Well, all who pushed anyway. Says one who did not pursue them.

And in the meantime, Trading Standards have not got their permission for using the computer to look up the site.  Once they do, they will of course see that it's 10p per minute, and e-mail us back and say they can't find anything wrong.

Unless of course they do think beyond the main page, and go to the "contact us" page and still find something wrong.

This is an example of why trading standards need to act quickly.  I'm sure this might go in their files as "wasting our time, nothing wrong"

I've just received an email as follows:-

Quote:
It's stupid council rules like this that slows down complaints, etc.

I realise that blocking websites goes on and I even understand that most depts would not need access to all websites but how many times do T/S need, in the course of their job, to look at a website but are prevented from doing so by filters in place and further to this have to make official requests probably through official channels that take ages to be processed just to look at one website?  All this takes time which I'm sure could be spent on more important things.

Received this on Thursday



Dear Mr (my name)
I am writing to update you about your complaint against the above Trader.

The situation here is still the same as it was last week, whereby I am still
being prevented from accessing the website - a formal request has been made
to rectify this. Unfortunately, this is taking much longer than I had hoped.


I apologise for this delay,  however once I have access I will advise the
company, and let you know the outcome!

Regards

(name omitted)
Trading Standards Team Leader

I had exactly the same e-mail, word for word!!

Does the officer not have access to the internet by any other means, apart from his office.  Not everyone has the internet at home, but surely he could have found someone in his office that does.

And after not being able to access it from his work, 3 months later he comes up with the bright idea of accessing the internet by "other means"

Not sure if it's worth pointing out to him, if it's not changed within a week, as it might take another 3 months before he manages to get on the internet to sort it out again!!

Anyway, at least it's a victory, and after reading the thread about Norwich Union, and trading standards refusing to take any action whatsoever, at least Richmond trading standards have taken the most appropriate action, and that is to just contact the company concerned, tell them that the price is misleading, and asking them nicely to change it.