This is one of my personal gripes. The local Costa Coffee outlet has commandeered at least three metres of a four metre-wide pavement outside its cafe. During trading hours, the area of pavement is fenced off for the private use of Costa customers. The remaining pavement is no longer wide enough for typical pedestrian traffic. To pass each other, pedestrians, some with prams, 'buggies' and wheelchairs, are now forced into the road carriageway. The road is a busy vehicle artery into the town centre.

What happened in the end? Lefty and the OP vanished.

. . The public shall be the judge of that compliance, not controversial Councillor James Edward Waters, son of disgraced ex-councillor Terry Waters. It's scarcely worth asking, but did Waters have the courtesy to enclose a copy of his council's Debt Recovery Policy, its Code of Practice for Bailiffs, and a copy of Rossendale's own Vulnerable Persons' Policy? If not, why not? You should formally request all of those documents from the Council under the Freedom of Information Act... It may be that the Council has breached its own rules and that, once again, this is a case of maladministration at Forest Heath. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/forest%20heath%20district%20council

HMRC maintains a Trade Tariff. This lists the rates of Customs Duty and Import VAT payable for different classifications of goods. [1] "Ornamental dolls" have classification code "9503 00" and attract a levy of 4.70% Customs Duty. Are the dolls perhaps "antique" (of an age exceeding 100 years)? If so, perhaps they should be free of Customs Duty (classification code "9706 00"). At worst, there is a paltry 4.70% rate of Customs Duty applicable to the importation of the dolls themselves. If the goods are dutiable and exceed £135 in value then the Customs Duty is only payable if it exceeds £9.00. Here's the rub though. Import VAT must be paid and not only on the value of the doll itself, but also VAT must be paid on the Customs Duty and on the cost of delivering the doll to the United Kingdom. That even includes the seller's charge for packaging and the cost of the courier's shipping insurance. From the HMRC website: [2] And also from the HMRC website: [3] Assuming you paid £126 for the doll. Expedited shipping and insurance to the UK added perhaps a further £40+£26. Total £192. Customs Duty payable @ 4.70% on £192 = £9.00 VAT @20% on (£192+£9 = £201) = £40.20 And finally there's that objectionable £13.50 "Clearance Fee" imposed by Parcelforce or £8 for the Customs "Handling Fee" from Royal Mail. [4] [5] Other couriers are entitled to decide their own "duty collection fee". Although I fail to see how a courier can reasonably use a sliding scale based on the Duty collected. £50+ to pay in duties, taxes and fees for importing a £126 doll is daylight robbery, but it could be lawful daylight robbery. No wonder Kipling found something romantic in Smuggling. [6] Although when he penned his poem, A Smuggler's Song, Kipling surely wasn't minded of anything so benign as "brandy for the parson and 'baccy for the clerk"... The poem was an oblique reference to the Opium Trade, of which Kipling was intimately involved.. [1] http://tariff.businesslink.gov.uk/tariff-bl/mainMenu [2] http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageTravel_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000014&propertyType=document#P143_10270 [3] http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_CL_000014 [4] http://www.royalmail.com/delivery/mail-advice/customs-information [5] http://www.parcelforce.com/receiving-parcel/importing-uk/parcelforce-worldwide-clearance [6] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Smuggler%27s_Song

There was once a good thread on MSE about 'phony bailiffs'. It looks like the Martin Lewis Gang has erased it now They are committing a Criminal Offence.. S.40(1) of Administration of Justice Act 1970: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/part/V

Who's he? James Waters? Can you copy-and-paste...

