UK Consumer Protection Law

[Dubious Dick]

Following from the Derek Ogilvie MDC and Channel 5 programme I decided to check the law regarding 'psychics' etc. It seems we have had some progress.

I tested the situation regarding a show Ogilvie is due to do at the Pavilion Theatre in Glasgow later this Month. I wrote to trading standards in Glasgow complaining that the show appeared to be being promoted without any of the 'health warnings' which seem to be the minimum required under the new law.

They have replied as follows:
Psychic Show
Thursday, 9 October, 2008 12:05 PM
From: "Whyte, Stewart" <Stewart.Whyte@glasgow.gov.uk>
To:

Dear Mr Sutherland,

I have been passed details of your complaint concerning the Derek Ogilvie show at the Pavilion Theatre in Glasgow. In relation to the complaint, the new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations came in to force this year and you are correct to say that they would cover such areas as false mediums and psychics. The regulations repealed a statute called the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 which was in place to try and prevent anyone making profit from falsely claiming to be a medium or psychic.

When the new regulations were brought in there was heavy media coverage of this particular area, it appears to be something that the media latched on to and was one of the issues that was highlighted as being covered by the new regulations. Following some discussion it has been agreed that any psychic show should contain a disclaimer stating ‘for entertainment purposes only or for scientific experiment’. We have advised the Pavilion Theatre of this and provided them with guidance on the new regulations. They have amended their website to include the warning and will include it in any promotional advertising used for the show. The Government have also commented on the repeal of the Fraudulent Mediums Act as follows,

“The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 will be repealed from April 2008 by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007 (CPRs) which implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).

The CPRs include rules prohibiting conduct which misleads the average consumer and thereby causes, or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, such conduct would still be unfair under the CPRs if it deceives the average member of (i) the group to which it is directed, or (ii) a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to this type of practice.

Unlike the Act, there is no requirement in the CPRs to prove an "intent to deceive". This means that where practices are aimed at vulnerable consumers or average members of particular groups, it should be easier to take action against fraudulent mediums than under the Act.

The CPRs will be enforced by both civil (injunctive) action and criminal sanctions.”

The practicalities of enforcing a piece of legislation like this against a medium or psychic mean that it is more appropriate to advise consumers of the ‘entertainment’ aspect rather than trying to prove in a court of law that someone can or cannot contact the deceased, therefore as long as the venue are making it clear that the show is for entertainment purposes then we would be satisfied that any consumers who attend the show are not being misled.

Thanks for bringing the matter to our attention,
Best regards,
Stewart Whyte
Trading Standards Officer
Trading Standards Unit
Land and Environmental Services
Glasgow City Council 231 George Street Glasgow G1 1RX
Phone 0141 287 3632
Fax 0141 287 6682
E.Mail stewart.whyte@eps.glasgow.gov.uk
www.glasgow.gov.uk

It is a shame that they will not prosecute on the grounds that Ogilvie singularly failed to prove his claimed abilities, and as we know, he clearly does not have any. However, we now have a new weapon in our armoury, and anyone who wants to put a spoke in the works of the charlatans can now contact their local trading standards asking that they insist anyone promoting 'psychic' or other woo must add the 'health warnings' to their publicity material, and preferably to make the entertainment only disclaimers during the show itself.

I hope more UK JREFers will do so whenever possible. At least it will make life a bit more awkward for these latter day snake oil salesmen!

Good luck. DD

[Lothian]

DD,

Excellent, Well done.

My local paper regularly advertises shows by these grief-whores. Have you a copy of your original letter I can plagiarise?

P.S. You might want to edit your post above to remove your name.

[Blue Bubble]

Kudos from me too.

:clap: :clap:

[learner]

Well done that man. As Lothian said, a copy of your letter to plagiarise the gist would be most helpful.

[Fiona]

Congratulations from me too!!

[Dubious Dick]

Here is the text of the email I sent to Glasgow Trading Standards:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Following the programme on Channel 5 last night where Derek Ogilvie was exposed as being completely devoid of any psychic/mind reading powers (hardly any surprise there!), I note that he is due to put on a show at the Pavilion Theatre, Glasgow in November.

As far as I can tell this is being publicised by Mr. Ogilvie and the theatre without any 'health warnings' whatsoever. Is this in breach of the new Consumer Protection legislation where it relates to these charlatans, and fraudsters?

