More than 2,000 disposable vapes seized in Kent after ban
Spot checks took place at a variety of retailers in all districts, with patrols in Thanet, Ashford and Tunbridge Wells on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday last week. The agency said there were five separate seizures of illegal vapes, totalling 2,163 products.
Toxic compounds
Mr Whiddett said: "There was a small minority that decided to flout the ban."On day one of our operation, illegal products were seized and the shops were issued compliance notices and can expect a follow up in line with the requirements under the legislation."Under the new rules, vapes being sold must be reusable and have rechargeable batteries, replaceable coils and wadding, and be refillable.Retailers caught breaking the law in England face a minimum £200 fine, with a prison sentence of up to two years for repeat offences. Penalties are broadly similar in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.The ban was introduced to tackle the environmental impact of disposable vapes, which included lithium-ion batteries which can leak toxic compounds if not disposed of properly.It also comes after a previous crackdown on illegal vapes which contained significantly higher levels of nicotine and other chemicals than was allowed.More than six million illegal vaping products were seized by Trading Standards officers across England between 2022 and 2024, according to analysis by the BBC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 minutes ago
- Times
Man, 76, charged over poisoning of children at summer camp
A trustee who runs a Christian charity has been charged over the poisoning of children at a summer camp. Jonathon Ruben, 76, was arrested on Monday after eight children under his care fell ill during a trip to Stathern Lodge in Leicestershire. The pensioner, of Ruddington in Nottingham, is the secretary of the charity running the three-day holiday camp, which was attended by about 45 children last weekend. Police received reports that several children were unwell on Sunday, but officers and paramedics did not attend until Monday. The group of campers are understood to have been dining at a nearby pub in the village of Plungar when emergency services arrived at about 3.30pm. Chaotic and 'stressful' scenes followed as the children and charity workers were taken to the village hall, which was used as a makeshift triage centre, for examination. Eight children, all boys aged between 8 and 11, and one adult were taken to hospital, but have all been discharged. Ruben was arrested in the pub car park on Monday on suspicion of administering poison or a noxious substance with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy. He was charged on Friday evening with three counts of wilful ill treatment of a child, relating to three of the children. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has authorised prosecution of Ruben for child cruelty offences. Janine McKinney, the chief crown prosecutor for CPS East Midlands, said: 'This has been an extremely upsetting and shocking moment for the community, and especially for the children and parents most directly affected.' Ruben will appear at Leicester magistrates' court on Saturday. Ruben and his wife run the Stathern Children's Holiday Fund, which organises subsidised holidays at the lodge for children from disadvantaged areas of Nottingham. The charity calls its summer camps 'safe havens for fostering friendships, building skills and sparking potential'. It welcomes children of all faiths. Campers enjoy outdoor activities at the lodge, which has games rooms, as well as the park, zip wire and bouncy castles. Children who have attended have said their favourite features are the tuck shop and 'delicious food'. In its annual reports, the charity suggested volunteers have struggled to cope with the demands of caring for a large number of children, a significant proportion of whom have 'moderate to severe behavioural, learning or medical conditions'. The report in 2023 said: 'Even though we have a large number of volunteers, we do need a higher ratio of adults to children than legally required to care effectively for these youngsters.' The trustees previously agreed to limit the length of the stays to three days and reduce the number of children in each group 'because four days appeared too exhausting for the volunteers'. Ruben qualified as a primary school teacher before working as a locum and a youth worker at his church. Plungar residents described upsetting scenes as children were taken for medical assessments before their parents started to arrive. Leicestershire police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct over its initial handling of the incident. The watchdog will investigate its delayed response.
