that is not a telecommunications service is "Entertainment". Furthermore, look at the acronym????

Don't get me wrong, entertainment is necessary but this is typical of a mentality foisted on us as a people. That is probably how one would market something like Disney World but not a serious telecommunications company.

Leaves one to wonder. Somebody either think we are ignorant or should remain ignorant. What an insult! It's still just about the money. By whatever means necessary. See story below and tell me what you think?

Date Posted: Sunday 21 September, 2008

Executives plan launch before Christmas

By Stanford Conway
Editor-in-Chief-SKNVibes.com

BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – TELECOMMUNICATIONS Giant Cable and Wireless (C&W) may soon change its brand to the acronym, LIME, which stands for Landline, Internet, Mobile, Entertainment, and should be introducing the new version before the Christmas Season.

According to The Jamaica Observer, C&W had announced that it would be selling off its international operations and a concerted effort is now being made to consolidate the companies’ businesses in the Caribbean.

The newspaper also stated that an internal memo from a C&W executive read: “We spent the day talking about the transformation of our business and the journey that we’ve embarked on to create a strong pan Caribbean business, which customers want to work with and colleagues are proud to work for. More specifically, we spent our time looking in some detail at the next phase of our journey. The phase where we create and introduce a new version of our brand, a fresh approach that signals to colleagues and customers that we’ve changed, that we’ve transformed and that we’re becoming the business they want us to be.

“We’ll be taking this new version of C&W out to market before Christmas. We are going to rename our business. We’re changing our name because the business we’re becoming bears little resemblance to the business we were because we want to show the world how much we’ve changed. Ladies and gentlemen start preparing because Cable & Wireless Caribbean is going to become LIME- Landline, Internet, Mobile, Entertainment. A new name that says what we do, which stands for something, which tells the Caribbean that we’re back and that we mean business.”

The Observer also indicated speculation is rife that América Móvil, which recently acquired MiPhone, would seek to establish a footprint across the region by snapping up C&W’s Caribbean operations.

América Móvil is the fifth largest mobile network operator and the largest corporation in Latin America. It is a Mexican publicly traded wireless communications company and provides services to over 152 million wireless subscribers in the Americas, primarily in Latin America, and the Caribbean as of March 2007 when it acquired 100 percent of Jamaican mobile operator Oceanic Digital, under the brand name MiPhone.

Speaking up: Costly Advertising Traps

Speaking up: Costly Advertising Traps

This is some very interesting information about what can easily be called false advertising of some kind.

Its to do with the free for three minutes package being advertised by Digicel.
Its from Bango's Speaking Up Blog..thanks Rok.

Click on the Underlined heading and have a read and lets hear your comments.

Action is required now.

Well, the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA) wants workers to be paid based on productivity. We know there are many challenges with measuring productivity. What about management productivity and efficiency which also have an impact on the bottom line. Let's all work harder, hope we get recognition and proper management and low productivity it not located at the top of the stream.
Did Cable & Wireless Barbados say how many workers are to be laid off. This after announcing with smiles, even fatter profits earned off the backs or fingers of consumers. So staff work hard, the company makes super profits and then the staff are rewarded with what? Layoffs. And what will be the impact of the layoffs on customer service?
Thanks to the Business Authority for publishing a letter from me on consumer concerns about lack of information from the Fair Trading Commission (FTC). The FTC says it wants to hear from consumers but isn't prepared to provide them with information so they may comment based on substance. What does the Mission Statement of the FTC say? That it will be transparent.
Eight out of 12 QEH ambulances are not working.What is the response from CEO Winston Collymore?"If you look at any ambulance service, even in advanced countries, there are always a number of them in the garage because they take a heavy pounding."Well so much for responsibility, health care and the old folk who cannot pay to get to the hospital.

Posted by A CONSUMER

Wages, layoffs and ambulance service

Wages, layoffs and ambulance service
Well, the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA) wants workers to be paid based on productivity. We know there are many challenges with measuring productivity. What about management productivity and efficiency which also have an impact on the bottom line. Let's all work harder, hope we get recognition and proper management and low productivity it not located at the top of the stream.Did Cable & Wireless Barbados say how many workers are to be laid off. This after announcing with smiles, even fatter profits earned off the backs or fingers of consumers. So staff work hard, the company makes super profits and then the staff are rewarded with what? Layoffs. And what will be the impact of the layoffs on customer service?Thanks to the Business Authority for publishing a letter from me on consumer concerns about lack of information from the Fair Trading Commission (FTC). The FTC says it wants to hear from consumers but isn't prepared to provide them with information so they may comment based on substance. What does the Mission Statement of the FTC say? That it will be transparent.Eight out of 12 QEH ambulances are not working.What is the response from CEO Winston Collymore?"If you look at any ambulance service, even in advanced countries, there are always a number of them in the garage because they take a heavy pounding."Well so much for responsibility, health care and the old folk who cannot pay to get to the hospital.

FTC and access to information

Gaining access to basic consumer information seems to have more hurdles than one would expect.
A few months ago I approached the Fair Trading Commission (FTC) and asked them for a copy of the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the consultants assessing the Price Cap. I also asked for the dates for their work.
I wasn’t asking for what they were paying the consultants from taxpayer revenue to tell us some things we could determine for ourselves. I felt that as a taxpayer I was entitled to know what they were supposed to be doing so I could enhance any submission on the Price Cap, which affects the pockets of the most vulnerable in our society.
It seemed quite reasonable. The response was that both items of information requested were “internal” and not available to the public.
Well, in August I enquired about the number of people who have been waiting for basic telephone service and the date of the last report.
Surprise! This is also not public information.
Well, what is surprising is that we live in a world where all administrations, including the new Government, talk about transparency and good governance.
But without access to basic information consumers cannot advocate on matters that affect their interests.
So to deny consumers elementary information is tantamount to failing to perform a fundamental public responsibility, that of transparency in public office.

