Retail Ombudsman Launches

[Michael Browne]

A new ombudsman scheme has launched on Jan 2nd that aims to settle unresolved disputes between shoppers and retailers.

 

The Retail Ombudsman (TRO) is believed to be the first alternative dispute resolution scheme in the retail sector and claims it already has 3,000 retailers signed up as members, although, so far, they have only published a partial list.

 

It's not a government run scheme, but owned by a private limited company whose sole director is Dean Dunham, a barrister with Debello Law and consumer columnist with the Sunday Mirror.

 

http://www.theretailombudsman.org.uk/

 

 

 

Initially the TRO said that decisions were binding on both sides, and if a complainant was not satisfied with the ombudsman decision, further court action would not be possible.

 

However, they now say that when a decision is made by TRO and it is not accepted by the consumer, they can pursue this through the courts.

 

Yet the declaration consumers must sign on their website still reads:

Please read and sign this declaration:

 

• I’d like The Retail Ombudsman (“TRO”) to look into my complaint.
  
• I understand and acknowledge that TRO will need to use personal details about me (including sensitive or personal information) and that TRO may need to share some of this with the retailer that my complaint is about.
  
• I understand and acknowledge that TRO publishes the ombudsman’s final decisions, although most complaints are resolved by TRO caseworker before they reach the ombudsman
  
• I agree to provide true, accurate and full information about my complaint
  
• I agree to be bound by the decision reached by the ombudsman
  

Not the best of starts!!

 

Oh, and their Director of Communications is one Neville Thurlbeck who was jailed for his part in the News of the World phone-hacking scandal.

[MaxxPower]

I'm not sure I really see the point in this. I think I'd rather just take it to small claims court of the retailer doesn't play ball.

This just sounds like a waste of time and effort if it has no government backing or any real power.

[Michael Browne]

I'm not sure I really see the point in this. .

 

 

The point is it seems to be a money-making scheme for the owner.

 

There is an EU directive which may become law later this year, which will require retailers to have an ADR provider for unresolved consumer complaints, which, it seems, the government has no intention of running themselves.

 

Mr Dunham has seen an opportunity to make some money and has taken a punt to be ahead of the game.

 

That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but whether the TRO turns out to be a force for good for consumers, only time will tell.

[renegadeimp]

I dont see the point in it at all. It's no different to the BPA etc. Self regulation rarely ever works. It also seems like its a simple money making scheme for the owner.

[BankFodder]

I don’t see that his conviction for hacking is especially relevant to this area of activity – but I am sure that it won’t help him.

I think that the thing which concerns us most is that consumers are required to give up their rights to go to court if they lose an Ombudsman complaint.

Even the “real” ombudsman schemes don’t require complainants to do that. For this reason alone we would probably urge consumers not to use the scheme – which at the end of the day, is probably just a private money-making scheme – and not subject to FOI requests.

Also, it would be interesting to see what the retailers sign up to. Do they have the right to object to the reporting of particular decisions?

What would be the Retail Ombudsman role in reporting of decisions? Would there be strict annual reporting and also disclosure of individual decisions? Would we get to know about retailers which had high complaint rates – and also the nature of the complaints?

Is there a risk that retailers – as the banks do now – use the Ombudsman system as a further obstacle to customers seeking redress?

Would there be publication of statistics to show how often retailer decisions against customers were overturned?

All of this needs to be substantially clarified. There is a great risk of confusion between the form Ombudsman schemes and this new private business scheme.

[Michael Browne]

The clause:I agree to be bound by the decision reached by the ombudsman has now been removed from their website