|
| |
|
|
womble
Posts: 6289
Joined: 3/14/2005
From: Living on the edge
Status: offline
 |
ECJ says web sites need phone numbers or web forms - 11/6/2008 18:42:46
quote:
Companies have to provide a means of contact on their websites in addition to their postal and email addresses, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled. A telephone number, or a contact form that is answered within 60 minutes, were deemed acceptable.
The European Union's E-commerce Directive orders companies to publish certain information about themselves on their websites. The measures are intended to protect consumers and apply to almost all commercial websites, not just those that take payments.
Companies must include an email address and a geographic address on their website. The ECJ has ruled, though, that something else is required. That could be the provision of a telephone number but it does not have to be. They have to provide some other way for a consumer to communicate with the company in a direct and effective manner.
The ECJ has ruled that a web form filled in by a consumer and responded to by the company via email was acceptable in a case where the company answered queries within 30 to 60 minutes. It stopped short of suggesting that all companies should respond to web form queries within 60 minutes.
Full article here: http://www.out-law.com/page-9545
_____________________________
~~ "A cruel god ain't no god at all" ~~
~~ Erase hate. Practice love. ~~
|
|
|
|
womble
Posts: 6289
Joined: 3/14/2005
From: Living on the edge
Status: offline
|
RE: ECJ says web sites need phone numbers or web forms - 11/7/2008 8:29:26
quote:
ORIGINAL: Donkey
I agree you should have as many ways of contact as possible - phone fax etc. But what a load of old ballcocks to try and compel replies within 60 minutes.
It did say that they stopped short of saying companies should respond to web form queries within 60 minutes (which I agree, is totally unworkable, unless you count sending an auto-response canned "we'll get back to you as soon as we've decided if you're a *wit or not"  type message).
With the charity I'm working with, they/I drew up some procedures a couple of months ago on communications procedures, and I tried to tie them (the management committee) down to agreeing to respond within 48 hours, and in my capacity as their web developer and manager of their site/email accounts, set up an auto-response on all their email addresses, basically saying 'thanks for your email and we'll get back to you within 48 hours, but if you haven't had a response after 48 hours, please contact [xxxxx]" (me), so I can phone 'em up and threaten to go round and break their legs unless they get their act together.
quote:
IMHO "customer protection" legislation in particular the odious "distance selling directive" is weighted too far in favour of the consumer. The "try it before you buy it" brigade are returning thousands of electrical appliances every year which are not faulty but which have been used and are in need of re-working and repackaging before they can be re-sold as a "b" grade (second quality). We are not even allowed to charge a re-stocking fee.
I wonder if anyone's told the legions of eBay sellers that then, who often do charge a re-stocking fee? (this is business sellers rather than personal sellers who just sell off the old tat they find in the back of their draws)
I think the problem with the WEEE directive is that if you put the onus on the consumer, they're simply not going to bother because of the cost involved. I work in local government, and since the WEEE directive's come in, we've seen a rise in fly tipping and illegal dumping anyway, I'm guessing by those who can't be bothered to check with the manufacturer/retailer how to go about recycling. Increasing recyling (as local authorities have to do now anyway) is a valid and important aim, but whatever way you go about compelling people to do it, it's going to cost everyone more. The only other viable alternative is to put all recycling, including the recycling of electrical goods under the remit of local authorities, but local authorities aren't going to be able to bear the full cost of it either without raising council tax. Most local authorities already charge for collection and disposal of large items, which is unpopular as it is, so more recycling charges or raises in council tax, especially in the current economic climate would go down like a lead balloon.
With the "distance selling directive", as a consumer (and big user of eBay and online shopping in general  ) I have to say that something like that is needed, because with distance selling, unlike physically going into a shop, you often can't check something out in detail and often online descriptions of things are brief to say the least, so you do need some form of recourse if your purchase turns out to be unsuitable, but I can see how it could cause problems for retailers. You're always going to get people who try to take advantage of stuff like that. Again though, I can't see there's any easy answer, unless there was maybe some form of arbitration service/independent body or something to resolve disputes between retailers and consumers. A toughy.
_____________________________
~~ "A cruel god ain't no god at all" ~~
~~ Erase hate. Practice love. ~~
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