Hallam Hope

Fatal dose of Medicine

For those of you who put so much medical faith in Western Medicine I invite you to take a look at this. For those of you who have suffered or had family or friends that died, you have survived to tell the tale so tell it. The only health security you have is to avoid everything European and American.

Please click on this link: Fatal Dose

More Consumer Protection

It was with amusement that I watched Mr. LeHunte on TV tonight trying to talk about market forces driving prices. He is obviously disappointed with the Central Bank's new position to regulate bank charges to their customers.

For too long these charges were at the whim and fancy of the bank. Who is Mr LeHunte fooling that there is any real competition in the banking sector. They have always and continue to do thier own thing individually.

At this time when inflation is a factor, there is within reason, a bar beyond which charges should never go because of the nature of the industry. Banks have thousands of customers and to collect even a cent from its customers is a lot of money. Like the gas stations, a gill from every gallon adds up because of the volume of sales. That is why every gas pump should be calibrated by law.

So Mr. LeHunte, I am sorry, It is about time. Next should be the insurance companies. Imaging charging thirty dollars for a returned cheque and less than a dollar if it don't bounce. That is a penalty and I am one who believe that penalties should be paid into the consolidate fund and not go into the pockets of an unscrupulous banking sector to beef up their profits at the expense of small businesses that can least afford it and who always have cash flow problems. If customers did not write cheques, small businesses would not have a cash flow problem.

Not only that, the way banks operate are like thieves in the night. Incur an expense on you and then proceed to take it out before they notify you. Do not give people a change to budget and pay. They just take and don't care what you had planned, so they have their customers feeling guilty and at thier mercy. This is unfair. No other institution gets away with this and the banks should not.

Furthermore, banks just take and take and take without giving back. Of course you don't give back because you are in it for making money. The token things I have seen the banks involved in seem the least they could do to generate some kind of goodwill; if that is necessary.

NGOs for example do not get anything from banks. They are the last we go to and even some when that is so we don't remember them because they have the reputation of being the stingiest. Tried with them a few times and never got pass the talk. Somebody will always pass you onto somebody else who can make the decision only to find out that somebody else has to make the decision who would never likely to be in at anytime that you visit the bank.

So banks do not have goodwill but we tolerate them so we don't have to put our money under the cellar but they are taking advantage and monopolising the situation.

Digicel and Cable & Wireless

Date: Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Subject: Digicel and Cable & Wireless
To: Bdosconsumer@gmail.com

Digicel

I frequently make calls to Guyana from my Digicel prepaid cell phone. On one occasion while making such a call I noticed that the call timer of the cell phone was running while the cell connection was ringing but not answered. This obviously is not normal as the timer should only come on when the call has been answered by the receiving party, thus initiating charges. Since no one answered I hung up and checked my balance which should have been $10 dollars since I had just recharged the phone with the said amount. It was not $10 but $9.12. I made a mental note but did nothing.

However, I started noticing more and more that the same thing was happening so I decided to call Digicel customer care. I was told by a representative that Digicel was experiencing a problem with calls to Guyana and that she on behalf of Digicel was sorry and wanted to know if I wanted a refund. I said no and that all I wanted was for them to fix the problem because I have to make frequent calls to Guyana and I should not be charged for calls that were not connected. The customer representative assured me that they were actively working on the problem and hoped to get it resolved soon.

A week went by and the problem seemed to have been solved. Unfortunately it recommenced, so finally I decided I couldn't take it any more after realizing that I was losing about $20 a month in calls that were never connected. I called Digicel customer care and told the representative that I wanted a refund for the the last call I just made (I estimated the refund to be about 89cents). She told me that I was not going to get a refund because

1) Digicel was not the responsible carrier. It was the Guyanese company that was at fault.
2) I did not know the exact amount of money that was initially on the phone card before I made the call.

In response to this I said that:

1) Digicel was the responsible carrier since I was making the call through them and it was Digicel and not any company in Guyana that was deducting credit from me. They were the ones taking my money!
2) It seems illogical for someone to have to take the time to constantly check the balance of their phone before they initiate a call. How many people do you know that do that? Once you know that you have money on your phone you just dial.

My response fell on death ears and I got no refund....(remember I was asking for less than a dollar). Doesn't Digicel have the technology to see the last call that was made from a cell phone?

With the high Guyanese population in Barbados, the vast exchange between the two countries and the number of people that do not look to see if their money is being deducted for unanswered calls, one can safely estimate that Digicel is getting rich for not even providing a service. Alternatively, getting rich from providing a terrible service. Digicel must be getting rich by just silently nickel & diming persons. Especially Guyanese who might be illegal in Barbados and therefore will not complain.

Please make the general public aware of this.


Cable & Wireless

If you did not know, Cable & Wireless has been traffic shaping and throttling the internet to their customers disadvantage.

See the link below:

http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs#Barbados

There have been many times recently that I have been downloading legitimate files from the internet from sites like Rapidshare, when suddenly the download connection was severed due to Cable & Wireless over agressive traffic shaping and throttling policy. Thus wasting lots of my time as sometimes these files were transferring for over twenty five minutes.

Our North American neighbours have realised what some ISPs like Cable & Wireless have been doing and have taken successful action:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080711.wgtcomcast0711/BNStory/Technology/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080711.wgtcomcast0711

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1859/125/


Please help save the freedom of the Barbados internet or next we will find that blog sites like yours or the Barbados Underground or the Barbados Free Press are being cut off from the public by an ISP over stepping it's bounds!


Please reply and let me know what you think
A very concern bajan

Public Counsel in Landmark Case: Kimone Phillips v Courts (Bdos) Ltd.

Well! Well! Well!

Barry Carrington, Attornet-at-Law, The Original Public Counsel!