If so, and given Mr. Ogilvies high profile, please will you take action? This may set a very good example to others like him who make outrageous and totally unsupportable claims that result in members of the public thrwoing away their money on claptrap.

Thank you,
DD

(and yes, I am deeply ashamed of the typo!!)

You are of course welcome to plagiarise as much as you like. I hereby relinquish any copyright. Generous eh!

Think you may wish to use from their response regarding the exact legal position as they see it. I also think if you do then try suggesting to them nicely that the warnings need to be prominent as well for avoidance of avoidance by minimalism.

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could find someone who believed they had been deceived and get a private prosecution against one of these numpties to set a precedent? Sadly I am not in a position to even contemplate funding something like this. Maybe someone out there knows a lawyer who cares enough about this sort of thing to take on a case pro bono?

Won't waffle on any more now, but I do so despise the whole damn lot of them, if there was any justice, well.....(fill in your own form of slow torture!)

Best. DD

[tim]

Well done! :D

[Kuko 4000]

Good job DD!

[Dubious Dick]

for the positive comments. However, would be even more gratified if more people would have a go as well. Have also posted the same on UK Skeptics and at least one other person has written to Glasgow Trading Standards. They rightly point out that the 'victory' is minimal as the disclaimer is hardly unmissable, and somewhat less than informative.

Maybe if we can apply more pressure we can make this more effective. Guess as it is UK law, only those in the UK can make complaints. Hopefully a few of you are.

Be interested to know if there are any U.S. legals for this sort of thing, and if not maybe JREFers can start a lobby?

Let's make life as uncomfortable as possible for the likes of Ogilvie, Browne at al as we can!

Cheers,
DD

[Reno]

Here's the disclaimer on the Glasgow Pavillion Theatre site for Ogilvie:

"Disclaimer Notice:

Due to recent EU legislation, it is now necessary to state the following:

Theatre demonstrations are to be deemed for entertainment purposes only"

http://www.paviliontheatre.co.uk/xml/shows/shows.asp?id=20081109


Disappointing :(

[Dubious Dick]

Reno, I totally agree, but at least it is a start, and a breach in the dyke which, with more pressure, we might be able to widen.

The way I read the law is that the woo merchants should not mislead. Since they cannot prove their claims they are de facto misleading. the problem remains that Trading Standards do not really have the resources to take on the proliferation of woo, and have therefore apparently settled for 'health warnings' as a minimum.

I think that we have the chance to press for far more prominent, stronger warnings. I liken it to the health warnings on tobacco which started small and are getting more and more dominant and scary.

Hence why I am encouraging as many people as possible to get involved and complain. I am now going to contact the Consumer Affairs Minister to lobby for a more muscular application of the law, and lets see if we can make a real difference.

It would be great to find a lawyer who would take on a civil pro bono case as a precedent as well. One step at a time. After all, we have thousnads of years of woo to chip away at, and much as I like to fantasise about an overnight revolution for rationality, I guess we just have to face up to slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.

Cheers,
DD

[Dubious Dick]

UPDATE:

I have now sent the following email, and await the reply with interest. I am sure it would help if others would like to write in as well!

F.T.A.O.: Gareth Thomas MP, Minister For Consumer Affairs
Sunday, 12 October, 2008 11:29 PM
From:
To:enquiries@berr.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Mr. Thomas,

Channel 5 recently screened a documentary concerning a man called Derek Ogilvie. This man claims he can read childrens minds (in some cases preying on desperate parents such as those with children with serious conditions e.g. Autism), and also claims he is a 'medium'. It appears that he has developed a large and successful business from these so called 'abilities'.

The documentary clearly showed that, when properly tested, he has none of his claimed abilities.

This prompted me to look into the legal position relating to so called 'psychics', 'mediums' etc.

I believe that they are covered under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Having read these carefully I believe they state clearly that anyone providing such 'services' should not make misleading claims.

However, it seems that they are only being applied intermittently and unevenly, and then only in the very diluted form of requiring 'health warnings' e.g. where a 'psychic' puts on a public performance, they are only required to make a cursory, and small print, statement that it is for entertainment purposes only.

