But for joe public - and especially the elderly, less confident, seeing the company listed on the SSAIB web site would/could/may lead them to think they are kosher regarding systems.

When you check out their Accreditation page it only adds further to the problem.

I agree with the SSAIB website bit, that is naive of the SSAIB at best. As for their own website i can't see anything about SSAIB.

as i see it he was selling on his own, i.e. not supervised.

in our trade as engineers we might meet in a cafe regularly, at times exchange information, some of it accurate some of it fanciful and a lot of it sheer rubbish, but rubbish sticks if most the engineers are that new, that's what others learn.

same with sales meetings, after you go for a coffee and compare notes, misconceptions can be sorted or equally introduced

without firm proof either way this is deliberate fraud, the benefit of doubt has to be applied to Mr Hook. if you follow my reasoning then you have to apply that doubt to the company to.

but don't worry, The NSI are their inspectorate and i'm sure will work with them to improve on their performance and competence.

Arfur

(yer! right - as if )

I disagree,

That fella was working to a script, a very well prepared one at that.

Arf.

My own opinion is that i agree with cubit. Also lets assume it happened to another firm, and they were genuinly unaware of the practice.

Id assume that this procedure would apply

1. Sales follow up calls. Why have you not ordered xyz etc. Id expect that some people would of said they didnt like xyz etc

2. Clients would complain to the company first. This is your ideal oppertunity to fix any isses that have slipped through. This would of highlighted this practice early on.

3. If no joy on the complaint to the company as a std complaint they would escalate it to the MD

3. Then if still no joy youd expect a call to the NSI and or SSAIB to complain about a member

4. If still no joy (cant see how that can happen for 'genuine' complaints) then its trading stds etc

5. Watchdog and the press.

I beleive that watchdog only investigate anyone only after x number of complaints to trading stds etc. We now from google this isnt a one off.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2009/94-09

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2009/07/direct-response-security-vows.html

http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/newshastings/Police-warning-over-firm39s-cold.5936191.jp

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2010/security_companies_ens_220310.pdf

However a larger company is going to have more complaints than a smaller one in pure numbers, but id assume the % could be analysed.

arf you're totally off beam on this one, there's undisputed history, not just with this company but with many before them. Target the elderly, instill fear, confuse, tire-out then get the deposit and contract signed.

Money Saving Expert

OFT

Lancashire Evening Post

Surrey Area

Top Phone Scams

Arf.

My own opinion is that i agree with cubit. Also lets assume it happened to another firm, and they were genuinly unaware of the practice.

Id assume that this procedure would apply

1. Sales follow up calls. Why have you not ordered xyz etc. Id expect that some people would of said they didnt like xyz etc

2. Clients would complain to the company first. This is your ideal oppertunity to fix any isses that have slipped through. This would of highlighted this practice early on.

3. If no joy on the complaint to the company as a std complaint they would escalate it to the MD

3. Then if still no joy youd expect a call to the NSI and or SSAIB to complain about a member

4. If still no joy (cant see how that can happen for 'genuine' complaints) then its trading stds etc

5. Watchdog and the press.

I beleive that watchdog only investigate anyone only after x number of complaints to trading stds etc. We now from google this isnt a one off.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2009/94-09

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2009/07/direct-response-security-vows.html

http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/newshastings/Police-warning-over-firm39s-cold.5936191.jp

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2010/security_companies_ens_220310.pdf

However a larger company is going to have more complaints than a smaller one in pure numbers, but id assume the % could be analysed.

What makes you think most of the general public even know what NSI or SSAIB is?

What makes you think most of the general public even know what NSI or SSAIB is?

They don't, they aren't interested.

That's where both inspectorates have failed miserably.

They don't, they aren't interested.

That's where both inspectorates have failed miserably.

That was my point, its a waste of time trying to go down the road of 'We are SSAIB etc' makes no odds to Joe Bloggs 99% of time and never will.

Edited June 5, 201015 yr by alterEGO

That was my point, its a waste of time trying to go down the road of 'We are SSAIB etc' makes no odds to Joe Bloggs 99% of time and never will.

They look at the name on the quote and the price at the bottom.

As for Direct Security, it's typical high pressure selling. It's gone on for years and will continue to do so, but I still say, this example was IMO quite mild. I've heard of a lot worse ...... and I thought the BBC handled it very poorly.

From a few replies here no one is surprised or indeed seem not that bothered.

Perhaps this is why these companies get away with it.

From a few replies here no one is surprised or indeed seem not that bothered.

Perhaps this is why these companies get away with it.

Don't know how you come to that conclusion