Stand up! Raise yuh hand!

Consumers, you have something to shout about and a man to thank for his tireless work as Public Counsel. Though Barry has moved on up, he has left a legacy of cases before the Consumer Claims Tribunal, over a four year period of championing the cause of Consumers; a well kept public secret.

Imagine that Barry took Mrs. Ram before the Tribunal ten times between 2004 & 2005 and won all. Not only that, after the tenth time, Mrs. Ram like she decide that she ain't coming back (brought her to her knees) to the Tribunal because there are no entries with any of her companies since then, so she got to be settling everything before it get there. A serious victory for consumers.

Moreover, just prior to his departure, Barry successfully argued a landmark case fitting for a good send off and for a job well done. This is Case No. 87: Kimone Phillips v Courts (Bdos) Ltd. where the facts of purchase or arrangement are not in dispute since Courts agreed to give a refund. The matter in question is, "What is a refund?"

What makes this a Landmark Case?
First, the Tribunal's record states, "At the commencement of the hearing in this matter, we were alerted to the fact that many of the local commercial enterprises and their representative body, the Barbados Chamber of Commerce and Industry, were anxiously awaiting its outcome. This is not surprising. The hire-purchase transaction, the subject matter of the dispute in this case, is a popular means of the acquisition of consumer durables in Barbados, and the enterprises which engage in such transactions are anxious for an exposition of the impact of the Consumer Guarantees Act 2002."

Second, the findings of the Tribunal States..." We are mindful of the advice of both counsel to the Tribunal that we should not seek to make law and, indeed, we are diametrically opposed to doing such. However, there are, strictly speaking, two senses in which we may speak of making law, and while we are not competent to make law, in the sense of passing a law (constitutionally a matter for Parliament alone); nevertheless, we are called upon in this case to make law in the sense of declaring, for the first time, what the law is in relation to the true nature of a refund after goods have been rejected in a hire-purchase transaction. We do so by seeking to ascertain the intention of Parliament as best we can."

Having only just got the website I will go through it to see if there are any cases which can serve as a precedent for some of the issues raised in this blog. The facts of this particular case are as follows:

The Facts
According to the complaint, Ms Kimone Phillips’s mother, Arlene, purchased on October 27, 2005, one (1) HP DV-1325 LA Notebook on behalf of the Complainant from the Respondent on hire-purchase terms. A deposit of $230.00 was paid immediately and it was agreed in writing that there would be thirty-five (35) further monthly payments of $193.00 and a final payment of $170.91. The total hire-purchase price, inclusive of the Courts Supa-Shield, was $7,155.91.

Sometime during August or September 2006, the laptop computer malfunctioned and, when it was taken to Courts’ Service Centre, Ms. Phillips was informed that the screen needed to be replaced. However, subsequent attempts by Courts to source a screen proved futile and Ms. Phillips was then instructed by the Respondent to return the computer accessories and to choose a replacement notebook.

When she attempted to do this, she was told further that if she took the replacement she had an option of 2 payment plans:(i) to complete the payment of the hire-purchase price over three (3) years; or(ii) to complete the payment in ten (10) months.Neither of these arrangements found favour with Ms. Phillips who then, in her words, “opted for a refund”.

The Respondent agreed to this, but insisted that a sum of only $1967.19 would be refunded out of the total sum paid to that date of $3729.52. The remainder, Courts told her, would be payment for the use she had enjoyed of the computer for the period of its retention.

Unwilling to accept this, Ms. Phillips reported the matter to the Office of Public Counsel where she was advised that “a refund is a refund of any money paid”. All reasonable efforts to obtain redress for her complaint having failed, the matter came on before the Consumer Claims Tribunal for a resolution.

The Decision
After arguments on both sides the Tribunal gave its decision in favour of Ms. Phillips. I leave you to imbibe the decision:

DECISION: It is the decision of the Tribunal that under the Consumers Guarantee Act 2002 there is no difference in the nature of the refund to the consumer on a rejection of goods which have substantially failed to comply with a guarantee whether these goods were acquired by means of hire-purchase or by direct sale.

We so hold for the following reasons in this case:
(i) We accept the statement of Gault on Commercial Law that there is nothing in the Act to suggest that there should be a pro-rating of the refund in hire-purchase transactions when goods are rejected.
(ii) We do not accept that the decision in Stephens v. Chevron Motor Court Ltd. compels us to conclude that the nature of the refund in hire-purchase transactions on the rejection of the goods is identical to that in direct sales transactions.
(iii) It is our view that Parliament had in contemplation the hire-purchase transaction at the time of the passage of the Act, given the definitions of “acquire”, “supplier” and “supply” in the Act and the presence of the provision in section 52 which stipulates a particular method for the assessment of damages in hire-purchase transactions.
(iv) While we recognize that grave injustice might result in certain cases if the literal and plain meaning of the refund provision was to be applied, such cases must from their very nature be rare, given the lapse of time between acquisition and appearance of the defect. This lapse might suffice to cause a loss of the right to reject or to present a difficulty for the consumer in establishing a causal link between the defect and the supply of the goods.
(v) In those cases where the lapse of time is not substantial, it might still be argued, as it was in this case, that the result of a full refund is unfair to the supplier. However, given our earlier stated view that Parliament must have considered the possibility of such a result and chose to abstain from statutory intervention, we would be patently guilty of attempting to do what Parliament was itself loath to do. This is not permitted to us. Parliament will have to be persuaded to change its apparent mind.
(vi) Based on the above, there is no argument which persuades us to deny the clear words of the provision and to hold that a refund in hire-purchase transactions differs in any way from the refund as defined in section 24(2).We ORDER therefore that the Respondent Courts (B’dos) Ltd. refund to the Complainant, Ms. Kimone Phillips, all those sums which she had paid to the Respondent in respect of the hire-purchase of the computer from the date of the transaction.
J. Cumberbatch (Chairman (ag.), Fay Lucas, Antoine Williams.

http://www.commerce.gov.bb/cct/cases02.asp?c=111

Barbados Consumers Watch - update

Hi All,

Last evening Annette and I produced a programme to update everyone about the developments at Barbados Consumers Watch - your blog making a difference to the lives of Barbadian consumers. The programme ran for 45 minutes and is recorded at http://www.ustream.tv/caritel
Look for the first programme - CARITEL TV - Consumers and BCW and click to view.
You are invited to email us your comments via
bdosconsumers@gmail.com
Consumers are responding, consumer agencies are responding ... get involved. Let's hear from you.

