How do you know who you can trust?

NCF has looked at how the internet has changed our approach to trust and the way we now make choices.

We started work on this by looking at ‘what good looks like’ Link from the consumer’s point of view. This paper analysed the issues arising from current practices where trust schemes use customer feedback. We have identified five key elements needed to support and maintain consumer trust in a trust scheme:

  • Creation and maintenance of a detailed code of practice for the operator of the scheme and those participating
  • Monitoring and assessment against the code
  • Complaints handling and escalation process available to consumers using the scheme
  • Consumer feedback and choice systems
  • Regular assessment of the trust scheme against the four preceding elements on behalf of consumers by the consumer movement.

Creating fairer regulation

The NCF has taken up the issue of fair and consistent consumer regulation.

Regulators such as Ofcom (for communications such as mobile phone services) and Ofgem (for energy, such as gas and electricity) exist to protect consumers in imperfect markets. But the understanding and interpretation of consumer issues across the recognised regulators is unclear and inconsistent. There is some evidence that businesses may pay more attention to the regulators’ requirements relevant to their business without the flexibility to meet true consumer needs. This can mean failure in fully addressing consumer disadvantage, discrimination and detriment.

The NCF supports the aims of ‘better regulation’ provided there is an effective legislative framework within which business and consumer needs are properly recognised and balanced.

Patients are consumers too….

The carer looked at me over the top of her glasses.  ‘I’m really sorry,’ she said ‘but we can’t help you.’  I looked at her in disbelief.  This was a private care agency, they had the capacity, I had the money, we needed help, what was the problem?
‘Your mother needs a proper assessment,’ she explained.  ‘She may have broken something.’  Something was indeed very wrong.  Over the last few days, Mum had deteriorated from being able to get up and down stairs – if slowly – to not being able to get out of bed without help.

I started with what I thought was the most sensible option, our GP.  Everyone in staff training.  ‘Call 111’ said the carer, ‘I’ll wait and speak to them.’  111 was duly called, the carer explained the problem and paramedics were next to arrive.  They diagnosed a broken pelvis.  ‘We could take her to hospital for an x-ray so at least you’d know what you’re up against, but there’s no cure…’

But I couldn’t move her and even private carers wouldn’t help without an assessment, so our next stop was Accident and Emergency.
A&E meant a corridor trolley wait, then, still on the trolley (no pillow, only a thin blanket), an overnight stay in a side bay and finally, the next d ay into an A&E annexe, which at least had a proper bed.

The next morning, I found Mum frail, dehydrated and incoherent, but nevertheless dosed up with morphine for the primary purpose of being able to ‘prove’ to the discharge co-ordinator that she could walk from her bed to the toilet and could therefore go home, avoiding the need for admission and a ‘proper assessment’ of her care needs.   One can only imagine the risk this posed – of making her fracture worse; of falling, or of creating further fractures.  I caught the eye of the nurse making up the bed next to Mum’s.  She rolled her eyes and whispered ‘it’s not right. I’ve told them, but…’

What can you do?  It’s a good question.  We’re told that it’s the fault variously of the GPs, the hospital management, and the patients who insist on coming to A&E but don’t need to be there.  It’s also said that we spend less than our European neighbours on healthcare, demand is rising, yet budgets are falling in real terms.

The Kings Fund has said that with NHS finances almost at breaking point, the system turns to deflection, delay, denial, selection, deterrence and dilution to cope, all of which impact on service users, or those who would use the service if only they could access it.
Mike Adamson, CEO of the Red Cross, was recently criticised for describing the NHS as a humanitarian crisis.  It may not be a war zone as such, but to the patients trapped inside and those who love them, it can sometimes feel like one.

The NHS may be free at the point of delivery but we all pay for it through our taxes.  Perhaps we do need to be paying more, but patients are consumers too and they deserve better.

Brexit : Transposition of laws – What’s the point if enforcement is weak?

The 5 December 2017 Consumer Congress focused on issues relating to market surveillance and enforcement, one of the principal messages from the April Consumer Congress and an often-overlooked element in the market place that is vital to the success of the market and to consumer trust. More specifically, as Baroness Judith Wilcox, President of the NCF, stated in her introduction, the objective was to drill down into the issues surrounding enforcement and market surveillance; to expose weaknesses and to celebrate successes; to recognise constraints, but to come up with innovative ways forward to ensure that good businesses thrive and poor performers either improve to become good businesses, or pay the price for their failures.

The Congress outputs are now being taken forward by the NCF Enforcement Alliance to ensure that consumer protection meets consumer expectations post Brexit.

NCF Enforcement Congress Report 5 December 2017

The European Commission is asking the question “The Services Package: Is the EU on the right track?” As President of ANEC, the European Consumer Voice in Standardisation, I presented a consumer view to a policy dialogue at the European Policy Centre on 1 March 2017. Although this EU initiative on the delivery of services within the EU focusses mainly on barriers for professionals, it is possibly a step forward for consumers.  However, our primary concern is that there is still no legal framework to ensure the safety and fitness for purpose of EU services.

More and more service provision is cross-border, with most consumers believing the rules on safety are the same across the EU. Unfortunately they are not, so many service providers do not take the needs and expectations of consumers properly  into account.

Without a European legal framework for quality, safety and liability of services, European standards will not be able to provide a level playing field for businesses and consistent protection for consumers. With national regulations continuing to take precedence, the result will continue to be legal uncertainty as well as business and consumer detriment.