Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:58 pm
by bigpete
About time too:
The Office of Fair Trading has warned 10 firms to stop making unsolicited and misleading calls to advertise services.
The six debt management and four cold-calling firms were told they could face formal action if they failed to stop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8066253.stm
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 1:16 pm
by plasticdaft
Why the heck cant these companies be named so people know who to avoid??
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 8:10 pm
by kallis3
Totally agree. Trouble is that although we know better than to be taken in by these companies, there are a lot of people out there who will be taken in by them.
Pity we can't advertise on TV!
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 8:34 pm
by Adam Davies
Hi
I agree, why can't they be named ???
Regards
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 9:10 pm
by plasticdaft
I wonder if David Mond could answer why these companies appear to be getting protection from the office of fair trading when they have clearly broken guidelines??
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 9:13 pm
by Max
guidelines are only guidelines - they do not carry the force of law but my MP told me that the Govt is looking into banning them altogether.J
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 10:00 pm
by plasticdaft
I dont why they havent taken the action which is threatened given that the companies appear to do what they want and get away with it.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 10:08 pm
by kallis3
I think that all cold calling should be banned whether it be phone or doorstep.
I don't get any phone callers but do get fed up of people trying to sell me stuff at the door.
Let's face it - the vast majority of the companies who cold call, particularly with debt solutions, probably can't drum up business any other way.
Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:08 am
by Andrew Graveson
The OFT Guidelines for Debt Management Companies may just be "guidelines" but they very clearly state that failing to abide by them may lead the OFT to consider whether to allow the company to continue to be licenced.
Without a licence a firm would not be able to trade.
I think it's a safe assumption that the companies involved will be under significantly greater OFT scrutiny going forwards and therefore the guidance is likely to be more closely followed in the future.