Hallam Hope

Some Issues with the Bank

Ever notice how when you owe the bank they just take it out of your account before they even give you notice? It could cause you some embarassment, but let's deal with the issue.

The issue is that nobody has a right to just take your money from your account. From my humble viewpoint, that is breaking and entering. It is like somebody breaking in your bedroom and finding your money and taking it because you owe them money. It does not work that way.

This is causing a lot of problems for people trying to use the banking system to conduct business. First, I find it difficult to understand why it should take three clear days to clear a cheque when the banks exchange cheques every morning at 8 a.m. at the Central Bank?

What makes it worse is that the bank will tell you three days but they will not tell you that they are not counting the day of the deposit, so when you check carefully it really takes five days. Yet by the morning after your deposit and at the latest the morning following that, the bank has your money, but would make you wait three extra days to collect it.

It gets even worser, if by chance one of your cheques reaches your bank on the fourth day, when for sure they have your money, they would charge you a Not Sufficient Funds (NSF) Fee or overdraft fee ($25 - $30) if you are depending on your deposit to clear that cheque you wrote two days after making the deposit, which somehow managed to get from another bank to your bank in a day.

So how it could take five days to clear for me but when I write a cheque to a supermarket that is going to deposit it in a bank that night, it only takes them a day to clear on your account? Actually, by the time you write the cheque on the third day, the bank already has your money but because the cheque came in before the dawn of the fifth day, you are penalised.

Worst of all, for that one thing you are penalised twice. First by the bank. Then the business to whom you wrote the cheque puts on up to fifty dollars; even more. But look how the bank gains; the bank put charges on you that wrote the cheque (after bouncing it for you) and then turns around and charges the business that deposit the cheque you wrote. So they induce a bounce and then dip their hands in their customers accounts.

I declare that the money in the bank in your account is "sacro sanctum" and should not be touched by anybody except the account holder and that every transaction which incurs a cost or "penalty" should come to the attention of the customer and he/she should sanction its withdrawal by signature before the financial institution can remove any funds from the customer's account.

Any business sends a bill and gives you time to pay. Why should it be any different with the banks? In the case of penalties, I have always argued that penalties should be paid into the consolidated fund. This is illegal from many perspectives, even if the banks want to declare that it is standard practice. In modern times when the probability of theft is always around the corner, it has to be illegal for anybody to just dip their hands into your money. It is not transparent and it offends the integrity of the security of your money.

Finally, anybody caught dipping their hands in your money should be reported to the police, charged and if convicted made to serve the same time and pay the same penalties as a person convicted of breaking and entering with the intention of theft. It is no different.

PLEASE FIND BELOW A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE FAIR TRADING COMMISSION DETAILING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE RETURNING OF BOTTLES.

MONEY FOR YOUR BOTTLES

The Fair Trading Commission has had to recently address a number of complaints from consumers relating to their ability to recover the deposit paid on drink bottles or “returnable containers” as the law properly definesstyles them.

At some point in time most consumers have had the experience of visiting a few of the various bottle return centres that provide the service of accepting returnable containers. The advent of these bottle return centres, have been associated with a number of different policies with respect to the return of beverage containers. For example, while some bottle return centres pay cash when consumers redeem bottles, others prohibit cash refunds and onlytherefore issue vouchers that contains terms that limit the time for its redemption. In any event, many consumers are in a quandary as to their rights when they return beverage containers.

The redemption of returnable containers is governed by the Returnable Containers Act Cap.295. The Returnable Containers Act applies to ‘redeemers’ who are the persons who demands the refund value of returnable bottles. The definition of ‘redeemer” comports well with the definition of ‘consumer’, therefore, a redeemer would be deemed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act Cap. 326D.

The Returnable Containers Act requires every person, firm or corporation who engages in the sale of beverage containers to a consumer for off premises consumption in Barbados defined by the said Act as a “dealer” to pay to a redeemer, the refund value of a returnable container of the type and brand sold by that dealer. The only circumstances therefore in which a dealer can refuse to accept a returnable bottle is where they do not sell the type of container which the redeemer seeks to return, the container is decomposed, cut up, contains a significant amount of foreign material or if it is a container for which no refund value is fixed by the act.

Bottle return centres are also required to give to redeemers refunds for returnable containers under the Returnable Containers Act which states that

A dealer shall accept at his place of business from a redeemer any
empty beverage containers of the design, shape, size, colour,
composition and brand sold by the dealer, and shall pay to
the redeemer the refund value of each such beverage container.

The Act states that the refund value of each beverage container is twenty cents for every glass container and ten cents for any other type of container. Therefore, in the circumstances where a consumer requests to have the refund value of the returnable container in cash and the dealer refusesd to do so or to give the refund in any form other than cash, that centre would be acting in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act for misleading consumers of their entitlement to a cash refund with respect to returnable containers.

Additionally, the Act imposes no time limits on the redemption of refunds. Therefore, it would appear that an attempt by a dealer to limit the time for the redemption of refunds may amount to a contravention of the Consumer Protection Act as this may amount to an unfair contract term,. Also, tThis conduct may be likely to or may mislead or deceive consumers that they have a limited time in which they can redeem the vouchers for returnable bottles.

