Latest news with #ConsumerProtectionfromUnfairTradingRegulations2008
South Wales Argus
23-07-2025
- Business
- South Wales Argus
Rogue trader tried to con elderly couple with garden work
Andrew Arrowsmith pleaded guilty to six regulatory offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Arrowsmith's offending came to light when an employee at the Co-operative Bank contacted the police on June 14, 2023, said Thomas Stanway, appearing for Caerphilly council's Trading Standards. The employee was concerned the 74-year-old victim was being scammed when she attempted to withdraw 'a large amount of cash'. Police attended the victim's home, and it was confirmed Arrowsmith had invoiced her £18,500 for gardening and landscaping works. The defendant 'made a number of false claims', including the identity of the builders' merchants he used and claiming that they only accepted cash. The officer advised the victim not to continue with the work, and told Arrowsmith to collect his equipment and leave the address. The incident was reported to Caerphilly council's Trading Standards team. Mr Stanway said the victim agreed to speak with Arrowsmith about proposed gardening works after one of his associates knocked on her door on June 9. He initially quoted her £19,000. She said this was too high, and a price of £18,500 was agreed. The victim was provided with an invoice which said he would complete rubbish removal and clearance, cutting trees down, removing tree stumps, and landscaping works. Arrowsmith started the work 'almost immediately'. On the third day he brought a digger to the property, but the victim became concerned as, instead of removing the excess soil, Arrowsmith spread it over the rest of her garden. Mr Stanway said Arrowsmith demanded £4,000 from the victim on the 'fourth or fifth day' for the work that had already been completed. That led to the victim going to the bank and the police being contacted. On the invoice Arrowsmith gave the victim, the 'No' box next to a statement outlining her cancellation rights had already been ticked. The victim said she was never told by Arrowsmith or his employees about her cancelation rights. Arrowsmith's business cards had two telephone numbers and didn't include an address. He also claimed to be an approved waste carrier – but subsequent checks with the Environmental Agency and Natural Resources Wales confirmed he wasn't. Even after the police attended, Arrowsmith continued to pressure the victim to pay £1,830 for 'rubbish collection' – despite the fact the rubbish remained at the site. A chartered builder and surveyor visited the victim's home and said the work 'did not achieve an acceptable level' and 'was overpriced'. He described the invoice as 'inappropriate' and 'short of content and descriptions of the work'. The court heard 35-year-old Arrowsmith, of Kings Meadow in Llanfaes, Brecon, had one previous conviction for one unrelated offence. Ieuan Bennett, appearing for Arrowsmith, said the defendant was remorseful about the offence and had stopped working following this incident. He said Arrowsmith did not receive any money from the victim, and that the work had cost him an estimated £1,600 – although he acknowledged 'people would perhaps have little sympathy with that'. Judge Jeremy Jenkins sentenced Arrowsmith to a 12-month community order. He must complete 120 hours of unpaid work and pay £2,500 in costs.
South Wales Argus
10-07-2025
- Business
- South Wales Argus
Newport victim says builder was 'professional' before scam
The owner of a landscape gardening company has been sentenced after being found guilty of defrauding customers. Ian Wheeler of Gwent County Construction Ltd was charged for taking up to £26,620 from seven customers for work he failed to complete or carried out to a poor standard. On Monday, July 7, Mr Wheeler appeared at Cardiff Crown Court charged with one offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and six offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, following multiple complaints to Torfaen Council's Trading Standards Team. Siobhan Anderson and her husband, from Newport, paid Mr Wheeler a £4,000 deposit for him to transform their front garden into a driveway. Speaking after the case, Siobhan said: 'To begin with, Ian seemed professional. He gave us a receipt which included a start date about a month into the future. No material was delivered as time passed, and the start date got closer. 'I can remember eight months after paying the deposit Ian messaged via my husband asking us what drainage we wanted. I thought it was weird because at this point, I had realised he wasn't going to carry out the work. 'We released money from a further advance on our mortgage to have the job completed, which we will pay interest on for a long time. 'We struggle daily with parking and unfortunately don't have the financial resources to be able to have anyone else to do the works.' He received a six-month suspended sentence for consumer protection offences and a three-month suspended sentence for the fraud charge, both suspended for 15 months. He was also ordered to complete 120 hours of community service and attend a rehabilitation program. A Compensation Order of £24,920 was issued, to be repaid at £800 per month over 2 years and 8 months and failure to pay may result in imprisonment. The court heard Mr Wheeler, from Pontypool, found customers on Facebook and asked them to pay a 50 percent deposit up front. In three cases no work was carried out, with a range of excuses being given, including family emergencies, health problems, and issues with his van. In four cases, minimal work was carried out to a poor standard. At one victim's property, Mr Wheeler built a wall that fell down within weeks of being constructed. Daniel Morelli, Head of Public Protection and Environment, said: "This sentence sends a clear message that rogue traders who exploit and deceive residents will be held accountable. 'Mr Wheeler caused significant financial and emotional distress to his victims, who trusted him with their hard-earned money.'
