Consumer Focus is changing. We published our 2013/14 Work Plan at the end of March. Although some things are changing, others are not. We still retain our statutory duty to protect consumers in vulnerable situations (sections 6, 12, 13).  Reflecting this we published an action plan for empowerment in conjunction with the Citizens Advice service  last year and looking forward one of our three strategic priorities is, Consumer vulnerability and inclusive services (See page 7 of our Work Plan).

Not having a bank account can add significantly to the disadvantage faced by people in the most vulnerable positions in society. A bank account enables people to get better deals, for example Direct Debit for energy bills, access and manage money safely and conveniently, make payments and receive their salaries, pensions and any other social security benefits.

Last November we published a report “The best of British banking”. This bucked the trend for bashing bankers. Instead it actually praised banks for their success in halving the number of ‘unbanked’ citizens by introducing basic bank accounts. These accounts are simple accounts to keep money and make payments from, e.g. Direct Debits, they do not have overdraft facilities.

For one in five of our fellow citizens such an account is their only or main bank account. However, we noted that some banks were reducing the functionality of these accounts and restricting the groups to which they were available. For example Lloyds Banking Group and RBS stopped allowing basic bank account customers access to the full Link network of ATMs/cash machines.

Of course these accounts are not very profitable for banks and we feared commercial pressure would lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ as banks withdrew from the market leaving people in vulnerable situations even more exposed in hard times.

We encouraged the banks to consider setting a basic bank account standard to which they would all abide, thereby reducing the pressure to water down the offer. We held a series of round tables with the major banks, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pension, the Financial Conduct Authority and other consumer groups.

It was good to hear that all the banks agree in principle that the basic bank account is an essential product in the marketplace for any citizen over 18 (except those with a history of fraud or with violent or abusive behaviour). They have largely agreed to make their basic bank accounts available to undischarged bankrupts, once the new insolvency regime passes into law, and to make information available about basic bank accounts as an integral part of the current account suite. In addition, the banks have agreed to do further work on identity and address verification requirements with a view to simplification.

So far so good, but it has not yet proved possible to get the banks to agree on the following:

• –Access to the full LINK network of ATMs/cash machines for all basic bank account customers;
• An automatic ‘default’ offer of a basic bank account when a consumer applies for a bank account but where their credit score does not fulfil the bank’s requirements for a fully functional bank account;
• Active availability and promotion of basic banks accounts to consumers in branch.

In addition, not all the main banks agree on the publication of comparable market data on basic bank accounts. We can see no good reason why such data should not be in the public domain, especially as all banks have apparently now agreed to provide the data on a confidential basis to the Treasury. Publishing such data would provide transparency on how the basic bank account market varies across the banks, i.e. who is providing this vital service and who is not, and help inform public debate about the role of banks in serving all citizens who need bank accounts.

It is disappointing that the banking sector as a whole has not risen to the challenge – and opportunity – of demonstrating its commitment to responsible banking and service to all sections of the public.

There is however some good news. Lloyds Banking Group, Barclays and The Co-operative Bank have agreed to work together on a progressive package of minimum standards for basic bank accounts and have also agreed to publish their market share data. We welcome the positive stance taken by these banks and are pleased to see them stepping up in the absence of agreement with other market participants. We believe however that the other banks need to be strongly encouraged, or ultimately required, to also play fair and meet a set of minimum standards in order to have a level playing field – and consistency across the country – on access to basic bank accounts that give consumers the basic functionality they need. To make sure all providers are pulling their weight we also want market share data published to allow proper scrutiny of provider’s performance.

So, three cheers for some banks and let’s hope more follow, or our regulators and legislators act to ensure that this vital financial product does not wither and die. Banks are, or should be, profitable ventures providing the financial plumbing system for markets but given the nature of our economy they have also have social responsibilities which we have a right to demand they should fulfil.

In my last blog post I talked about the big contrast between the importance that external agencies attach to consumer data, and the significance consumers themselves assign. Now I turn to look at if the digital economy runs on personal data, and consumers are the primary source of this new commodity, will consumers seek to exploit its potential, or continue to be exploited for it?

The challenge

The challenge for those working in the consumer interest is to find a way to transform the current scenario into a mutually beneficial one. This could involve helping consumers develop a stronger understanding of the potential value of their data, and getting them ready to engage with new opportunities.

If consumers are able to exert more control over how their data is used, there is much to gain. We are starting to see initiatives such as midata in the UK, or Green Button in the USA which offer consumers opportunities to have access to, and benefit from, the data that companies currently hold. Despite attracting some controversy because of security and privacy concerns, they are an indication of how personal data is becoming a market in which consumers could take a bigger share.