My query is why the law is not being used to it's full potential to put such charlatans out of business completely? I am sure you are aware that in the vast majority of cases people do not use these 'services' or attend public shows, for entertainment. People will tend to go to these latter day versions of snake oil salesmen because they are vulnerable in some way.

Since there is not a shred of credible evidence anywhere for such 'abilities' and services, surely they are all, by definition, misleading, and the people involved should not be allowed to ply their trade. Unless of course any individual could prove that they do indeed have such 'abilities'. This principle would of course apply to any number of practitioners whether they be 'mediums','astrologers', 'psychics', 'crystal healers', etc etc.

I am sure you know that this is a multi-million pound industry of deceit, and the apparent weak application of a very good law is a great shame. Can we hope that your Department will take a more rigorous approach in the future in order to close down this industry of conmen and women? I really hope so for the protection of vulnerable consumers, just as you and your colleagues no doubt wish to close down any business that is defrauding people.

I look forward to your response.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,

[SusanB-M1]

Traveller's Tree (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/travellerstree/) has just finished on BBC Radio 4. At about 16:47 a reporter was talking about a particular WOO holiday she had been on in UK somewhere. Other venues were abroad, but this and others could well do with a copy of your letter, DD. I am sorry that my computer skills (and sight) are not good enough to do it myself.

[mummymonkey]

Here's the disclaimer on the Glasgow Pavillion Theatre site for Ogilvie:

"Disclaimer Notice:

Due to recent EU legislation, it is now necessary to state the following:

Theatre demonstrations are to be deemed for entertainment purposes only"

http://www.paviliontheatre.co.uk/xml/shows/shows.asp?id=20081109


Disappointing :(

Looks like it has been changed somewhat. My bold.


Legal Disclaimer
Shows of this nature are for entertainment purposes only. Your psychic reading, if received, is subject to your own personal interpretation and guidance given is not intended as predictive. Psychic and mediumistic consultations are scientific experiments and results cannot be guaranteed.
Remember also that ALL psychics and mediums are fallible and can sometimes make mistakes.

[Dubious Dick]

Looks like the pressure is having some effects. I suspect that the additional pressure from others has casued the Glasgow Trading Standards to get the Theatre to amend the disclaimer. Now we need to get the disclaimer in bold at the top.

I am following up on the application of the law, which, if done properly, would stop these woo merchants trading at all.

We have a forum on UK Skeptics going on this, so will not go into all details.
DD

[Nomada]

'Psychic and mediumistic consultations are scientific experiments'

That's a new one. Is Ogilvie a scientist then? Any qualifications? What's scientific about cold reading? Is there a hypothesis somewhere?


Congrats on the letter result though, DD.

[Dubious Dick]

Here is the link to the UK Skeptics forum thread where you can find more detail on the law and interpretation etc.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3047

I have written again to Glasgow TS to suggest tightening up the disclaimers/health warnings. What do you think about this as a suggested disclaimer. I think it should be short, sweet, and prominent:

'This performance (private 'reading') is for entertainment purposes only. There is no credible scientific evidence that the performer ('reader') has any ability to communicate with the dead or to read minds. Where testing under proper scientific conditions has been carried out, no person claiming 'psychic' abilities has ever been able to provide evidence.'

DD

[Nomada]

I think that's good, but you may need the EU legislation reference there to give authority.

Is this show part of an advertised tour? If so, posting the venues and dates here might be helpful.

[tkingdoll]

'This performance (private 'reading') is for entertainment purposes only. There is no credible scientific evidence that the performer ('reader') has any ability to communicate with the dead or to read minds. Where testing under proper scientific conditions has been carried out, no person claiming 'psychic' abilities has ever been able to provide evidence.'

DD

That's not correct though.

First you must define 'evidence'. For certain values of 'evidence', there are psi studies which show a small but significant effect.

[Dubious Dick]

tkingdoll,

If such studies exist please be good enough to supply references? Andd why have they not been put forward for the MDC?

I would also appreciate comments from others on this. Is anyone else aware of any studies that show there are or may reasonably be anything to communicating with the dead or mind reading?

tkingdoll, I think you should get in touch with Michael Shermer and get them published in Skeptic as well!!

