Such a parcel of rogues in a nation ?

This is a cautionary tale - one of those sequences of events that veer off the expected track, and produce a trail of further nasty surprises on down the line.

In August 2009, I received an e-mail flier from a company called Warehouse Direct with some special offers on powertools. One was an electric saw with two interchangeable positions for different cuts, and I ordered one of these as a gift for my brother-in-law. It arrived about a week later, and I gave it to him.

Early in October, he told me that the catch which controlled the two settings had broken. I emailed Warehouse Direct, and passed the invoice to my brother-in-law.
He phoned the company, and got absolutely 'no change' out of them. 'Matter of wear and tear,' they said. But as it happened they did have the replacement part in stock and would sell him one for £27. Plus £8 carriage. This for a small plastic gubbins. We surmised that ours was not the first to fail, and that the company were organised to profit from a fault in the tool's basic specification.

OK, I said, I'll write to them, and involve my credit card.
This was where I began to get premonitions that all was not going to turn out well. The price of the tool had been £99.95, with 'free carriage'. In other words, just 5 pence below the threshold at which the credit card company would have shared liability for the goods.
But I wrote to the company. I formally requested them to arrange for the collection of the saw for inspection, and repair or replacement. It was at this stage that I realised for the first time exactly where they were - in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
Putting all the facts together, the picture that had emerged was of a company who were very deliberately sailing very close to the wind. So I wrote to their local Trading Standards department.

I heard nothing from the company. Someone from Trading Standards rang me, however. He said the company weren't obliged to recover or inspect the goods. And he advised me to contact my own local Trading Standards.

In all, I contacted the company five times over a period of seven weeks, variously by letter, by email and by feedback from their website. I got an automatic acknowledgement from the last, promising a further reply, which never came, and no other response whatever.

On the face of it, under UK consumer law, the company had not a leg to stand on. The saw was unfit for purpose in the full legal sense. (See the end of this article for an indication of the line I was taking with them).
I considered court action. But the distance and the different legal dispensations bothered me. And so did the facts that the company was so resolutely brazen in ignoring me, and that I sensed an unspoken something, a lack of full endorsement, in the conversation with Trading Standards. Furthermore, legal action would not fix or replace the saw on any quick timetable.

My b-i-l and I talked it over, and decided we could probably fettle the saw between us, which would, obviously, kill any claim we had. But we were beginning to smart. Why should 'they' get away with it ?

The company was behaving like caricature grasping Scots. Surely some Scots would be interested and appalled, even if they could do nothing to alter the facts of the deal?

I went online again, and looked up who was the MSP for the relevant postcode. And at last, I thought I had a result. For it was none other than Alex Salmond, First Minister and Leader of the SNP. His brave new Scotland, Scotland in Europe, surely would not like the face Scotland was showing us ? He might at least drop some acerbic words in the right ear ( Richard Harries' ear ?) at some civic bun-fight ?

So in mid-December I wrote to Alex Salmond and again to Aberdeenshire Trading Standards, in both cases setting out the facts while making it absolutely clear that I was not seeking actual "advice or assistance re order #5162 from Warehouse Direct. I regard that matter as closed – not satisfactorily, but closed nonetheless. "

I wrote to Alex Salmond at his constituency office. Almost by return, my letter came back to me. Since I am not actually a constituent, Mr Salmond was proscribed from responding to me. But if I wished, I could contact him in his other role as First Minister of Scotland. So I did.

Trading Standards replied to me on January 12th and Alex Salmond's office again on January 14th.

Trading Standards expressed themselves as disappointed that I had had no response to my multiple representations to Warehouse Direct, but
"Unfortunately, customer service is not an area that we could have any influence over, but I have noted your comments and details of your complaint ad will keep them on file for future reference"

Which leaves me somewhat bemused as to exactly what Trading Standards are for ? They do not give consumer advice. Nor do they police the conduct of business on their patch. So what do they do ?

Mr Salmond did not reply (not even pretending over an automated signature). The letter was from his office manager. (And I note that though the second time I had written to the Office of the First Minister, the second reply again came from his constituency office, who had said that they couldn't deal with the matter, and advised that I should write to him as First Minister. )
The letter was, frankly, slightly incoherent. It was not clear whether it was actually responding to the facts I had presented, or asking if I would like them to be put before Mr. Salmond. There was an email address on the letterhead, and I emailed for clarification.

Still the gyre continued - this was the reply:

"Dear Mr Graham,
I refer to your email below and apologise if the letter was not clear.
The point I was making was that I was happy to bring this to Mr Salmond's attention, as the company to which you refer is in his constituency. However from what I understood in your letter you were only looking for this to be passed to Mr Salmond for information, which has now been done.
Should you have wanted him to represent your views, or take up a case on your behalf that should have been stated in your letter. However even if you did want Mr Salmond to do this parliamentary protocol prevents him from representing anyone outwith his constituency. Should you want individual representation that would be a matter for your own MP.
Even if Mr Salmond were to take the issue up if you were a constituent he would be taking the matter up with the same person you already appear to have written to.
Certainly if the response you receive from Trading Standards is dissatisfying and you feel there is further recourse for Mr Salmond in general terms, I would be happy to see the response you receive and assess what, if anything, he could do.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Kind regards,
Hannah Bardell"

Which again, is less than sparklingly coherent, but amounts, I think, to "Please go away. Mr. Salmond is not interested ." Certainly, I have neard nothing more.

It was Virgil, long ago, who first penned the comment about being wary of Greeks bearing gifts. A current version might be: "Scots traders offering a bargain ? Caveat emptor !" But no-one in 'the Athens of the north' seems to care.

Finally, the following are extracted from my several letters/emails to the company:

“I contend that the breakage in the saw demonstrates that the saw was not "of ‘Satisfactory quality’" in that it did not "reach the standard a reasonable person would expect taking into account the price and any description," and specifically that it was not "durable, safe and fit for all the purposes for which such goods are commonly supplied."

(Quotations from http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your- rights/SGAknowyourrights/)

I also draw to your attention the following, from your own Terms and Conditions:

"If goods sent are defective , not as advertised , or not fit for purpose - Warehouse Direct will arrange uplift or replacement of these items at no cost to the customer. "

You have been requested to do this, and you have neither done so, nor responded to the request in any other way.

Accordingly, I now request a full refund of the original purchase price. You are, of course, entirely at liberty to recover the goods at your own expense. “