Our research

As discussed previously, we commissioned ICM to survey 2,002 adults aged over 18 so we could develop a better appreciation of consumers’ understanding of the issue.

One of the things we wanted to test was how consumers felt about some of the new thinking around terms and conditions which effectively reverses the current provider-dominated relationship. It works by getting providers to agree to terms and conditions that are set by an intermediary on behalf the individual, prior to them taking up the service.

Only 8 per cent of respondents were keen on this option, perhaps seeing it as impractical. The preferred option was shorter terms and conditions in plain English and equivalent to no more than two sides of paper (47 per cent). 40 per cent of respondents wanted to use a set of more consumer friendly generic terms and conditions developed by an independent body. Perhaps personalised terms and conditions are only for the early adopters, but the support for conditions written in the consumer interest is strong.

• Want control, but don’t use it

The vast majority of consumers think they should have more control over their data, but only a few use existing controls: Despite limited understanding of what is collected and why, 84 per cent of people want more control over what information organisations collect about them and how it is used. This also came through strongly in Demos’ recent research on public attitudes (www.demos.co.uk/publications/thedatadialogue) towards personal information and data sharing. They found that people would welcome measures to give them more control over personal information, in terms of knowing what is held on them and having the ability to withdraw it. Generally consumers wanted to have a more honest and open dialogue about how their data is used and on what terms.

However, only one in eight consumers says they currently use any form of control panel or dashboard (for example, http://adblockplus.org/en/features) to set their online privacy and personal information collection preferences; most do not know they exist. This could reflect the visibility, accessibility and usability of the tools as well as people’s awareness of them. (The survey took place before regulations requiring cookie consent notices on websites were introduced in May 2012, it is likely that awareness is higher now.)

Mutually beneficial

Earlier I set a challenge to those working in the consumer interest is to find a way to transform the current one-sided scenario into a more mutually beneficial one.

To start to do this, consumer groups could take a bigger role in enabling people to engage with new opportunities and tools in the personal data economy. These have the potential to shift the relationship between providers and consumers onto a more balanced footing. Whilst data protection should always be at the heart of consumer advocacy and empowerment, the status of personal data as such a major new commodity also demands additional attention.

There are question marks over whether the usual routes to protection are still able to adequately regulate the actions of global companies. Think, for example of the threatened fine to Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg of €20,000 over privacy concerns by the German data protection agency. There are similar doubts as to how effectively regulation can keep up with the fast pace of change online, and how national law can be imposed on a global network.

• Danger of stifling advantages

Too hard a clampdown may well stifle the advantages to be had from effective, consensual sharing of personal data and would almost certainly alienate the large numbers who are comfortable with, and feel they benefit from, sharing. Not to mention very quickly infuriating almost all online users with the possibility of bringing free to use services to an end!

So, are we left with the alternative of accepting that being part of social and economic activity online means giving up autonomy over our personal data, or withdrawing from the online world altogether?

None of these seem particularly productive, and all fail to make possible the benefits of using personal data in a more mutually beneficial way. Doing things differently has potential benefits for consumers. For example using personal data more intelligently could mean personalised, and more responsive, products and services. There are advantages for business too, particularly if they can be part of a more balanced, permissions-based relationship with consumers.

• New opportunities

Taking up opportunities, including but moving beyond data protection, will depend on consumers and consumer groups quickly building a more critical understanding of the:

• current relationship that we are part of online with regards to our personal data, based on a much fuller understanding on what we give up in exchange for what. As part of streamlining consumer protection laws, BIS is considering (see page 21 point 62) whether consumers should have the right to remedies for ‘free’ digital content (eg download/streaming/games) which are supplied without payment of money, but in exchange for something of value other than money such as personal data or virtual currency.
• scale at which personal data is used, and to what end by providers. As well as concerns about an individuals’ personal data and its use, the large scale data and analysis available to providers and the potential for this to shape markets will be a major issue for consumers.
• growth of consumer empowerment and personal data as an emerging market, and how new services and developments via intermediary bodies may work. Helping individuals protect and manage their own data is fast becoming a market in its own right, leading to a growth of business which can help consumers negotiate services and products to their advantage, such as personal information management systems. Such developments enable consumers to have access to their data and share it with parties that put it to work for them.

The increased influence that consumers have due to the potential of digital technology to cheaply and quickly facilitate collaboration and joint action. The web has made possible a more effective way for consumers to participate and achieve goals together. This bypasses the need for traditional institutions and enables consumers to counter powerful interests and exert more control – see previous Consumer Focus research on things like collective switching, using mapping software to identify and fix problems, online feedback and the theory and practice of online collaboration and consumer co-operation. Understanding these new dynamics will require digital literacy in the widest possible sense, what Rheingold would describe as knowing how to participate online for both individual advantage and collective influence.

