Boots ad banned for misleading content

A Boots advert that had the potential to frighten a lot of people has been ruled against by the Advertising Standards Authority, and may not be shown again in its current form.

The ad claimed that the blue light from computers and other devices could damage your eyesight over time, despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support that idea.

There were also questions raised about whether the product advertised provided the protection alleged.

Full article here.

Naughty, naughty, Boots.


Annoyed by PPI spam texts? There may be fewer for a while…

A Welsh firm has been fined for sending spam text messages about accident compensation and PPI.

This is their SECOND fine!

The ICO said there were 6,758 complaints in ONE MONTH about text messages sent by Swansea-based Help Direct UK.

They used unregistered SIM card to send the messages, which is a popular way of avoiding the spam detection systems in place at the mobile networks’ hubs.

One complainant said they had never had an accident and was worried someone could be fraudulently using their identity; another was concerned they may have unknowingly caused an accident.

They were fined £200,000 and may face further charges, as investigations continue.

Full article here.

Vauxhall Zafiras may catch fire

There isn’t a formal recall YET, but Vauxhall is intending/attempting to contact all 280,000 UK owners of a Zafira B, as they have a tendency to overheat behind the glove compartment and sometimes burst into flames.

The affected models are those with manual air conditioning. Those with electronic climate control have not reported any such issue.

Article, with photos and further details here.

If you have an iphone, you MUST read this

This is a warning about iOS9, a software upgrade that anyone with an iPhone 4 or above can have.

It comes with an automated setting called Wifi Assist, and this could eat through your data allowance like Pacman on illegal substances, with very expensive consequences.

More detailed info and explanation than I can provide can be found here.

This is not the first such warning about automated settings that I have posted. The moral seems to be, whether you upgrade the hardware or software on your phone, be careful the settings don’t magically change without you noticing.

The Consumer Rights Act has arrived!


Everything you need to know is right here.

Another win against cold calling firms

This time, the win is not that of an individual. This time the Information Commissioner has actually issued a fine, for a change.

The full story here.

An inspiring tale of winning against cold callers

From Richard Herman’s website*. Enjoy.

“I just wanted to let you know that, inspired by your example, I have started invoicing any company that I can identify that cold calls either our business number or our domestic number. Today I had my second success. £114.94 from a double glazing company who cold called us on our (CTPS registered) business number and so got a company invoice for one hour of my time. It took three reminder letters, the last of which was recorded delivery and which warned them that their debt would be increased under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. They then got a “Solicitor’s Letter” which was a final demand before proceedings which included £40 compensation, £2 collection costs and 94p interest on their debt. I phoned them and suggested that they pay by BACS rather than cheque as the court action would commence tomorrow and they gave in and paid up.

My first success was in May this year when I winkled £120 out of a weatherproofing company that had called me 3 times on my ( TPS registered) house number. They had obviously run the case past their solicitors and been advised to send me the money “ as full and final settlement of the dispute” rather than risk court.

Thank you for your pioneering approach to destroying the business model of these telephone pests. Please feel free to advertise my successes on your website and, if it would help, I can email you the “request for payment” letter that accompanies my invoices which have proved effective. The same offer applies to other readers of this website who are interested in “emphasising” their TPS registration.

Warmest regards,

Dave Rawlins”

*Richard Herman was the first person to invoice a cold calling company for the amount of his time that they had wasted, and when they didn’t pay up, he took them to the Small Claims Court (Richard Herman v AAC). They paid up. He now runs a website advising people on how to do the same thing. An article about his story can be found here.

Flight delay rules upheld by the ECJ

The flight delay rules have been now set in stone by the European Court of Justice. No further appeal routes are now available to the airlines. Full MSE article here.

This ruling clarifies that technical problems are not “extraordinary circumstances”, but are, on the contrary, quite routine, and therefore, any delay or cancellation caused by a technical fault must be compensated in accordance with the Huzar decision (see my previous posts on this).

This is both hilarious and joyful, because it means that any delay of more than three hours or cancellation or flight interruption is now deemed worthy of compensating the poor souls you have so egregiously inconvenienced.

The reason it is hilarious is because, thinking that “technical fault” was a Get Out of Jail Free card for the airlines, and so would not open them up to compensation, they have been using it as an excuse right, left and centre for years, even when it wasn’t the genuine cause. Now every one of these instances, that occurred within the last six years, can result in a claim.

I laughed so hard when I read this, I gave myself a stitch. Enjoy.

Product recall: Chicken Bisto

Details on the Food Standards Agency website.

Ryanair loses flight delay payments case

You will remember Mr Huzar, who very kindly pursued a test case to force airlines to compensate passengers delayed for more than three hours. And he won.

Well, ever since, the airlines have been arguing (surprise, surprise).

The latest argument, from Messrs Ryanair, was that, in the small print of their paperwork, they allow two years for a claim for delay compensation, even though the national statutory limit is six years. They argued that, because it was in the small print, the customer had agreed to the shorter time limit when making the booking, and is therefore bound by it.

The judge told them they were wrong. Essentially, they were not allowed to shorten the statutory minimum to suit their own requirements. Of course not, otherwise everyone would do it!

They say they will appeal. I say, let them. The law is the law, and the statute of limitations on civil claims is six years. I hope they bankrupt themselves pursuing this fight. They cannot possibly win, I wouldn’t have thought, but I’m happy to watch themselves tie themselves, their lawyers and their bank account in knots trying.

As ever, BBC article available here.

%d bloggers like this: