Lawrence

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 2,138 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: OFT Investigation #338361
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Investigation

    I don’t mind blunt ,you will have to bear with me Barry I broke my wrist at christmas and shouldn’t be driving so am like a bear with a sore head because of it either that or am spaced out on painkillers so am not so on the ball as usual(if ever:lol: just before someone says it ),I have just re read the post and you are right it does come over in an awful manner sorry that absolutely wasn’t intended .
    To put it in to context I wasn’t sure what Ben nevis was up to and wondered if he was trying to draw us into contradicting one another so he could have a go at the WTA. the ONLY reason I mentioned Ade,Myself & Ken was me as Chair,Ken as one who had already got in to a discussion and was named by Ben along with Ade because he was mentioned also I just wanted to take the heat of the OFT thread .I hope that makes sense ,once again sorry .

    You don’t need my permission to ask Dill some questions
    My thoughts are despite all he says he does have an issue with the WTA ,at Coventry in a roundabout way he accused me of being an ineffective Chairman and also wanted to know where UKW fitted as well as some other things that I took exception to ,
    hope that helps if not ring me 07788583589
    Lawrence (this took me 30 mins to type :rolls: )

    in reply to: DrDill’s Latest Bashing Thread #341197
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: DrDill’s Latest Bashing Thread

    DrDill wrote:But to point out again, i am not against the WTA, i guess it may seem that i am but i can assure you i am not. The WTA is a move in the right direction as far as i am concerned, but certain things i would like to see and they have been discussed in other threads.


    And that’s where this should end…

    in reply to: Samsung W/machines #341071
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: Samsung W/machines

    Be careful Clive some are now TOC protected so change like for like.
    Lawrence

    in reply to: OFT Degs Review-WTA response #340730
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Degs Review-WTA response

    Can I ask that the contents of this document be kept within the realms of the WTA and its members ,It would be a shame if it were to fall into the hands of interested parties before the OFT draws its conclusions
    Thanks
    Lawrence

    in reply to: DrDill’s Latest Bashing Thread #341178
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: WTA OFT Degs report

    DrDill wrote:Dont understand what you want, all i asked was if i could see the report that was sent to the OFT, didnt realise it was top secret, i suppose this is why the OFT our rummaging around.

    Its not Top secret – its freely available to WTA members The OFT was “rummaging” about to improve the choice for the consumer ,It approached the WTA as a body that has a role within the DEG sector as do ,Retra, DASA, Amdea & the Manufacturers/whitegoods importers.

    DrDill wrote:I suppose what your saying is that if your not a member of the WTA cartel you wont get any help or info from it? Is this what the WTA is really about and i thought you didnt like this sort of thing.

    The WTA like any Trade Association is there to improve the working conditions within its trade for its members ,if working with the OFT does that then great ,However it was the trade association that Liased with the OFT not UKW,so the report is compiled by the WTA for the OFT using various means of data gathering including the UKW Forums,Written requests to various interested parties,plus other means ,and is available therefore in the first instance to its members, once the OFT compile there Data and publish then its available more widely

    DrDill wrote:Remember all i asked was to see what was sent.

    Sorry but as a non WTA member you won’t get to do so in the first instance .
    Regards
    Lawrence

    in reply to: OFT Investigation #338358
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Investigation

    Why are we linking to DASA from our web site 😕 can someone remove or change please .

    in reply to: OFT Investigation #338356
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Investigation

    agreed as I said earlier we need a party line ,and the stock line for any info req of us is “Request in writing please “

    in reply to: OFT Degs Review-WTA response #340726
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Degs Review-WTA response

    😆 😆 see you there

    in reply to: OFT Degs Review-WTA response #340724
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Degs Review-WTA response

    Err.. John if you are at Sibson in Feb you will be lonely as its at Coventry.
    Lawrence

    in reply to: OFT DEGS Review #340405
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT DEGS Review

    ben–nevis wrote:Hope this clears up the issue and thank you again for your response.
    Regards

    It does and Thank you
    Regards
    Lawrence

    in reply to: OFT Investigation #338354
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Investigation

    I think Ade means “trade” Public,I didn’t like the dig he made about “if you are a member ,this is written on your behalf ” .

    in reply to: OFT Investigation #338352
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Investigation

    Agreed ,with this Guy I think we have to massage his ego slightly whilst also making our point .
    The standard letter for benchmarking purposes bit I will insert in to all the thank you for replying letters .
    Lawrence

    in reply to: OFT Investigation #338349
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Investigation

    on another note Ben Nevis in the general forum needs careful handling I suggest me ,Ken or Ade respond and we all talk off the same script

    in reply to: OFT DEGS Review #340403
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT DEGS Review

    As the person whose name is on the bottom of the letter I feel the need to reply ,As I quite rightly don’t have the benefit of knowing who you work for I will need to respond in broad terms .
    The WTA was approached by the OFT with regard to the DEGS review as a party involved in the appliance sector to enable them to have as many routes of input as possible .
    The letter that was sent out was of a standard nature for a reason that being we would then have a benchmark with which to fairly represent the responses ,Some responses were as simple as we are replying to the OFT ourselves so we will not provide any info ,others disagreed with the scope of the regulation and yet others were extremely genorous with their responses.
    If we were to select how we wrote to the individual manufacturer depending on our experience then we would open ourselves to accusations of favouritism .
    To be frank In a way we were damned if we did and damned if we
    didnt ,but Apologies to you for any offence caused but not all manufacturers are as forthcoming as yourselves (whoever you may be )

    I have to agree with Ken ,if you look at the forums there is a constant req for tech info from Manufacturers yet there are only a few that I can think of that will in my experience freely give info if you are not an agent for them Brandt,Rangemaster,Beko,Crosslee.


    The WTA has had members asking for tech info from manufacturers and have fed back the negative reponse that they have recieved ,Therefore the WTA does have a right to ask the pertinent question on behalf of those members ,we are not seeking to be pedantic or confrontational but apoligies if that is how it has come across.

    regards
    Lawrence Carey
    WTA Chairman

    in reply to: OFT Investigation #338344
    Lawrence
    Participant

    Re: OFT Investigation

    Question – Bottom of page 33 are you signing the document Keneth Watt etc or is that at the end of the quote ?
    Fantastic piece of work,now the fur really flies….
    sorry I couldn’t help more .
    Lawrence

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 2,138 total)