Increased control

Certainly, our research and the Demos survey both point to consumers wanting to have more control over their personal information. Contrasts (such as wanting more control, despite not using existing controls) could be explained by the lack of tools, services and motivation to do things differently online. What is not yet clear is what the catalyst will be that prompts the majority of consumer to take an active interest in their data. Here are a few suggestions for what might spur on more collective and collaborative action to rebalance the personal data equation:

• Further high profile examples of forcing through changes to terms and conditions changes such as the new terms imposed by Facebook might be the start of the turning point. Instagram’s reversal of a decision to suddenly change its terms and conditions on privacy is also a good example of consumers showing their collectively powerful hand.
• The availability of alternatives such as midata, which is now starting to gain traction as Government looks to put it on a statutory footing may be able to demonstrate what a more balanced personal data relationship looks like in practice. Companies such as Tesco are planning to release back their Clubcard data to customers to enable them to see and make plans on the basis of their shopping habits – just as Tesco have done behind the scenes.
• Greater awareness of the outcome for consumers of businesses applying personal data inferences to prices. In the UK, the Office of Fair Trading is investigating personalised pricing, where inferences about our personal habits and data affect what price we are charged.

Forecasting the potential and impact of digital technology is common practice on the web, with new scenarios and ideas regularly emerging. When considering predictions for personal data (central to so many future developments), we must remember that the way we use digital technology is still in a period of negotiation and development. Certainly, powerful interests have consolidated some control, and are moving to take more, but users and consumers still have a stake in how things develop and an opportunity to influence ways in which they can exert more control over their fate.

There is much to play for if consumers want to make the most of the prized commodity that derives from them, and there is a critical role for consumer advocates to support them. Are you ready for the challenge?

As discussed in my previous blog post, price comparison websites have mushroomed over the past 10 years and are becoming increasingly popular with consumers. According to a recent Harris Poll 67 per cent of consumers who bought or renewed car insurance in the last 12 months used a price comparison website.

Price comparison websites also feature prominently in the Government’s consumer empowerment strategy Better Choice, Better Deals: Consumers powering growth and are seen as key tools to help consumers make better and more informed choices.

However, can consumers trust price comparison websites as a reliable source of information? With a growing array of comparison tools are consumers confused about which sites to use?

To find out more we commissioned eDigitalResearch to carry out a comprehensive mystery shopping survey of price comparison websites. Their report is now available on our website.

It’s an in-depth look at price comparison sites across a range of markets. Perhaps not everyone will want to read about all the markets, but we’d be interested to know your thoughts. Are price comparison websites the best way to help consumers and encourage competition among providers?

What about consumers without internet access, are they missing out?

Should consumers expect that purchasing thorugh price comparison website will save them money? In our research, price comparison sites only saved money in only  21 per cent of cases. Would you expect that figure to be higher?

We looked at energy, mobile phones, broadband, rail fares, package holidays, home and care insurance, but what other markets could, or do, benefit from price comparison tools? What are the lessons that each market could learn from the other?

Transparency

For the sake of transparency, I should mention we have a vested interest in this policy area as for the past four years we have managed a voluntary accreditation scheme for domestic online energy price comparison services known as the Confidence Code. Its objective has been to implement and maintain standards that inspire consumer trust in price comparison sites that cover the energy market. Due to changes in consumer landscape the responsibility for management of the Confidence Code will be moving to Ofgem in the next couple of months.

A lot of money is needed for infrastructure investment, but whose pocket is it going to come from? In his last budget the Chancellor updated the National Infrastructure Plan (PDF 1.67MB) which now includes 550 projects valued at over £310 billion.

Initially it is hoped that 85 per cent of the money to 2015 and beyond will come from private investment. The response has not been that encouraging and there are calls for the Government to do more to get the money flowing, for example through greater energy policy certainty.

Much of the investment in the Plan covers essential services such as energy, transport and communications. However, the costs will eventually fall to individuals as either consumers or taxpayers.

At a time when income for many is static, or falling in real terms, (put 2008 in your nostalgia diary as the date of most disposable income) consumers will have to devote a greater share of their income to essential goods and services.

Research by Which? with Forum for the Future suggests that spending on essentials as a percentage of total expenditure will rise from 57 per cent in 2012 to 65 per cent in 2030.  Now this may be wrong, it is easier to extrapolate than predict accurately, straight line rulers are easier to come by than working crystal balls, but I think the trend is right. The budget for other goods and services, the ‘nice to haves’, will be squeezed and this may have a significant impact on parts of the economy in the coming years.

Meet the costs through tax?

Government could choose to meet the costs of investment though taxation instead of encouraging private investment and asking consumers to pay more for their use of goods and services.