Scotsman
16-06-2025
- Business
- Scotsman
Hey influencers, #stayhonest
Content creators are legally bound to make it clear when they're involved in a commercial partnership (Picture: Adobe) Amina Amin looks at how UK law aims to keep the people pushing things on social media on the straight and narrow Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Social media marketing has rapidly evolved into a powerful tool for brand building in the 21st century. From fashion and beauty to tech and toys, influencer partnerships have become a go-to strategy for businesses aiming to maximise consumer reach and enhance brand reputation. As the digital economy grows, influencers are playing an increasingly central role across industries, raising questions about the distinction between personal content and commercial advertising. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad From an influencer's perspective, the rise of social media marketing has unlocked new opportunities to advertise and monetise their content. Individuals are now able to leverage their platforms to promote products and services, positioning themselves as brand ambassadors. Laws around influencing are in place, but enforcement has been patchy, says Amina Amin However, the rapid evolution of this space has made it difficult for regulators to keep pace with emerging challenges surrounding this modern form of advertising. A key concern is the consumer's right to know when content is being promoted as part of a commercial relationship. This principle underpins advertising transparency and aims to ensure consumers are not misled about whether a post reflects genuine opinion or paid promotion. The UK has been ahead of the curve here. In 2008, it expanded its advertising laws to cover the growing influencer market, primarily through the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and CAP Code (administered by the ASA), which both require influencers to clearly disclose paid partnerships and the commercial nature of their content. Despite these measures, enforcement has remained patchy. A 2021 report by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) revealed that 65 per cent of sponsored Instagram Stories failed to meet disclosure standards. This triggered warnings from the ASA and a renewed focus on compliance. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In response, the ASA and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued the 3rd edition of their influencer marketing guide in 2023. The updated guide provides clearer direction to influencers, brands and platforms, aiming to ensure all sponsored content is immediately identifiable to the public. Therefore, to remain compliant, influencers posting in the UK must: always insert a disclaimer on content that is being posted on behalf of a brand (for example, through the use of "#ad" or a platform's own disclosure tool); ensure that the disclaimer features across all relevant content, including all individual posts, Stories, videos and reels; make the disclaimer clearly visible; and be clear in all posts if there is an ongoing partnership with a particular brand. Both influencers and businesses should seek specialist legal advice before entering into a commercial relationship for promotion services. This will reduce the risk of a breach, which can result in ASA and/or CMS sanctions such as receiving reputational damage or having trading privileges withdrawn. Ultimately, the core message is to be transparent. Regulators expect full disclosure of commercial arrangements even if content is being posted on behalf of a brand. From a business perspective, it is vital that you act in line with the law; as while influencers can boost your reputation, irresponsible use of these services may have the opposite reputational effect.