The Wellcome Trust has joined a sinister consortium of private bankers. Today that consortium is pumping £73 million of new capital into the rogue payday lender Wonga.Com to loan out at rates in excess of 4000% APR. [1] The Wellcome Trust boasts of being "the UK’s largest charity and health-funding organisation". It claims its mission is to "foster and promote research with the aim of improving human health". Today, the Charity is running a major campaign on hunger and food security. The charity funds wider research on malnutrition and related diseases. Yet it is clear that the Wellcome Trust, through its funding of Wonga.Com, a legal loanshark business, is speaking with a forked tongue. The Trust, in truth, is contributing to, rather than alleviating the human suffering from food poverty. Predatory lenders like Wonga.Com charge horrendous rates of interest to borrowers. Invariably, those borrowers fall into distress. The lender's crippling interest and onerous charges drive borrowers even deeper into poverty. This spiralling cycle of debt leads to food poverty and malnutrition, a major cause of physical and mental ill-health. Malnutrition-related diseases are particularly prevalent in loanshark victims. Especially vulnerable are young children in households indebted to rogue lenders like Wonga.Com. The Wellcome Trust has behaved absolutely inexcusably. The Charity's massive investment in Wonga.Com is repugnant, totally immorally and devoid of any ethical or social justification. The investment is also in direct violation of the stated purposes of the Trust's Charitable Aims. The Wellcome Trust is to be universally condemned for bankrolling Wonga.Com. Wonga.Com is one of the very worst predatory lenders in one of the most repulsive industries in existence today. The Wellcome Trust publishes an Investment Policy. The official document contains a lofty list of "Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility Policies." [2] The Board of Governors of the Wellcome Trust, and the Charity's Investment Committee are clearly aware of their abysmal failures. They have failed to uphold the ethical and social duties which we expect of every charity. Furthermore, this is a Charity which claims to be working to improve human health. On paper at least, the Charity claims to "explore the ethical, social and cultural issues relating to global challenges that affect human health.. and to promote activities to inform and engage the public". The Wellcome Trust must respond with no less than the following action: a public and unequivocal apology for its gross breach of social responsibility a guarantee that the Charity will never again fund Wonga.Com a guarantee that the Charity will never fund another Predatory Lender the resignation of the entire Investment Committee of the Trust [3] a commensurate donation to charities that help those drowning in payday loan debt. HM Government must re-evaluate all public funding to the Wellcome Trust. Particular scrutiny must be paid to public grants issued to the Trust for research into food insecurity, food poverty and malnutrition. The Wellcome Trust is abusing public funds and has flagrantly abused its Charitable status. Heads must roll. . . [1] http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/02/16/wonga-raises-73m-in-series-c-funding-to-double-down-on-massive-uk-growth/ [2] http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_publishing_group/documents/web_document/wtx062542.pdf [3] http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Investments/Investment-team/Investment-committee/index.htm Today, the Wellcome Trust lists the following members of its Investment Committee. All thirteen Committee members must resign immediately : Sir William Castell, Tim Church, Peter Davies, Sarah Fromson, Simon Jeffreys, Roderick Kent, Naguib Kheraj, David Mayhew, Nick Moakes, Stewart Newton, Peter Pereira Gray, Danny Truell, Sir Mark Walport

Cllr James Waters, son of "controversial" former councillor, Terry Waters? http://www.amv3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1231 http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaint-outcomes/planning/planning-archive-2007-08/forest-heath-district-council-06a15080-07a00517/ http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAA0ADEAOAB8AHwAVAByAHUAZQB8AHwAMAB8AA2 http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/latest-news/council_men_in_breach_of_code_1_416748 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Newmarket/Councillor-quits-ahead-of-hearing.htm http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/latest-news/date_named_for_councillors_to_face_standards_board_1_415384 http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/latest-news/under_fire_council_springs_a_surprise_1_548972 http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/latest-news/council_agrees_163_2_000_payout_1_548853

This is an area that warrants scrutiny. Late last year, we imported some equipment from mainland China. There was HMRC import duty to pay of £4.21. Yet when the equipment was delivered, the courier, FedEx, added a Fee of £16.59 for the collection of this duty on behalf of HMRC. Such a high charge for collecting such a small amount of duty is surely iniquitous. I recall reading that HMRC has been told by the European Commission that it should not collect a tax or duty where the cost of collecting that duty is greater than the duty itself. The question here is whether that Import Duty Collection Fee imposed by FedEx (a private courier), is relevant to the EC ruling.