So with this A prpractice of giving a redeemable voucher instead of a cash refund, some has sprung up where certain bottle return centres do not pay cash but give the redeemer a voucher redeemable at a named business place. Bbottle return centres benefit from issuing vouchers because they determine the time frame where the vouchers are redeemable. In such casesAdditionally, dealers benefit every time a consumers loses their deposit as a result of the expiry of the time limitation. Therefore, these facts suggest that there is a significant imbalance in the rights of the supplier and the consumer to the detriment of the consumer.

Under the Returnable Containers Act bottle return centres are required to pay cash to redeemers when they return containers. If they fail to do so, they infringe the Returnable Containers Act as well as the Consumer Protection Act. It should be noted that the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the specific enforcement of the Returnable Containers Act. The Consumer Protection Act can however address the return of beverage containers because Part II and III of the Act this Act is are infringed whenever the scenarios outlined above, occur.

Persons who infringe the Returnable Bottles Act and the Consumer Protection Act may be liable to a fine, imprisonment or both. Consumers should mindful of their rights when seeking to redeem returnable bottles and in the event that they suspect or believe that there has been an infringement of the Act, they should contact the Commission with any questions or queries that they may have. If you have any comments or queries regarding this or any other matter relating to utility regulation, consumer protection, or fair competition, please contact us at 424-0260,421-2382 or email: info@ ftc.gov.bb,

Budget and ICT policy

Friends,

Information and Communications Technology Policy has been recognised by governments globally as beng fundamental to addressing the world's most pressing challenges. For example, poverty (and jobs) are among the priorities identified by the Millennium Development Goals and ICT policy is regarded to have an underpinning role in tackling poverty etc.
I might have missed it.
But did ICT Policy appear once in Monday's Budget presentation?
It is out of ignorance, I submit, that ICT Policy is regarded by some, even those would should know better, as a back-burner to "more pressing issues" such as education, tourism and agriculture.
Rather, it seems to me that inherent in any failure to recognise the real value of ICT Policy is a lack of understanding of the subject. It's about jobs not computers, about more modern ways of delivering education, and yes it is also inextricably tied to tourism, agriculture and the hgh cost of living.
So did I miss the word and reference to ICT Policy in the Budget?
Publicly and privately it was raised with specific recommendations at the highest levels prior to the Budget presentation.

Hands off Pre-Paid Accounts

The National Budget provision to collect $4.00 from each cell phone should exclude pre-paid accounts. Pre-paid customers pay a higher rate than post paid, even though paying in advance.
Paying in advance is a premium to providers because it helps them with their cash flows, whereas they have to wait for payment from post-paid customers.

These premium customers are not treated with any hospitality. In most business practices the premium customers are the ones that get the discounts. Why is it the opposite for the Premium customers of the cell phone providers; i.e. the ones that pay in advance? Furthermore, when their debits expire they are abruptly cut off even if on a call.

The household survey published by BANGO in November 2007, http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/telecomm/survey1spe, found that 97% of the low income community have pre-paid accounts. A look at the market summary below will show that pre-paid customers are already saddled with 57% more charges than post paid customers for the same unit of time.

Market Summary – Cell phone rates

Average daytime rate
Pre-paid - 0.55 cents
Post-paid - 0.35 cents

Average early mornings & Evenings
Pre-paid - 0.50 cents
Post-paid - 0.35 cents

Late nights & Weekends
Pre-paid - 0.45 cents
Post-paid - 0.35 cents

Considering this extra burden on pre-paid accounts, it is only fair that any levies on cell phones for pre-paid accounts should be placed on the cell providers, since, seemingly, they are already collecting largesse from pre-paid accounts.

CELL PHONE CHARGES AS PER BUDGET

I am concerned. Can someone please tell me how the $4.00 charge will be imposed. Are we as customers to depend on Cable and Wireless to tinker in some way with the minutes available?

I hope not and will be keeping an eagle eye out to hear. I became even more concerned when I read in today's paper the below comment from a Cable & Wireless official:

"In terms of pre-paid, our engineers will have to look at how we can make adjustments and programming on our pre-paid platforms and in terms of having settlements," she noted.

Do we as consumers comprehend this statement. Lets talk about it and work out the possible reactions we as consumers should make to such an event.

Telephone Rates

It is an uncontestable point that the new way of charging consumers for telephone service should take account of Cable & Wireless' productivity. The Fair Trading Commission recognises this.
So why has the FTC neglected to do so in the sensitive area of residential telephone service in both the last ruling as well as the new ruling?
The productivity factor is used by the FTC for other services and yet there is no explanation why it has been excluded for residential services which affect the lowest income consumers.
Consumer advocates made a lot of noise about productivity when our views were invited prior to the new decision on rates. We complained that the original 7 per cent price control in the first decision was not transparent, had not been explained and was unjustified. In short, a nonsense which only served to shackle ordinary citizens with unjustifiably high rates.
The experts tell us that when a regulator such as the FTC is preparing rates under a Price Cap model "The proper choice of an X-factor (productivity factor) is critical for the long-term viability of any price cap plan."
So, for example, the use of a productivity consideration can result in price "reductions".
What usually happens is that if a company can increase its productivity beyond inflation then the consumer may benefit from lower rates.
So my concern is if the FTC can use prductivity as a factor in other services under the new Price Cap why can't it do so for residential service? Certainly every citizen would be pleased in these hard times to know that at least their basic monthly telephone bill is lower than previous years. If we read the new decision carefully the FTC agrees that the company's productivity gains were higher than anticipated.
Would this not suggest that the compounded 22.5 per cent increase in rates over the past three years was a bad decision?
The FTC has never explained why it chose seven per cent and after the initial period of a freeze in the new rates Cable & Wireles can charge a maximum of 4.5 per cent annually. Again, no explanation for this figure although we believe it is related to projected inflation rates.
The overall decision suggests that a lot of work has been done by the FTC and its consultants.
What is in question is whether in the case of residential rates the consumers are getting a fair deal.
What do you think?
Hallam Hope

Public Counsel is a Public Consumer Advocate

I would encourage readers to take a good look at the office of Public Counsel. We have been advocating for the staff of Public Counsel to be increased so that it could handle a larger work load.

