investigation – Page 2 – The NEN

Regulator announces statutory inquiry into The Captain Tom Foundation

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into The Captain Tom Foundation, after identifying concerns about the charity’s management, including about the charity’s independence from the family of the late Captain Sir Tom Moore and businesses connected to them.

The Captain Tom Foundation was registered on 5 June 2020, following the fundraising efforts of the late Captain Sir Tom Moore at the outbreak of the COVID pandemic. It is registered as a grant-making charity, for the advancement of public health and wellbeing.

The Commission opened a case into the charity in March 2021. It has now escalated its engagement due to newly identified concerns about arrangements between the charity and a company linked to the Ingram-Moore family, as well as ongoing concerns about the trustees’ decision making and the charity’s governance.

The Commission is concerned that a failure to consider intellectual property and trade mark issues when the charity was established provided Club Nook Limited, a private company controlled by Hannah Ingram-Moore and Colin Ingram-Moore, the opportunity to trade mark variations of the name ‘Captain Tom’ without objection from the charity. This may have generated significant profit for the company.

The inquiry, which opened on 16 June, will examine whether the trustees have:

been responsible for mismanagement and/or misconduct in the administration of the charity and whether, as a result, the charity has suffered any financial losses, including through any unauthorised private benefit to any of the current or previous trustees;
adequately managed conflicts of interest, including with private companies connected to the Ingram-Moore family;
complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities under charity law.

The Commission may extend the scope of the inquiry if additional issues emerge.

Helen Stephenson, CEO of the Charity Commission, said: The late Captain Sir Tom Moore inspired the nation with his courage, tenacity and concern for others. It is vital that public trust in charity is protected, and that people continue to feel confident in supporting good causes.

“We do not take any decision to open an inquiry lightly, but in this case our concerns have mounted. We consider it in the public interest to examine them through a formal investigation, which gives us access to the full range of our protective and enforcement powers.”

Previous Engagement

Prior to the inquiry opening, the Commission engaged with the charity on the following issues:

In March 2021 the charity requested the regulator’s permission to employ Hannah Ingram-Moore, a former trustee, on a salary of £60,000 per year, for 3 days a week. The Commission requested evidence of the benchmarking exercise undertaken.
The charity provided the Commission with this evidence and a revised proposal to appoint Hannah Ingram-Moore on a salary of £100,000 on a full-time basis.
In July 2021 the regulator refused permission to employ Hannah Ingram-Moore as chief executive on a salary of £100,000, considering the proposed salary neither reasonable nor justifiable.
In August 2021 the Commission permitted the charity to appoint Hannah Ingram-Moore as interim CEO on a salary of £85,000 per year, on a 3-month rolling contract, for a maximum of 9 months whilst the trustees conducted an open recruitment process. This period has now ended and the charity has recruited a new CEO.

The Commission’s case had identified potential concerns about payments of consultancy fees and payments to related third parties revealed in the charity’s accounts, published in February 2022.

However, based on the information and evidence provided by the trustees, the Commission was satisfied that these specific payments are reasonable reimbursement for expenses incurred by the companies in the formation of the charity. It is also satisfied that any conflicts of interest in relation to these third-party payments were adequately identified and managed

The £38million raised by the late Captain Sir Tom Moore, and donated to a separate charity, NHS Charities Together, prior to the formation of The Captain Tom Foundation is not part of the scope of this inquiry.

It is the Commission’s policy, after it has concluded an inquiry, to publish a report detailing what issues the inquiry looked at, what actions were undertaken as part of the inquiry and what the outcomes were.

Douglas Forbes death: 69 year old man arrested for driving offences

A man who was found fatally injured at Academy Park in Leith has been named as Douglas Forbes. The 78-year-old was discovered around 8.50pm on Thursday (2 December 2021).

Detective Inspector Jonny Wright from Gayfield CID said: “”We are still working to establish how Douglas came to sustain his injuries. We are trying to piece together his last movements, and believe he was in the city centre with friends, prior to being dropped off at Academy Park by a taxi.

“We would like anyone who was out with Douglas on Thursday 2 December, and for the taxi driver who dropped him off, to get in touch with us as soon as possible. This can be done by contacting 101, quoting incident number 3329 of 2 December 2021.”

POLICE UPDATE:

A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “Following the death of 78-year-old Douglas Forbes, at Academy Park in Edinburgh, on Thursday 2 December, Police Scotland can confirm a 69-year old man has been arrested in relation to driving offences.