Private schools are only businesses, albeit with privileged tax status. As such they will fight to secure trade, using threats of legal action, valid or otherwise. The Independent Schools Council described the economic climate as "the most challenging for decades". http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/28/private-schools-drop-pupils

What payment method did you use to buy the broken TV which Brighthouse apparently implied was fully functional? Did you pay by cash, unfortunately? It's just that you mention that you also have a debit card. Could you perhaps have used your debit card to purchase from Brighthouse on this occasion? If so, your bank statements should corroborate your purchase of the TV from BrightHouse. The company's own Point of Sale records (till receipts etc, card transaction paperwork) should confirm that you bought a television from the company on that date. If Brighthouse refuses to check its card transaction records to confirm that purchase, the company should be reported to the local Trading Standards department. Out of curiosity, why did you de-pawn the television when you knew it to be faulty?

That's not true! Here's what the Financial Services Authority has to say.. [1] . . Sequenci of this forum has authored an excellent article entitled "Continuous Payment Authorities - How to stop them", with reference to the relevant law. [2] [1] Financial Services Authority (January 2012), "Bank accounts: Know your rights". (FSA:CC003) Available from: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/consumer_info/know_your_rights_guide.pdf [2] http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?850-Continuous-Payment-Authorities-How-to-stop-them

Just a brief update.. Robin Matthew Klein (born December 1947) is another boardmember of Quickbridge (UK) Ltd which trades under the wonga name. [14] Klein is listed as the current chairman of wonga.com, and also as partner (and co-founder with his son Saul Klein) of The Accelerator Group (TAG). Robin Klein represents the interests of TAG investors on the Quickbridge (UK) Ltd board. [15] Meyer Malka (b. July 1974) is also a director on the Quickbridge board. Meyer prefers to be known as "Micky" (Malka Rais). Currently based in California but has connections throughout Ibero America. His interests there are maintained through his directorship of the Santiago-based company MECK Partners. In 2000, MECK developed a trading platform for the Ibero American market on behalf of the Inter Alpha Group, a Rothschild-led syndicate run from London which is today, purportedly on the brink of collapse. [16] [17] [18] [14] http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/905647753 [15] http://www.linkedin.com/in/robinklein [16] http://www.crunchbase.com/person/meyer-malka [17] http://www.meckltd.com/Meck_Ltd/Main.html [18] http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2010/2010_1-9/2010-07/2010-07/pdf/14-17_3707.pdf

Laurel Charmaine Bowden, aka Wonga Woman...