The office of public counsel is outfitted with an attorney-at-law; an investigating arm; and within its mandate is the responsibility to educate the public.

Consumer Protection: The role of the Office of Public Counsel in consumer protection matters includes:(a) advising and educating consumers generally on matters relating to the proposed Consumer Guarantees Act; and(b) representing individual consumers bringing civil claims under the Consumer Guarantees Act before the Fair Trading Tribunal where Public Counsel deems this necessary or desirable.

Where a consumer believes that a right that he has under the Act has been breached he may refer the matter to the Office of Public Counsel who may, mediate on his behalf with the person whom he believes has breached those rights. If no settlement has been reached the matter may be referred to the Consumer Claims Tribunal and Public Counsel may also represent the consumer before the Tribunal.

Public Counsel is the only Pulic advocate that exists.

Compenstion in a vehicle repair dispute

Most mechanics I have come across are honest. But there are always those who would aspire to making a quick dollar at our expense.
I was approached recently by a lady who has just lost her husand and believes she is the victim of a scam. It appears she had paid a mechanic to buy and install a part on her car which he never did but attempted to get the vehicle partially overhauled. The bottom line is that the car broke down and had to be returned. So she paid 1,500 dollars for a job and then had to look for more money to pay this dishonest chap.
Is this a Fair Trading Commission matter or a dispute for the Office of Public Counsel?
In either case she is taking the correct route of going with an other mechanic to see if she can get back her money before taking it further.
My advice to her was that in the event of a small claims disoute which she and the mechanic cannot resolve her option probably would be the Office of Public Counsel. But that she should check with the Fair Trading Commmission to confirm this.
If there is a positive spin to this it is that she is prepared to see to it that her rights are not trampled on.

Hallam

Roaming Charges

One of the key tools to enjoying the benefits of free trade is the ability to communicate in its many forms. It would seem to me that everything is being done to undermine any benefits that may accrue to us as part of the global village.

Although I was swept away when I found out that roaming is as much as $2.94 per minute, I was not surprised because it is true to form; a fleecing of the Caribbean people. Slavery ain't done! They make you sweat for it and then take it with ease, making super-profits.

This price is nearly six times the cost of an international call by card. Why? These carriers are terminating their calls on their own networks for which they already earn the profit at $0.60 per minute. Yet, in the USA, which can hold the Caribbean from end to end many times over, roaming is free. What does this say about how these providers see us? In return for consumer patronage, what are they giving to regional integration? I see, they are targeting the foolish ones who don't check their phone bills and even those who do check but are so affluent-minded that they pay nevertheless.

To tell the truth, guys, you affluent have a duty to those less fortunate to object to such high charges and to yourself that would allow you to save and have a bit more that allows you to give more to the poor. Have a heart, all we ask you to do is complain. Give back to the communities where you came from and left the most unfortunate.

Re: Consumer Question

Here is a letter received from a consumer and the answers from Consumer Watch are in Red

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Bajan Habab wrote:

I have a couple questions..

I enter a supermarket and purchase a bottled drink for $2.00 at the cashier I am reminded that there is a $0.25 deposit on the bottle, which I pay, search for a bottle opener drink the beverage and take my medication. I then approach the cashier to return the empty bottle and collect my deposit. I am told I will have to carry it to the bottle place outside the next day, this is confirmed by the supervisor/manager in charge.

1) Why am I required to pay a deposit on the bottle?

This is part of the cost of the drink. The cost of the drink should include the deposit. If it does not then there should be a sign in the store indicating that the cost of the deposit on drink bottles is x cents.

2) Why having paid the deposit to A, should I be required sell the bottle to B to get some money back?

You are not . According to the laws of Barbados , the establishment is required to refund you the deposit.

3) If B purchases my bottle for 20cents, and not the 25cents deposit which A forced me to pay, can I force either A or B to pay me the 5 cents difference?

No. What ever is the stated cost of the deposit by the manufacturer is the legal cost of the deposit. However, this is if the refund is done at a retail outlet and not one of the "Bottle Companies" that can be found in some parts of Barbados. A bottle company being a company that deals in bottles i.e. the company does not sell the product.

4) Is A not breaking some sort of agreement with me or some law by refusing to give me back my deposit?

Yes , A is breaking the law

I know it seems small but if the corner shop charges me 25cents deposit and I consume the drink and return the bottle they give me back my deposit.

5) How is a supermarket different? What rules if any apply to the corner-shop that don't to the big boy?

A supermarket is not different. The law stipulates that as long as the establisment sells the particular product, then that business house is required to refund the bottle deposit.

If I visited the same establishment with a bottle, purchased the same beverage and present the bottle which I brought with me to the cashier when the deposit is requested.

6) Would they be correct to refuse to accept the bottle, Must I pay the deposit?

If they are charging the deposit for the drink, then if you take the bottle then you don't pay the deposit.
As a matter of fact , the practise that some supermarkets and retail outlets have of indicating that they cannot give you cash, they can give you a credit note or that you have to purchase items equivalent to the refund is also illegal,

The fact that this happened struck me as odd, so I'm seeking some clarification


Hope that the information was helpful ..Spoke to an officer at FTC and she was extremely helpful..The answers from Consumer Watch are in red ink.