South Wales Guardian
06-06-2025
- Business
- South Wales Guardian
Sports Direct pricing could be misleading shoppers, Which? claims
The watchdog has reported Sports Direct to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) following tip-offs over the retail giant's use of Recommended Retail Prices (RRPs). Sports Direct commonly prices its products with a comparative RRP figure to indicate it is offering customers a cheaper deal. But Which? said its researchers could not find some items sold at Sports Direct's stated RRP price anywhere else online. As well as using RRPs as reference prices, the chain also uses terms such as Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) or Suggested Retail Price (SRP), which the watchdog believed would also be interpreted by consumers as being the same as an RRP. Which? said it was tipped off about 'suspicious' RRPs by Which? readers, and proceeded to look at the pricing of 160 popular products on Overall, for 58 of the 160 products investigated, Which? found no retailer selling them online at or above the Sports Direct reference price. For a further 53, Which? did find the product at or above the reference price at another retailer, but in each case that retailer was part of the Frasers Group, Sports Direct's owner. All of these items were Frasers Group own-brand products. Mike Ashley's Frasers Group has a large portfolio of brands under its umbrella including Jack Wills, Slazenger, Everlast and Lonsdale. Frasers Group also owns various retailers such as USC, Studio, and Get the Label, which sometimes appeared to be the only sellers of these particular brands, Which? said. Which? found a Jack Wills Hunston graphic logo hoodie in green for £24 at Sports Direct, with the item advertised as having a Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of £54.99. Which? researchers could not find the item sold or supplied by anyone other than Frasers Group retailers. It was £40 on Amazon – which is supplied by Sports Direct – but all the other retailers sold it at £24. Which? also found a pair of Slazenger men's tennis shoes selling at Sports Direct for £32.99 – nearly half the MSRP of £64.99. Which? found the trainers sold on eight other websites, but the owner or seller was always part of the parent company. Seven retailers sold them for £32.99, or in one case £33. Only one retailer, Slazenger itself, sold them at the MSRP. A Whitaker Somerfield long sleeve base layer for equestrian sports was also selling at Sports Direct at £8 with an RRP of £35. Unlike the other examples, Whitaker Somerfield is not a brand owned by Sports Direct or Frasers Group, but Which? researchers could not find it sold or supplied by anyone else online other than Frasers Group retailers. The highest price found was £18 – still a long way short of the supposed £35 reference price, Which? said. Which? said it believed some of Sports Direct's uses of RRPs and MSRPs could be 'misleading actions' under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as they could mislead people about the value of a product and savings they could make. Which? legal expert Lisa Webb said: 'If Sports Direct is misleading customers by inappropriate use of RRPs to dupe them into thinking they are getting a good deal, then the competition regulator needs to step in and take strong action to stop this from happening. 'In the meantime, shoppers should take any big discounts at with a pinch of salt and make sure they compare prices with other retailers before parting with any hard earned cash.' Sports Direct declined to immediately comment.
North Wales Chronicle
06-06-2025
- Business
- North Wales Chronicle
Sports Direct pricing could be misleading shoppers, Which? claims
The watchdog has reported Sports Direct to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) following tip-offs over the retail giant's use of Recommended Retail Prices (RRPs). Sports Direct commonly prices its products with a comparative RRP figure to indicate it is offering customers a cheaper deal. But Which? said its researchers could not find some items sold at Sports Direct's stated RRP price anywhere else online. As well as using RRPs as reference prices, the chain also uses terms such as Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) or Suggested Retail Price (SRP), which the watchdog believed would also be interpreted by consumers as being the same as an RRP. Which? said it was tipped off about 'suspicious' RRPs by Which? readers, and proceeded to look at the pricing of 160 popular products on Overall, for 58 of the 160 products investigated, Which? found no retailer selling them online at or above the Sports Direct reference price. For a further 53, Which? did find the product at or above the reference price at another retailer, but in each case that retailer was part of the Frasers Group, Sports Direct's owner. All of these items were Frasers Group own-brand products. Mike Ashley's Frasers Group has a large portfolio of brands under its umbrella including Jack Wills, Slazenger, Everlast and Lonsdale. Frasers Group also owns various retailers such as USC, Studio, and Get the Label, which sometimes appeared to be the only sellers of these particular brands, Which? said. Which? found a Jack Wills Hunston graphic logo hoodie in green for £24 at Sports Direct, with the item advertised as having a Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of £54.99. Which? researchers could not find the item sold or supplied by anyone other than Frasers Group retailers. It was £40 on Amazon – which is supplied by Sports Direct – but all the other retailers sold it at £24. Which? also found a pair of Slazenger men's tennis shoes selling at Sports Direct for £32.99 – nearly half the MSRP of £64.99. Which? found the trainers sold on eight other websites, but the owner or seller was always part of the parent company. Seven retailers sold them for £32.99, or in one case £33. Only one retailer, Slazenger itself, sold them at the MSRP. A Whitaker Somerfield long sleeve base layer for equestrian sports was also selling at Sports Direct at £8 with an RRP of £35. Unlike the other examples, Whitaker Somerfield is not a brand owned by Sports Direct or Frasers Group, but Which? researchers could not find it sold or supplied by anyone else online other than Frasers Group retailers. The highest price found was £18 – still a long way short of the supposed £35 reference price, Which? said. Which? said it believed some of Sports Direct's uses of RRPs and MSRPs could be 'misleading actions' under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as they could mislead people about the value of a product and savings they could make. Which? legal expert Lisa Webb said: 'If Sports Direct is misleading customers by inappropriate use of RRPs to dupe them into thinking they are getting a good deal, then the competition regulator needs to step in and take strong action to stop this from happening. 'In the meantime, shoppers should take any big discounts at with a pinch of salt and make sure they compare prices with other retailers before parting with any hard earned cash.' Sports Direct declined to immediately comment.