Managed to salvage this message from Martin Lewis's forum, before it was airbrushed from sight! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Over at consumeractiongroup.co.uk, Martin3030, a member of the CAG team, has had a fascinating delve into the dark and murky world of wonga.com and its many corporate cut-outs [1] Martin writes: The Companies House directorship summaries offer further insight: Firstly, Quickbridge (UK) Ltd, Reg.No: 05897177 of 3, Prince Albert Road, LONDON. NW1 7SN. Total current assets in 2010 were just shy of £100m. Current Directors of Quickbridge (UK) Ltd are: Mr Iftikar Ali Ahmed Mr Meyer Malka Mr Errol Damelin Mr Jonathan Brent Hurwitz Mr Bernard Liautaud Mr Robin Matthew Klein Ms Laurel Charmaine Bowden Ms Sonali De Rycker Historic Addresses for Quickbridge (UK) Ltd include: Correspondence: 28-32, Wellington Road, St John's Wood, London, NW8 9SP, United Kingdom; Principal Place Of Business: 28-32, Wellington Road, St John's Wood, London, NW8 9SP, UK. Interestingly, another historic address is found in Quickbridge's application of 31 January 2007 for a Consumer Credit Licence.[4] That address is 21 Holyoake Walk, Hampstead Garden Suburb, Finchley, LONDON N2 0JX. Google Street view of the dwelling is at [5]. The Finchley address is also listed for a Ms Julie Blane, director of a marketing and comms company. Blane is current partner to Errol Damelin, one of the Quickbridge ('wonga') directors. [6] Other 'officers' named in the Quickbridge Credit Licence application include Eric Goldblum, Jonathan 'Jonty' Hurwitz, Robin Klein and Ynon Kreiz. Ynon Kreiz is former partner at Benchmark Capital, associates of Balderton Capital which pumps cash into the wonga operation today. [7] Between 2008 and 2011, Ynon Kreiz was the deeply unpopular CEO of Endemol, the production company behind the mindless Big Brother reality TV show [8] Eric Goldblum is the name of the chairman and MD of Brenner Mills, one of the largest food companies in South Africa from where Errol Damelin hails, too. Before selling out to KAP Foods in 2007, Goldblum was a majority shareholder of Brenner Mills. Another director of 'Wonga' is Ms Laurel Charmaine Bowden, 46. She's another South African, originally from Cape Town, but today is listed at 25 Chisholm Road, RICHMOND, TW10 6JH. [9] The Google Street View of that dwelling is at [10]. Bowden is also director of Greylock Partners, a firm of private equity bankers who today are pumping millions into wonga for it to loan to the empoverished at 4000% APR. Ms Sonali De Rycker, the second female director of 'Wonga' was originally from Bombay but understood to be of Anglo-Boer descent. She is also a director at Accel Partners, a London-based firm of private equity bankers. Accel is a major financier of the wonga operation. [11] Of the private bankers who are absent from that boardroom line-up, the most noteworthy are those who bankrolled Wonga's third round of funding in 2011. Those private equity finance houses are Oak Investments, TAG, Meritech Capital Partners, the Wellcome Trust ("the UK’s largest charity") *snigger*, and Dawn Capital. [12] The absence of any boardroom representation for those outfits may simply be due to tardy updating of Companies House data. Next, Wonga.Com Ltd. Reg.No: 06374235. Reg.Office: 88, Crawford Street, LONDON W1H 2EJ. Total current assets (2010) were just shy of £50m. Current Directors of Wonga.Com Ltd are: Mr Errol Damelin Mr Philip Robert Wright Wonga.Com Ltd director, Mr Philip Robert Wright, 46, and who lists himself as being from the village of Old Basing, Hampshire, has formerly held managerial positions at GE Capital, Lehman Brothers, and HBOS. Wright has a background in the store card and credit card industries. [13] [1] http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?324432-Addresses-and-connections [2] http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05897177 [3] http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06374235 [4] http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/IAT-FOIA-99441.pdf [5] http://g.co/maps/fq2mq [6] http://www.julieblane.com/ [7] http://www.balderton.com/news/ynon-kreiz-joins-benchmark-capital-europe-44 [8] http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/endemol-chairceo-ynon-kreiz-steps-down/ [9] http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/906930232 [10] http://g.co/maps/jjuqb [11] http://www.accel.com/bio/sonaliderycker.php [12] http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/02/16/wonga-raises-73m-in-series-c-funding-to-double-down-on-massive-uk-growth/ [13] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wright/5/596/21b

The European Directive is on the side of the consumer. The European Parliament decided that we should not be forced into paying for bundled products that we did not need nor want. Dell was forced to stop selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. Dell had little choice. Microsoft told Dell that it would massively increase the wholesale price of Windows, if it didn't immediately stop selling PCs with pre-installed Linux. Typical Mafiosi actions of the Rogue of Redmond! A better analogy would be the shenanigans in the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) industry. When taking out credit, customers were fooled and bullied by underhand methods into buying bundled and often very costly insurance policies, without having the opportunity to shop around. Many of those customers assumed that they had no option but to buy that bundled financial product. In fact, the law says that they did not have to buy it. Not so very different for those buying a new PC. On the continent, the buyer is accustomed to saying "non, merci!" when the salesmen tells him that Windows is pre-installed on a PC. And that is because the courts across the Channel are correctly interpreting the European Directive. Whereas, here in Blighty, the Office of Fair Trading has yet to pull its finger out and enforce the law, as Parliament intended.

