ESF petition: 'dangerous electricals on online marketplaces'

Thank you all for good points. Yes, much of the reason why I don't usually go for petitions is that there tends to be some part I don't agree with, even if the general idea sounds good.


In this case: the aims don't strike me as very heavy-handed; and I don't think customer-education efforts will have so much effect as getting the main intermediaries to take some responsibility for transactions that they're very much assisting as well as profiting from; and trading standards has no control over the direct imports; and I do also feel an annoyance at how a few very large organizations can shrug off the resonsibility for what their marketplace sellers do, while responsible local sellers have to go through the process of getting good products and certification. So I still feel overall positive about the ESF intention, although as usual I worry about things like the final result being badly drafted and having knock-on consequences. At the current rate I still suspect the petition will never reach its target anyway, which I still feel is a bit of a pity, although I sympathise with much that others have said on this thread.


I wouldn't like to see intermediaries such as free-ads sites/papers, ebay etc, being bound to "make sure .. are safe" for equipment sold between individuals, such as "selling my cooker/computer/etc". That would mess up a useful market if each transaction involved checking.

When the seller is a company selling many products, I'm much more supportive of some responsibility falling on the intermediary.

If the seller is a large UK/EU-based company, it's likely to be good at managing the sources and certification of products so it should pose little trouble to the intermediary (there will be exceptions, but generally I don't see safety problems in product from companies that have experience, lawyers who know what's required, and something to lose). 

If the seller is a small UK one that started last month and can happily re-start itself if needed, it's much more likely to have cut corners, perhaps not even knowing about what responsibilities it has.

And if the seller is outside the UK/EU, and is temptingly cheap, then I'd be quite surprised if product really does everthing that it should, although there will be no come-back against it.

It's for these two last cases that I'd be pleased to see intermediaries forced to be more accountable. Without the intermediaries, many of the transactions simply wouldn't happen. The intermediary is in these cases the only party that has the incentive and resource to take some effort. The sellers are immune, ignorant, or accept the risk to themselves as low. The buyers are presumably (except a minority, such as members of this list) unaware of many of the risks. I suspect that customer education attempts get lost among all the noise of the media for most people who aren't already careful about what they buy. If I could believe that the education method would work well, then I'd agree it would be better to go that way than to have yet more petty legislation. 


I've bought a lot of electrical stuff via the big companies that connect me to distant sellers. Looking back, I don't think a single thing bought directly from the far east was up to both CE-style product standards and its claimed specification. Faults mentioned as examples in my earlier posting were just a subset of my direct experience with imported products. However, I've been well aware of the likely problems, and was prepared to make changes to reach a satisfactory state. Example: a 12V/230V inverter that cost £30, claimed 3 kW but actually manages about 1.4 kW even with solid 12V applied, and has been happily mounted on top of my car's battery for three years, after suitable bonding of its chassis and output PE terminal to the car chassis, and addition of an RCD on the output - still working in spite of heat, dust and vibration.


One of many links with examples of bad products, on Which. 


About trading standards, paper tiger etc.: I can well believe it, and agree that these organizations should have the resources to police the in-UK sellers adequately. Until yesterday I hadn't thought so much about bad products from companies within the UK, but more about the "untouchables" (outside EU). However, I remember that a recent study of bad USB chargers in Sweden found plenty from local retailers: these were typically new webshops or small family shops, which presumably got batches through channels that didn't check the source. Some spot-checks of these wouldn't be a bad idea. The trading standards tests I've seen are specific to particular council areas, whereas a central effort would probably be more efficient.


About the requirement of an email address for the petition: good point - I used to be the same about providing a mobile phone number; it's rather silly of them to require email rather than a choice of this or phone or postal.

Thank you all for good points. Yes, much of the reason why I don't usually go for petitions is that there tends to be some part I don't agree with, even if the general idea sounds good.


In this case: the aims don't strike me as very heavy-handed; and I don't think customer-education efforts will have so much effect as getting the main intermediaries to take some responsibility for transactions that they're very much assisting as well as profiting from; and trading standards has no control over the direct imports; and I do also feel an annoyance at how a few very large organizations can shrug off the resonsibility for what their marketplace sellers do, while responsible local sellers have to go through the process of getting good products and certification. So I still feel overall positive about the ESF intention, although as usual I worry about things like the final result being badly drafted and having knock-on consequences. At the current rate I still suspect the petition will never reach its target anyway, which I still feel is a bit of a pity, although I sympathise with much that others have said on this thread.


I wouldn't like to see intermediaries such as free-ads sites/papers, ebay etc, being bound to "make sure .. are safe" for equipment sold between individuals, such as "selling my cooker/computer/etc". That would mess up a useful market if each transaction involved checking.

When the seller is a company selling many products, I'm much more supportive of some responsibility falling on the intermediary.

If the seller is a large UK/EU-based company, it's likely to be good at managing the sources and certification of products so it should pose little trouble to the intermediary (there will be exceptions, but generally I don't see safety problems in product from companies that have experience, lawyers who know what's required, and something to lose). 

If the seller is a small UK one that started last month and can happily re-start itself if needed, it's much more likely to have cut corners, perhaps not even knowing about what responsibilities it has.

And if the seller is outside the UK/EU, and is temptingly cheap, then I'd be quite surprised if product really does everthing that it should, although there will be no come-back against it.

It's for these two last cases that I'd be pleased to see intermediaries forced to be more accountable. Without the intermediaries, many of the transactions simply wouldn't happen. The intermediary is in these cases the only party that has the incentive and resource to take some effort. The sellers are immune, ignorant, or accept the risk to themselves as low. The buyers are presumably (except a minority, such as members of this list) unaware of many of the risks. I suspect that customer education attempts get lost among all the noise of the media for most people who aren't already careful about what they buy. If I could believe that the education method would work well, then I'd agree it would be better to go that way than to have yet more petty legislation. 


I've bought a lot of electrical stuff via the big companies that connect me to distant sellers. Looking back, I don't think a single thing bought directly from the far east was up to both CE-style product standards and its claimed specification. Faults mentioned as examples in my earlier posting were just a subset of my direct experience with imported products. However, I've been well aware of the likely problems, and was prepared to make changes to reach a satisfactory state. Example: a 12V/230V inverter that cost £30, claimed 3 kW but actually manages about 1.4 kW even with solid 12V applied, and has been happily mounted on top of my car's battery for three years, after suitable bonding of its chassis and output PE terminal to the car chassis, and addition of an RCD on the output - still working in spite of heat, dust and vibration.


One of many links with examples of bad products, on Which. 


About trading standards, paper tiger etc.: I can well believe it, and agree that these organizations should have the resources to police the in-UK sellers adequately. Until yesterday I hadn't thought so much about bad products from companies within the UK, but more about the "untouchables" (outside EU). However, I remember that a recent study of bad USB chargers in Sweden found plenty from local retailers: these were typically new webshops or small family shops, which presumably got batches through channels that didn't check the source. Some spot-checks of these wouldn't be a bad idea. The trading standards tests I've seen are specific to particular council areas, whereas a central effort would probably be more efficient.


About the requirement of an email address for the petition: good point - I used to be the same about providing a mobile phone number; it's rather silly of them to require email rather than a choice of this or phone or postal.