“He’s been released pending further enquiries and the investigation continues.”

CMA to investigate Amazon and Google over fake reviews

The CMA has opened a formal probe into Amazon and Google over concerns that they have not been doing enough to combat fake reviews on their sites.

In this next phase of the work, the Competititon and Markets Authority (CMA) will gather further information to determine whether these two firms may have broken consumer law by taking insufficient action to protect shoppers from fake reviews.

The move comes after an initial CMA investigation, which opened in May 2020, and assessed several platforms’ internal systems and processes for identifying and dealing with fake reviews.

This work has raised specific concerns such as whether Amazon and Google have been doing enough to:

Detect fake and misleading reviews or suspicious patterns of behaviour. For example, where the same users have reviewed the same range of products or businesses at similar times to each other and there is no connection between those products or businesses – or where the review suggests that the reviewer has received a payment or other incentive to write a positive review.
Investigate and, where necessary, remove promptly fake and misleading reviews from their platforms.
Impose adequate sanctions on reviewers or businesses to deter them and others from posting fake or misleading reviews on their platforms – including those who have published these types of reviews many times.

The CMA is also concerned that Amazon’s systems have been failing adequately to prevent and deter some sellers from manipulating product listings – for example, by co-opting positive reviews from other products.

Fake and misleading reviews have the potential to impact on businesses’ star ratings and how prominently companies and products are displayed to consumers, changing their whole shopping experience.

Andrea Coscelli, the CMA’s Chief Executive, said: “Our worry is that millions of online shoppers could be misled by reading fake reviews and then spending their money based on those recommendations. Equally, it’s simply not fair if some businesses can fake 5-star reviews to give their products or services the most prominence, while law-abiding businesses lose out.

“We are investigating concerns that Amazon and Google have not been doing enough to prevent or remove fake reviews to protect customers and honest businesses. It’s important that these tech platforms take responsibility and we stand ready to take action if we find that they are not doing enough.”

If, after investigating, the CMA considers the firms have broken consumer protection law, it can take enforcement action. This could include securing formal commitments from the firms to change the way they deal with fake reviews or escalating to court action if needed. However, the CMA has not reached a view on whether Amazon and Google have broken the law at this stage.

This latest work builds on action taken by the CMA last year over the trading of fake reviews, which resulted in Facebook, Instagram and eBay removing groups and banning individuals for buying and selling fake reviews on their sites.

The CMA’s investigation into fake reviews is part of a broader programme of CMA work, which includes establishing a new pro-competition regulatory regime for digital markets, to curb the power of big tech. This will be achieved through the Digital Markets Unit. As the CMA works with the Government on proposals, it will continue to use its existing powers to their fullest extent in order to examine and protect competition in these areas.

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said: “We have repeatedly exposed fake reviews on websites including Amazon and Google, so this investigation is a positive step. The CMA must now move swiftly towards establishing whether these companies have broken the law.

“This should prompt Amazon and Google to finally take the necessary steps to protect users from the growing tide of fake reviews on their platforms and, if they fail to do so, the regulator must be prepared to take strong enforcement action.

“The government must also give online platforms greater legal responsibility for tackling fake and fraudulent content on their sites – including fake and misleading review activity.”

More information about the CMA’s probe into Amazon and Google can be found on the Online Reviews case page.

Counting the cost of food delivery apps: Which? investigation

A Which? snapshot investigation found ordering takeaways via food delivery apps was up to 44 per cent more expensive than going directly to the restaurant, while new research from the consumer champion also reveals that app users are sometimes struggling to get a satisfactory solution when something goes wrong with their order.

Which? researchers looked at the costs of ordering meals for between two to four people from five restaurants and cafes, both directly and on food delivery sites Deliveroo, UberEats and Just Eat. Across the five restaurants, ordering via a takeaway app proved 23 per cent (£7.14) more expensive on average than ordering directly from the restaurant.

Orders on Deliveroo were the most expensive overall, costing an average of 31 per cent (£9.91) more per order than ordering directly from the restaurant. UberEats orders cost an extra 25 per cent (£7.93), while JustEat orders were only 7 per cent (£1.56) more expensive.

JustEat did not deliver for one of the restaurants Which? looked at and on another, it applied a £7.30 discount. JustEat said it offers a price promise to help ensure customers do not pay more for food they order through its app compared to ordering via the restaurant’s online delivery service.