Dear Mr Cluck, Thank you for your prompt response. I personally recognise your right to refuse using the software but I wish you had selected a system with no OS pre-installed. Honestly speaking, since this is bundled to the system purchase there is no corresponding amount assigned to the bundled OS preinstalled. I do however have a proposal which you may find acceptable. I wish to offer you a refund in the amount of £50.00 + corresponding VAT as a goodwill gesture. This is more than 10% of the base price of the system considering that the cost had been slashed already. Please understand that this is already my ceiling offer as the margin is already on the negative side. If you find this proposal acceptable, please let me know so I can ask my manager's endorsement. Need your thoughts on this. Kind regards, Dell | CSMB Customer Care, UK/Ireland ------------------------------------------------------ Dear Dell, Thank you for your email and for your understanding. I am very satisfied with your offer and I accept it. The Dell laptop is excellent and to be recommended since it works very well with Debian and Ubuntu Linux. Thank you once again for your customer care. Kind Regards, E.J. Cluck ------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr Cluck, I have forwarded the request for the refund -- £50.00 + VAT or £60.00 all in. I shall contact you this Tuesday and hopefully by then the refund has been processed. For your update. Dell | CSMB Customer Care, UK/Ireland ------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr Cluck, Good morning.I am pleased to inform you that our finance team has processed the refund for £50.00 plus corresponding VAT. Please allow 3 to 5 days for said amount to reflect on your account. Kindly inform me not later than Thursday if said amount has not been posted so I can make the needed follow-ups with our finance team. For your reference. Dell | CSMB Customer Care, UK/Ireland ------------------------------------------------------ Dear [Dell], Thank you for your email and for your phone call. Sorry I missed you again. The refund of £60 has arrived and I am very happy with the outcome. The customer care I have received from Dell, and specifically from you, has affirmed my respect in your company. Thank you once again. Kind Regards, E.J. Cluck P.S. as promised, the money has been donated to charity: the Free Software Foundation. ------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr Cluck, Thank you for confirming the refund. I admire the noble act of donating said amount to a worthy cause. It has been my pleasure in helping you with your query and I am happy to hear everything is now in order. I will now close out this query and should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me in Customer care. Just to inform you: you will receive a survey regarding your impression of my service alone. Should you find the time I would appreciate it if you could complete it as I receive feedback on what I do well and what I can improve. Have you been satisfied with my service but dissatisfied with other departments etc. please detail this in the ‘Comment Box’ ONLY which you will find included in the survey. Thank you in advance for your feedback. Respectfully, [Dell Customer Care Manager]

No doubt the TalkTalk team can offer excellent support through the forum, if only you can join it! This is no indictment on Ady nor on any other person who works tirelessly and thanklessly in the Customer Services team of TalkTalk but the company's customer service is distinctly lacking. The saddest thing is that TalkTalk has provided us with an ADSL2+ LLU connection that has, technically, been close to perfect for the 11 months we've had it. The Infineon-chipset DSLAM which TalkTalk installed in our telephone exchange is far superior to the aging legacy kit that British Telecom uses to provide IPStream products from the same exchange. Yet, TalkTalk lets itself down in such silly ways. We've made numerous simple requests from TalkTalk, such as the removal of the 1571 Answering Service from the line, or the lifting of a "WITHHELD" CLID from the line, or online access to our account, and yet all of those trivial requests have either been overlooked altogether, never actioned, or some arbitrary bureaucratic reason has prevented their fulfilment. TalkTalk needs the services of a sharp-shooter to sort this out. Far too many staff are deployed in sales, leaving far too few hands to man the desks in customer services. This needn't be so, and it has nothing to do with outsourcing the call centre work to India (however irresponsible, short-sighted and unpatriotic that might be).