As to Ogilvie, he is often on tour and the details are available on his website:
http://www.derekogilvie.com/

The current dates on the front page seem to be mainly in Holland. If anyone has any contacts there then maybe they can stir things up a bit. I assume that there Consumer Protection Law should be in line as the U.K. law did derive from EU legislation. I did email a theatre there and the RTL TV station which seems to love him, but not surprisingly have had no responses.

[Dubious Dick]

Complaint re: Craig Hamilton-Parker, QKE Limited (t/a) C/O CBM Accounting
Wednesday, 15 October, 2008 12:39 PM
From:
To:rsadvice@hants.gov.uk
Dear Sir/Madam,

This complaint refers to the Psychics and Mediums Network Website (http://www.psychics.co.uk) and associated entities e.g. QKE Limited Psychic Shop which appears to be trading from the following address:

Craig Hamilton-Parker,
QKE Limited (t/a)
C/O CBM Accounting
22 Pirelli way
Eastleigh
Hampshire SO50 5GF
United Kingdom.

I am making this complaint in relation to the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I believe that businesses such as these should be closed down using the provisions of the Act because they are seriously misleading to vulnerable or average consumer/s. This is because there is not a shred of credible evidence anywhere to support their claimed abilities, and because I believe you would want to close down any fraudulent business.

However, I understand that current application of the Law means that these types of businesses must, at a minimum, include prominent appropriate disclaimers. I note that the website referred to above does not include a disclaimer on its Home Page (I would have thought that the disclaimer should be required as a header on all pages of the site and shop). The site does seem to incorporate disclaimers in a couple of places, but they are (forgive the pun) buried away.

In one case the disclaimer refers to so called 'psychic and mediumistic' readings being 'scientific' experiments. This is patently absurd. For example, are the people carrying out these so called 'experiments' recognised, reputable and qualified scientists? If not, how can they be carrying out scientific experiments? 'Science' and 'Scientific' have very clear, well established meanings, and involve testing hypotheses with rigorous, controlled protocols. These people simply cannot claim this is what they do.

To add insult to injury, the following statement is made on the Home Page:
ACCURATE ONLINE PSYCHIC READINGS BY PHONE DELIVERED WITH INTEGRITY, CHEERFULNESS AND COMPASSION ®

"Accurate"? This one word alone is seriously misleading. What credible, independent and verifiable evidence can they provide for this and the other claims that they make? I suggest none whatsoever.

So, unless you are prepared to bring a prosecution against these charlatans based on the fact that they cannot support a single one of their claimed abilities, may I suggest that you oblige them to place a disclaimer prominently, at the head of every single piece of promotional material i.e. web site pages, mailers etc, along the lines of the following:

'All the services provided, including but not limited to, psychic and mediumistic readings, are for entertainment purposes only. There is no credible scientific evidence that the suppliers of these services have any ability to communicate with the dead or to read minds. Where testing under proper scientific conditions has been carried out, no person claiming such abilities has ever been able to provide any independently verifiable evidence whatsoever.'

Only a disclaimer such as this, and placed prominently, has any chance of achieving the clear intentions of the Consumer Protection legislation.

many thanks.
Yours sincerely,

Anyone in the U.K. want to mail as well in support of this initiative? GO FOR IT

DD

[Lothian]

tkingdoll,

If such studies exist please be good enough to supply references? Andd why have they not been put forward for the MDC?

I would also appreciate comments from others on this. Is anyone else aware of any studies that show there are or may reasonably be anything to communicating with the dead or mind reading?

tkingdoll, I think you should get in touch with Michael Shermer and get them published in Skeptic as well!!
I think you might have missed tkingdoll's point. I am fairly certain she is not supporting psi. Rather she is point out that in the past there have been studies that have showed an effect. That their results can not be repeated or the studies have fatal experimental flaws does not stop some people citing them as “evidence”.

[Dubious Dick]

My apologies to tkingdoll. I guess I was relying on a definition of 'evidence' along these lines:

'A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment'

Since I do not think that results from unrepeatable or flawed experiments are 'helpful' my original statement would be supported. however, for avoidance of doubt I will try to use the expression 'credible evidence' in future.

Cheers,

DD

[Dubious Dick]

To Susanb-M1, I will try to follow up your suggestion re the BBC show. Hopefully more JREF ers will join in the efforts to use this law as best as we can to combat the woo merchants.