The most expensive order was a £43.94 Deliveroo takeaway from a burrito and taco restaurant, which cost 44 per cent (£12.29) more than ordering directly from the restaurant. Even before adding delivery and service charges, the cost of the food was 26 per cent (£8.30) more.

Prices on apps are generally set by restaurants. However, restaurants often increase the price of items when bought through the apps to cover the service fees that the apps charge them. Ordering directly from the restaurant also does not incur the delivery charges that ordering from a delivery app does.

Costs vary between apps, with each one charging different service and delivery fees.

For restaurants forced to close during national or regional lockdowns, the apps offered a lifeline to keep their businesses open. However, a number of the restaurants investigated told Which? they have had to raise their prices in the apps to account for the commissions of between 15-35 per cent they have to pay the delivery services.

The apps say their commissions are essential for running the service – for example, insurance, paying delivery riders, customer services and services offered to restaurants.

During the pandemic, people’s use of food delivery apps increased as consumers looked online for their weekly takeaway and grocery shop. But if customers are feeding a family, these higher prices can quickly pile up. Consumers may not be aware that they are paying these higher prices if they have not visited the restaurant themselves.

In Which?’s recent survey of more than 2,000 UK adults, more than half of people (56%) told the consumer champion they had used delivery apps for takeaways or groceries.

Around six in 10 people told Which? they used takeaway apps at least monthly pre-pandemic, compared with seven in 10 now. JustEat was the most widely used app, with two in five adults (39%) choosing it compared with a quarter (26%) for UberEats and one in five (20%) for Deliveroo.

This new research from the consumer champion also found that customers frequently have problems with orders and often find there is no way to effectively complain or put things right when this happens.

The most common issues with deliveries were late arrival, cold food and missing items. Others reported ruined items, as well as orders not turning up.

Six in 10 (59%) Deliveroo users surveyed told Which? they had a problem in the last 12 months, while more than half (53%) UberEats and JustEat (53%) customers reported having an issue with an order.

The most common resolution for UberEats customers was being offered a cash refund, but Deliveroo and JustEat users were more often offered credit or a voucher in the app. Some of these credits and vouchers come with expiry dates, and if consumers are not regular users, they could lose their money. JustEat said customers are asked to apply the credit to their account within 30 days, after which they are able to use it indefinitely.

Of those who had a problem, more than half of Deliveroo customers (53%) and two in five JustEat (46%) and UberEats (42%) customers found it difficult to complain the last time something went wrong, according to Which?’s survey. Only around half of those who did complain were happy with how it was resolved.

Which? believes food delivery apps should make the responsibilities of the restaurant and app clearer so customers are not at risk of losing out if things go wrong. The consumer champion heard from many people across all of the food delivery apps who found it hard to speak to someone about their order and were passed between the delivery driver, the app and the restaurant.

If a customer is due a refund, consumer law is clear that they should get it in the same way they paid out originally, unless they agree otherwise. Customers do not have to accept credit or a voucher in the app if they paid with their own credit or debit card.

Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said: “Next time you fancy a takeaway, you should be aware that the undoubted convenience offered by a delivery app comes with a hidden additional cost. If something goes wrong with your order, you might also find yourself caught between the restaurant and the app.

“Food delivery apps should do more to make the responsibilities of the restaurant and themselves clear so consumers are not caught between the two if there’s a problem with their order.

“If customers are owed a refund for a delivery which has gone wrong, they should remember they may be entitled to a cash refund under consumer law – they don’t have to accept credit or a voucher if it isn’t what they want.”

A Deliveroo spokesperson said: “Deliveroo always aims to offer our customers great value while also delivering sustainable growth for our restaurant partners. We encourage restaurants to set the same menu prices as they offer customers when dining in, and the commission we charge is then reinvested back into our business, paying for riders’ fees, customer services and upgrading our services for restaurants.

“We have a positive track record of helping our small restaurant partners throughout the pandemic and this will continue to be our priority as restaurants look towards a full reopening.”

A JustEat spokesperson said: “Just Eat is only successful if our restaurant partners are successful. We believe our commission rates are aligned with the value we provide to our partners and we have a track record of helping restaurants prosper.

“It’s really important to us that our customers have a positive experience when using Just Eat. Whenever we’re made aware of any customer experience that falls short of the high standards we hope to deliver, we will always investigate and take appropriate action to ensure we find a suitable solution.”