Cheers

Bdos Consumer Watch

Annette Wrote
heh guys:While I was waiting in a bank today , Friday June 27, i was sitting opposite an ATM machine. About 25 persons used the machine and i could not believe my eyes.....At least 20 of them either did not read the receipt or threw it away after looking at it for a second....Come On guys ..Are we serious? Do we think that bank fraud only happen in the USA. That's the only proof you have of your withdrawal or deposit. If the bank claims the deposit never happened or the withdrawal was for 1000 and not 100 what will you do?The receipt is what is says.....You need to keep that receipt until you get a statement from the bank if it is a checking account, or until you check your balance with a teller ..Lets not wait until something happens...the purpose of the receipt is not to full up the waste basket.
Post #2
Kim Jacqueline Young
I keep my receipts because way back at CIBC (back then) Fontabelle, monies "went mising". The manager then had to speak to staff since the money was gone, staff at my then workplace and the money turned up but I had my receipt so had I not been reimbursed in full., well they would have a fight on their hands.What do people think about ATM charges?

I WANT TO COMPLAIN SO THAT WE CAN TAKE ACTION

What people don't want to complain. How about calling RBTT bank and having to be on hold for 20 mins; calling Pizza Man Doc and someone telling me "mek sure yuh send a good tip",; calling Pizza Man Doc and hearing the delivery guy did not come in because of "the rain"; I can write a book
Rip off prices - there is a convenience store in Thorpes selling a chicken for $30.10 cents the price of a pigeon. Every weeks Cavendish potatos are up by $1; The attitudes are horrible. there is a sense of entitlement in this country which makes workers believe they can behave any way. FIRE THEM! Why is N.I.S.E. there - as a silly joke?
How about leaving for Canada and being sexually harassed in security by G4S personnel and I reported it and got no answer (well no satisfactory one); how about the attitude of customs officers when they see my British passport but know I am a legal resident but stamp me a visitor anyhow.
How about the attitude when just shopping or in a bank. OMG, the service sucks, the attitudes suck, the people are angry and miserable and equate service with servitude. How about going to dinner and getting the wrong order everytime from a certain upscale restaurant. How about a barman stealing you change in 2nd St. I can go on. I am not the only one.I think I'll drink my martini at home and travel. I will not tip a soul for poor service! What is the purpose of NISE? C'mon Kim Tudor? I like you, what's up with this and Public Sector Reform or has that gone the way of all flesh!
How about lame journalism in both daily papers and the same on our airwaves. Where did all the tenets of journalism go to make way for sensationalism and the destruction of people in cou cou and flying fish and pudding and souse on Saturdays, is that "we culture" cos it is not mine. I mind my own business.

THIS WAS RECEIVED FROM A MEMBER OF THE CONSUMER WATCH GROUP ON FACEBOOK

DO WE NEED THIS FORUM OR DON'T WE

Hi Everyone:

I must say that although I know of the apathy of my country men, I was hoping that I would be proven wrong. From the response to this blog, it appears that everything is fine in Barbados with respect to consumers. We get great service whereever we go, there are no rip off prices, there are no charges which are blatently unreal etc. etc. You see guys..this is exactly why we are treated as we are. We can't take the time to do anything for ourselves. We are waiting for someone to do it. So we join a consumer group, and sit back and wait for it to work for us.HELLO..IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY...YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE..IF YOU DON'T THEN LET US STOP MOANING AND TAKE WHAT WE GET. I am sure that at least 50 per cent of the persons who visited this blog, has a story to tell. If you don't want to tell it here for what ever reason then email it to us at Bdosconsumer@gmail.com

To those who have contributed so far, thanks and we look forward to your constant input. The comments about the tyres and banking are interesting. Our next step is to put up some actual banking costs for the services rendered so that a comparison could be done.

Thanks to the other blogs which have welcomed us, and we look forward to their input as we grow .

Now start typing!!!!!!!!

Consumer Intervention

Fellow consumers and customers of Cable & Wireless, it feels good to be able to announce to you that, "WE WIN" for the second time, with the announcement that land lines will be frozen. However, the increase through the Price Cap back door gave C&W a fair bit of what it wanted. I think we pricked the conscience of the FTC because there were unconfirmed reports of a ding dong battle between C&W and FTC over Price Cap.

While it is good news that the domestic landline users will not experience an increase in their telephone bills, it is still a fact that the cost of telephone and communications in general, is high.

About 6 years ago, the average household budget for communications, namely landline was about thirty dollars. Between then and now the average household which uses all the telecommunications services at minimum is on average $160.00. This represents a 530% increase in your telecommunications bill.

In light of this, I would like you to consider the following:

1. The cost of the network is already absorbed by the domestic and business customers using landlines and out of this income C&W earns a reasonable rate of return or profit.
2. C&W is also using the network to sell internet which they get dog cheap and charges more than twice what they charge for the landline that is already paying for the network.
3. When you use a cell phone to call a landline on the network that is already paid for, you pay three times the amount for each call as you would pay for a phone booth which also accesses the same network. Why the difference in price?

These are the factors that allow C&W to earn super profits. Bleed the people of Barbados and then start crying about inflation, when in truth and in fact, this quest to earn super profits has contributed significantly to inflation.

If our communications bill had simply doubled to about $50 - $80 per month for everything inclusive of cell phones and internet, we could not complain too much, but think about the number of tins of milk, bread and cheese per month that the extra $80.00 could buy?
Think also of your gas bill (or even bus fare) and the fact that the extra $80 could have helped cushion the impact of the oil increases we are now experiencing.

When you are done, please answer the question, are you feeling the cost of communications in real dollars or missing dollars to fulfill some other important commitment because you had to pay a phone bill? If you did not have to pay that extra $80, wouldn't the commitments fulfill easier?

Even if it does not impact you, think of poorer families where children need the internet to gain the edge in the absence of having a library or other means of access to information and guidance. Also of the small business that could be more competitive if the cost of technology was not so high?