Hi again, Andy. There are a number of issues here. Principle: I don't want to support Microsoft. Microsoft is an odious corporation that behaves like "a cancer on the software industry" (to reuse Bill Gates' words about Linux). We should not be forced to buy Microsoft's shoddy products. Cost: £70 is the lowest price that Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM can be bought. That is a considerable sum to add to the price of any new laptop. Law: The 2005 Directive has been interpreted in France (and Belgium) in favour of the consumer. The Courts there have ruled that the consumer has a legal right to freedom of choice when buying a new computer. He can choose whether or not to buy it with an operating system pre-installed. And where an unwanted operating system (and Office software, etc) is pre-loaded on a new computer, the consumer is entitled to a refund on the cost of that software. Dell, which supplies one in seven laptops sold worldwide, has been found to have acted unlawfully. It has been abusing its dominance in the industry to curtail the consumer's freedom of choice. It does so for the economic advantage of itself and the Microsoft Corporation. The British consumer should expect to see the Courts of the UK affirming his right to that freedom of choice in this country. The OFT needs to act in the interests of the consumer and tackle this source of great irritation. This is a growing issue for all those who have abandoned Microsoft Windows in favour of the free and reliable operating system, Linux. That group of computer users, who now run into the hundreds of millions, should not be paying a "Windows Tax" to the Microsoft Corporation when buying a new computer. Below is the only comment I can find from the OFT on this matter. It was issued over two years ago. Let us hope that the OFT is now aware of court rulings on the continent. And also, that the OFT appreciates the sizeable group of Linux users who are increasingly angered by the anti-trust behaviour of computer suppliers like Dell. The OFT should acknowledge that the bundling of costly software in the sale of a new computer is distorting the market, reducing competition, and that it is an aggressive commercial practice that is being used by the parties involved to derive unlawful financial gain. Ultimately, this anti-competitive racketeering greatly disadvantages the consumer, and must be stopped. Direct line (020) 7211 8451 Our ref EPIC/ENQ/E/ Fax (020) 7211 8877 Date 28 September 2009 Email shreekant . patel @ oft . gsi . gov . uk RE: Microsoft Thank you for your email of 4 August expressing concern about the bundling of Microsoft’s software with personal computers. I apologise for the delay in replying. By way of background, the mission of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive. Our primary duties include the enforcement of competition law, and the application of consumer protection legislation in respect of matters that adversely affect the collective interests of UK consumers. The first part of your complaint concerns the ability of consumers to obtain a refund when refusing to enter onto a contract for software pre-installed on their PC. As to whether or not an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) has been committed will depend very much on the facts of the individual case. Under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (the EA02) the OFT, along with other enforcers such as Local Authority Trading Standards Service departments has powers to seek undertakings and court orders to deal with infringements of a range of consumer protection legislation, where such a breach harms the collective interests of consumers. This means that the OFT can only take action in cases where a breach affects consumers generally or a group of consumers. As such the procedure set out under Part 8 is not available for the purposes of providing redress for individual consumers. Further information on Part 8 of the EA02 is on our website at: http : / / www . oft . gov . uk / advice and resource / resource base / legal / enterprise-act / part8 The OFT has a wide range of responsibilities and finite resources and we must concentrate on those areas where we judge that our intervention can do the most good. The decision on whether to act will generally be dependent upon whether the issue raised falls within our administrative priorities in accordance with our prioritisation principles. For that reason, not every complaint we consider will lead to action even though the issue is one on which we may have the power to act. A copy of the OFT’s prioritisation principles can be downloaded from the OFT website at: http : / / w w w . o f t . gov . uk / shared oft / about oft / oft953 . pdf Your enquiry also refers to potentially anti-competitive behaviour. The OFT has not conducted a formal assessment of whether your concerns would fall within the scope of our competition powers as to do so would require the use of a substantial amount of resources. We have therefore considered, in accordance with our prioritisation principles, whether the likely harm to consumers arising from the conduct identified is serious enough to justify the commitment of those resources. It would appear, that there is a lack of consumer demand for laptops and computers with pre-installed software. If consumer demand within the UK was greater, it is likely that laptops and computers without pre-installed software would be more readily available. We also note that a limited number of alternative laptops and computers are currently available without pre-installed software. In view of this it would appear that the potential for consumer harm in this area is relatively small. We will therefore not be taking further action with regards to your complaint at this time. We appreciate the time you have taken in bringing this matter to our attention. The OFT is keen to ensure that markets work well for consumers and the complaints we receive are used to help assess and shape the work of the OFT in the future. In this context, we will retain your complaint on our database and incorporate your concerns when considering areas for future investigation or study. Our intention, at this time, not to make further enquiries into this complaint does not preclude the OFT from revisiting the matter should further information come to our attention. Thank you for writing to us. Yours sincerely Mr S Patel Preliminary Investigations