BBC News
5 minutes ago
- BBC News
Car finance payouts limited, but lenders aren't off the hook
There may well be a few sighs of relief from senior finance company and banking executives following the Supreme Court's ruling, but it is unlikely you will hear the champagne corks verdict does almost certainly reduce the potential compensation bill significantly. Lenders no longer face the prospect of having to pay £30bn to £40bn to aggrieved car buyers. The likelihood of the government stepping in also appears to have receded the industry is not off the hook. The Financial Conduct Authority may still open a redress scheme for cases where dealers had a financial incentive from lenders to ramp up interest rates on loans as much as possible. The Supreme Court's ruling also upheld one consumer claim, in which the commission payments were deemed unfair – and that could provide a template for others to follow. All of this means the compensation bill could still be in the Supreme Court's intervention has been eagerly awaited since October, when the Appeal Court issued a verdict in three test cases which could have triggered an avalanche of compensation each case, people who had bought cars on finance claimed they were partially unaware that the deal had involved a commission payment being made by the lender to the car dealer. They claimed that in law the commissions amounted to bribes, or secret Appeal Court judges agreed, essentially saying that commission payments made by a finance company to a dealer for arranging a car loan were illegal if the car buyer had not given his or her "informed consent".They also concluded that a car dealer had a "fiduciary duty" towards the car buyer when it came to arranging a car loan. In other words, the dealer should set his or her own interests aside, and act purely on the customer's meant that millions of car buyers could potentially claim compensation – if they could show that the dealer had not specified what commission payments they were receiving for lining up a finance deal. It was not enough for the details to be buried in small had feared that this would lead to an avalanche of claims against them – and that the same arguments could be used to challenge other kinds of consumer finance agreements as well, potentially increasing the compensation bill still the Supreme Court threw very cold water over those arguments. The President of the Court, Lord Reed, dismissed the idea that car dealers had a "single minded duty of loyalty" to their customers, and insisted they "plainly and properly" had personal interests in the finance agreements they were involved ruling clearly blocks off what could have been a very wide avenue for compensation claims. However, the court did side with one of the claimants. In the case of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker, it decided that the finance agreement was "unfair" under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act. This was because the size of the commission payment was very large, and because Mr Johnson had been misled about the relationship between the dealer and the lender. He was, they said, entitled to say this could open the doors for other cases in which the commission payments are seen to be is also a key question the Supreme Court ruling does not answer. This is what should happen in cases involving so-called Discretionary Commission Agreements (DCAs). These were finance deals in which the car dealer could set the interest rate of a loan, within a set scale. The higher the rate, the more commission they would be paid – and the customer would be unaware of the Financial Conduct Authority banned such deals in 2021. It is now considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who were affected by them. If it goes ahead, millions of car buyers could still have a claim, though it is not clear how much compensation they would to Richard Barnwell, a financial services advisory partner at accountancy firm BDO, the bill could still be substantial."We believe there is still a potential for redress, for example, if discretionary commission arrangements are deemed to be an unfair relationship, redress could still be from to £5bn to £13bn or more," he analysts agree. According to Martin Lewis, who runs the MoneySavingExpert website, "the Supreme Court has certainly narrowed the number of people who will be able to reclaim car finance. I think you're probably talking the lower end of £10bn, as opposed to £40bn."That £10bn would still be a significant figure. But the finance industry appears to have avoided the potential free-for-all rush to claim compensation the earlier verdict had threatened to spark while the Treasury says it will "work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers", the BBC understands that the likelihood of the government intervening with retrospective legislation to protect financial firms has now diminished law of bribery only applies to persons who owe a single-minded duty of loyalty and are therefore bound to have no personal interest in the matter that they are dealing the present case the car dealers plainly and properly have a personal interest in the dealings between the customers and the finance companies.
Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Donald Trump hits out at Federal Reserve as US jobs fall
Donald Trump launched a fresh attack on the chair of the Federal Reserve after the US jobs market suffered a sharp slowdown over the summer. The world's largest economy added just 73,000 jobs in July – fewer than the 110,000 expected – reviving hopes of a September interest rate cut. And figures for May and June were lowered by 258,000 in an unusually large revision by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In retaliation, Trump last night said he would sack BLS head Erika McEntarfer. It came as US stocks tumbled after Trump slapped tariffs on trading partners. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1 per cent yesterday afternoon, while the S&P 500 dropped 1.2 per cent. The tech-focused Nasdaq was down 1.7 per cent. European stocks were also rocked by Trump's trade war, with Germany's Dax losing 2.7 per cent and Paris's Cac index dropping 2.9 per cent. The UK got off lightly as the FTSE 100 fell 0.7 per cent, or 64.23 points, to 9068.58. Pharmaceutical firms were among the biggest fallers in London after Trump demanded lower prices. AstraZeneca fell 1.9 per cent and GSK dropped 1.5 per cent. The retreat came as revised figures showed the US economy added just 14,000 jobs in June, a figure revised from a previously reported 147,000. Payrolls for May were slashed by 125,000 to a gain of 19,000 jobs. The BLS described revisions as 'larger than normal'. Atakan Bakiskan, US economist at Berenberg, said: 'The July report provided ammunition for those expecting a Fed rate cut in September.' 'This data has led to a rapid recalibration of US interest rate expectations,' Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, said. On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump wrote: 'Too little, too late. Jerome 'Too Late' Powell is a disaster. DROP THE RATE! .. Tariffs are bringing billions of dollars into the USA!' The President has branded the central bank chair a 'stubborn moron', saying he 'must lower interest rates now'. 'If he continues to refuse, the board should assume control and do what everyone knows has to be done,' he added. Reports last month suggested Powell's future could be in doubt after Trump met congressional Republicans to discuss sacking him. But the President later insisted he would only fire the central bank boss if he were guilty of fraud.