What is most damaging about this exercise is that the only perceived reason that prices could be so high is to deter competition and this is very insensitive to consumers who are being asked to pay to keep out competition.

Fellow consumers! That is madness! Why would we pay through our noses to keep out competition when competition is in our interests? One can only conclude that C&W has no sense of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Price Cap news

Well, the Fair Trading Commission has announced its decision on rates for the next few years.
The apparent good news is that for ordinary residential telephone users there will be no increases until December 31st, 2009. From January 1, 2010 to March 31st, 2012 the rate can only be increased to a maxium of 4.5 per cent.
Sounds like good news?
For those residential folk who make long distance calls from their homes there will be an initial 20 per cent reduction on our rates to be implemented on or before August 1st this year.
More good news?
I have started this discussion because one of the purposes of this blog is to educate people or at least provide them with contrasting arguments so they can have a look at the various sides and take a stand.
For example, I contend that the seven per cent cumulative inceases over the past three years were unjustifiable in the frst place. There was no clear explanation from the FTC how it arrived at this decision.
It seemed like a figure was pulled from a rabbit's hat.
If we argued that the rates were unjustified in the first place, then do we argue that they are ok until December next year?
Or is it just possible that we should be arguing that rather than a freeze those unjustifiable rates should have been in fact reduced for the same period ending December 31st next year.
Are we citizens entited to a recovery on unjustified increases over which we had no chocie?

Hallam

Death By Modern Medicine

Part of the Consumer domain is medical services. This Doctor has done lots of research on the medical services and have found persons diagnosed with chronic diseases to be perfectly healthy. She has exposed the reason for asthma in children and why children suffer heart attacks, cancer and other diseases associated with the middle-aged and the elderly.
Most startling is the contraction of diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis by healthy persons seeking immunity from health issues. More on this later but suffice it to say that we have been observing similar patterns right here in Barbados; cases of people entering the hospital for routine things who end up dead for no rhyme or reason.
These matters must fit squarely into the domain of the consumer, who is paying for medical services which cannot provide the guarantees that the medical profession would like consumers to believe and the law is clear about causing consumers to believe you can deliver what you can't deliver.
I really don't want to tell you this. I would like you to find out for yourself, so here below is a little snip and it may serve you well to follow the links.

Dr. Carolyn Dean is a medical doctor, naturopathic doctor, herbalist, acupuncturist, nutritionist, as well as a powerful health activist fighting for health freedom as president of Friends of Freedom International. Dr. Dean is the author of over a dozen health books, the latest of which is “Death By Modern Medicine”.
Web Site:www.deathbymodernmedicine.com

Car Tyres

Talking about difference in prices....

Here is the story....A friend of mind had a flat tyre this morning and was very upset as she had a ten o'clock appointment and several other things to do, none of which included getting a tyre patch.

Off she went to a brand name tyre repair store, to be told that she had a problem as the tyre itself was no longer usable...she had to get a new tyre.

She ask the price of one and was told that a 14 Michellen Tyre was $245.00 (175) as they did not have 185. She said in her nicest voice thanks and put down the receiver.

She then called an establishment in the Bagatelle area and was told that the tyre she wanted costed about $170.00.

She then asked one of the guys on the block in her neighborhood and they sent her to the tyre place there in Cave Hill.

She got two new tyres for $320.00 dollars, and the guys put them on and move around her tyres too!!!!!!!!!!!

The moral of this story.....do not buy the item at a price that your instincts tell you is unreasonable..shop around..go to a telephone and call around.

Cheers

Cheaper long distance calls

You no longer have to pay more than a dollar for that overseas call to a friend in the U.S, Canada or the U.K.
Simply find an outlet for Blue Communications or Cable & Wireless and you can buy a card that allows you to make that call at 49 cents Barbados. The card can be used over a fixed line phone, namely the one in your home or at any other residence or business or at a pay phone.
It cannot be used via your cellular phone where that same call could cost up to $1.30.
Question?
If the monopoly an afford to offer 49 cents with a card from you home why can't they do the same without a card from your residence or business?
Based on information I have access to I believe these companies could easily be going to 35 cents.
What do you think?
Speak up, write your newspaper, call the call-in programmes, talk to your parliamentary representative and participate in this blog.

Hallam Hope

It's Your Turn

Hello consumers,

We have suffered for very long at the hands of the banks, the insurance companies, the car dealers, monopolies, etc.

Many unhealthy practices have prevailed and in some cases although there is legislation there is no policing of the legislation. Hence a lot of automarts and supermarkets display goods on their shelves without the prices; which is against the law. I always argue that the customer should not get any surprises when they reach the checkout counter.

It is expected that the three advocates on this blog will bring their own approaches. Mine would be to do the research on the issues raised and present the findings for your assimilation and decision to take action.

Input from visitors are welcomed. Remember that this is a national effort to empower consumers and not continue to simply take all that is being dished out.

The success of this blog depends on you. It is the place where you can get help and education as a consumer. Did you know for example that every gas pump should be calibrated often and that each should carry their calibration certificate with an expiry date that should be clearly visible to customers... and that if a pump does not have the certificate you should not accept gas from it?

So, let' s go!

Lets use this forum to the fullest

Finally ...somewhere to vent about the poor customer service, high professional fees, ludricrous bank charges, extremely high interest and insurance premiums, we won't even mention the irrational way in which everything is going up in this country.

But listen...we are consumers and we do have some control. What we need to do, is learn how to exercise that control. We are spending the money, so we deserve to be heard and in some cases, our wishes ought to be demands.

Let's use this forum to kick start the process... All you are required to do, is write your grievance by clicking on the word comment or email your complaint /comment to Bdosconsumer@gmail.com
Then we post it on the site and along with the consumer family, we find and seek the answers .
When we have to be very specific, we will be, when we have to be general we will be...at all times we will be guided by professionalism and facts.

Therefore lets do it