Hi Andy, Thank you for your reply. There have been court cases in Europe which have set national precedents. Although not binding on the courts of the United Kingdom, those cases pave the way for a change in our laws on the bundling of unwanted and often very costly software in the sale of a new PC . I gave one example of such a case, that of Petrus v Lenovo which was heard before the French Supreme Court and judgment delivered in November 2010. Lenovo, one of the world's largest manufacturer of laptops was found guilty of breaching the implementation in French civil code of the 2005 European Directive that forbids anti-trust racketeering. Lenovo was fined a couple of thousand euros and Mr Petrus was awarded damages of around 400 euros. So this about a lot more than a few quid. The ruling in Petrus v Lenovo is a good start. On 15 November 2010, the French Supreme Court (La Cour de Cassation, Premiere Chambre Civile) issued a Public Bulletin in which the ruling was explained. On his professional website, the avocat (lawyer), Frederic Cuif, provides his analysis of the ruling. The backbone of the legal arguments centre on the interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC, the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’, In the UK, the Statutory Instrument, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, actually implements the Directive here. There is also a wishy-washy 2008 Guidance Brief from the OFT on Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading. I don't want to be forced to buy Microsoft Windows with the purchase of a new PC. And the French Supreme Court agrees with that. And the cost of an OEM copy of 64-bit Windows Home Premium is around £70, which is a significant proportion of the cost of a new laptop. The unwanted, pre-installed copy of Microsoft Windows added around 15% to the purchase cost of my new laptop. I say that is unlawful and that Dell and others need to be put in the dock and ordered to stop this racketeering!

Hello All, Last week, I bought a laptop from Dell Online. It cost around £600 and on paper it seems to be quite a good model. The laptop came with a pre-installed copy of the 64-bit OEM Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium, together with other Microsoft software packages. I do not need this bundled software as I only ever use Linux. I do not like Microsoft's products which I find to be unreliable. Furthermore I strongly disapprove of Microsoft's ethics and do not wish to provide the company with my custom. The laptop was not available for purchase without this pre-installed software. I should like the cost of this unwanted Microsoft software, which adds around £70 to the purchase price of a laptop, to be refunded by Dell. Dell reportedly refunds other consumers, both here in the UK and elsewhere, who object to paying a "Windows Tax" for pre-installed Microsoft software that they neither want nor need. Unfortunately, Dell is currently refusing my requests for a refund on this software. This makes me more determined to secure reimbursement since I believe it is my legal right under European law. Dell's argument is that the Microsoft software was included in the sale of the machine and that if I am not satisfied with that then I must return both the laptop and software for a refund. However, Dell states that this refund comes with a penalty. It would be subject to a deduction for the cost of shipping and handling and a "restocking fee." I doubt that such a penalty is even lawful under the rules of the Distance Selling Directive. Furthermore, it is apparently commonplace in the Francophone world for customers to obtain refunds from Dell, and other computer retailers, for the cost of unwanted software that is bundled with a new computer. In securing their legal right to a refund, French consumers are relying on the judgments of the European courts. These judgments including a 2009 case heard by the ECJ, and more recently the Nov 2010 judgment in Petrus v Lenovo in the French Supreme Court. The right to return unwanted bundled software is based on the Courts' interpretation of European Directive 2005/29/EC. This is known as the "Unfair Commercial Practices Directive". The Directive prohibits twenty-three deceptive trade practices and eight aggressive commercial practices. Dell, Lenovo and Acer have all been found guilty of engaging in unlawful business practices by refusing to refund the cost of unwanted software that was pre-installed on new computers. The legal right to a refund on unwanted bundled software was galvanised in France through a test case brought by UFC Que Choisir, the main consumer rights association in France. The Directive is implemented here in the UK by way of The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations. The Regulations came into force in May 2008. In these austere times, it is particularly galling that the purchaser of an expensive new computer is burdened with the cost of bundled software products that he does not even want. For that reason, I should like to see Dell's unethical practice of pre-installing unwanted and costly software brought before a British Court, to hopefully secure a legally binding judgment in favour of the consumer seeking a refund for its cost. Dell has stated that I have three days left (out of seven) to agree to its punitive terms of refund, after which my entitlement to return the laptop ceases altogether, so the company has claimed. A particular bone of contention concerns the terms of the End-User License Agreement (EULA) for the bundled Microsoft software. The terms of this Agreement are not available for examination at the time of purchasing a laptop from Dell. Yet the company claims, nevertheless, that the terms form part of its Contract of Sale. Again, that does not sound lawful. The OFT's Guidance on Unfair Consumer Contract Terms state that a term is unlawful if it "irrevocably binds the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract." This is not the first time that the OFT has had to rein in Dell over its flagrant abuse of our consumer protection laws. In 2006, Dell was ordered by the OFT to remove a number of unlawful terms from its consumer contracts for the supply of computer equipment. All comments welcomed.