An Uber Eats spokeswoman said: “At Uber Eats, we are completely focused on ensuring that the best restaurants and the best selection of food is available to customers, delivered in an average time of less than 30 minutes.

“We have a dedicated customer service team to help customers who have issues with their orders, and we would encourage anyone who does have an issue to reach out in the Help section of the app.”

Inkonceivably expensive – printer ink pricier than 32-year-old Scotch Whisky

Despite being more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky, Chanel No 5 and high-end champagne, most people buy branded ink for their printer rather than cheaper third-party alternatives even though they are just as good, according to new Which? research.

The consumer champion found that just one set of replacement cartridges for the Epson Expression Premium XP-900 costs £96. This means that a customer replacing their ink five times can expect to pay £480, yet a third-party alternative deemed of similar quality was found to cost a mere £70 for five replacement sets – a saving of up to £410.

At £2.04 a millilitre, the Epson printer ink was one of several branded versions found to be more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky (£1.71), Chanel No 5. (£1.13) and premium champagne (30p).

Despite the extortionate cost of original ink cartridges, the majority of people told Which? that they regularly buy branded cartridges (58%) over cheaper third-party alternatives – and some have never tried non-branded at all (41%).

The survey of almost 9,000 printer owners revealed that many people are concerned that third-party ink may be incompatible with their printer (43%), print quality would be compromised (30%) or that the third-party ink might damage their printer (30%).

However, in reality, the survey revealed that only one in 10 (11%) of those who use third-party ink regularly experienced cartridges not working, just four per cent experienced leakage and only three per cent found print quality lower than expected.

Many third-party brands also offer guarantees if the cartridge doesn’t work, while some will even repair or replace the printer for free.

What’s more, those surveyed thought some third-party brands were easier to use than original cartridges from HP and Epson ink. And the same goes for toner: Which? found that people with laser printers were much happier with third-party brands than original branded toner.

However, incompatibly isn’t a completely unfounded worry. Some HP printers are designed to prevent customers from using third-party ink by employing something it calls ‘Dynamic Security’, which recognises third-party cartridges and stops them working.

Although HP says this protects its customers, the thousands of people who took part in Which?’s survey found that third-party cartridges offer much better value and even, a better customer experience.

Which? has heard from many consumers who are unhappy that they can no longer use their favourite brands, with some even buying a new printer to avoid the ongoing high cost of replacement HP cartridges.

Which? believes that this is completely wrong and choosing to use third-party cartridges should be down to an individual’s choice, not HP’s.

In the US, a lawsuit resulted in some customers being reimbursed by HP for the costs of replacement cartridges, printers and repairs following a class action settlement.

Under the out-of-court settlement, HP agreed that Dynamic Security wouldn’t be reactivated in the affected inkjet printers. HP denies that it did anything wrong.

This hasn’t yet happened for UK consumers, so customers will need to carefully consider how much they could end up paying over the lifespan of their printer as it could be more than they bargained for.

Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said: “Printer ink shouldn’t cost the earth and we’ve found that there are lots of unbranded products that are just as good as their branded counterparts and only a fraction of the cost – so you can keep your hard-earned cash for actual luxuries rather than spending it on printing.

“Choosing third-party cartridges should be a personal choice and not dictated by the make of your printer. If you are in the market for a new printer, it might be best to avoid HP if you don’t want to fork out for expensive HP ink cartridges.”

St Paul's: do you have information?

Police keen to speak to group of youths

Police are appealing for witnesses following the fire at St Paul’s church in Muirhouse on Sunday night. A joint investigation by police and specialist fire investigators took place yesterday and the incident is being treated as ‘suspicious’.

Inspector Alan Carson said: “This was an appalling attack on a religious building which, despite its closure, was still of importance to the local community in Muirhouse. It was a reckless act which could well have resulted in serious injury or worse.

“We are eager to talk to anyone who may have witnessed anything suspicious around the church on Sunday night.

“We are particularly keen to trace a group of youths who were seen near the church less than an hour before the fire was reported. Tracing these young people would significantly help us with our enquiries.

“Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to contact Police Scotland immediately on 101 or through Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.”

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service crews from Crewe Toll, McDonald Road, Tollcross, Sighthill and Marionville attended the incident at9.30 on Sunday evening and brought the blaze under control just after midnight. No-one was injured.