We regularly hear cries of pain from consumers who are paying price increases over and above inflation, for example when water bills and rail travel prices increased recently.

Rail is actually a case where investment from taxation is playing a relatively large, if falling, role. The cost of operating the railways is now almost shared two to one with consumers paying nearly twice as much in fares as is provided in subsidy. We certainly hear cries of pain on energy costs.

Who pays?

Under any scenario it seems to me more likely that consumers rather than taxpayers will have to meet the costs of much needed investment. There are important questions to answer around how the costs are shared by consumers. Should some consumers be protected and indeed which generation of consumers should pay?

These are some of the questions that Consumer Focus as the new Regulated Industries Unit (and we are looking for a better name) will address. See our draft work plan on which we are seeking comments.

A good example of the ‘bills or tax’ question is provided by the energy market. Energy companies have pointed out, in the context of recent prices rises, that energy bills are for more than just the wholesale cost of energy. In 2012 the wholesale cost of gas and energy combined made up 42 per cent of the total bill received by households. The rest is made up of a cocktail of costs including that of getting the energy to homes and supplier costs and profits.

Social costs and green taxes

One small part of the bill is ‘social costs and green taxes’. These range from amounts consumers pay to help disadvantaged consumers, to funding energy efficiency measures for all consumers, to payments to encourage the development of renewable energy.

Electricity bills bear the greatest burden, as this is where renewable energy plays a role. Such levies on customer bills to pay for environmental and social policies make up around 8 per cent of the total (electricity and gas) energy bill now and this will rise to around 16 per cent of the bill by 2020.

Some of the levies are paid on a flat rate – basically a poll tax paid on energy. Some poorer households are locked into high energy usage because their homes are poorly insulated and there is no affordable way of insulating them.

Bills or Income Tax?

An alternative way of raising such funds would be through income tax. So what would happen if we removed the social costs and green taxes from household bills? This would reduce an average current annual household bill for gas and electricity from £1,149 to £1,056, a saving of £93.

In order to raise an equivalent amount it would be necessary to increase basic rate income tax from 20 per cent to 20.9 per cent in 2013/14 and, all other things being equal, somewhat more in later years. It would of course be possible to apply it to higher rate tax too, but I am keeping the maths simple. Detailed figures on paying through income tax or energy bill are available here (XLS 50KB).

In this analysis we assume that the average consumer continues to use the same amount of energy as they do now and that non-household customers maintain their existing payment of energy levies.

If more of the non wholesale costs were raised through taxation, the increase would of course be higher.

Would this be a good idea?

It would shift costs from household bill payers to taxpayers in households, perhaps from one to many. The bill payer, and hence the person who reaps the savings, may be someone who pays for the energy costs of a whole household or they may be someone who lives alone for example.

Not everyone pays income tax of course and the amount we pay depends, broadly, on how much we earn. It is, or it is supposed to be, ‘progressive’. So there would be winners and losers. A household with a number of taxpayers would be more likely to be worse off under such arrangements than a household with a single taxpayer or no taxpayers.

The amount people earn would also make a difference. The incremental extra amount of tax would bite on each pound earned between the Tax Free Allowance (£8,105) and the point where higher rate tax started (£42,475).

To take a simple example: a person paying the average energy bill would save £94 per year if green and social charges were switched to basic rate income tax but if they were a taxpayer they would take a hit.

Up to an income of £24,673, they would be better off. Above that they would be worse off. If there were two basic-rate taxpayers in the household and if they on average earned more than £16,390 they would be worse off. Is this a fairer way to pay?

It’s not just energy

The energy market has perhaps come under more focus than others due to the size of the bill consumers have to face and the increases we have seen over the last few years.

However, it is not alone in needing significant new investment in infrastructure. Water, transport and communications are facing similar issues. In many cases part of these bills also represent social costs and green taxes. Is there a case to be made for shifting the burden to taxation on the grounds that it is more progressive?

In my view this is unlikely to happen. Private sector investment will be necessary and somewhere down the line, consumers will have to pick up the bill. Likewise I suspect that Government’s will expect to see social costs and green taxes levied on consumers. More vulnerable consumers may be at least partly recompensed through one form of social payment or another.

We all face higher bills

The net result will be that consumers will face higher bills, although this can be offset by reduced demand. The issues of which consumers pay, which generation of consumers pay and how they pay will be critical.

Consumers and consumer interests remain at the heart of what Consumer Focus, and the RIU, does, we are not regulators. Our job, therefore, is to watch out for those interests as these debates take place, and to ensure that the evidence and the thinking we bring to bear on these questions is of the highest quality.

Our job is to cut through all these complexities to voice that interest. In doing that, we do, of course, have to understand that complexity so as to fashion policies on behalf of consumers that work and that will be credible with all the various stakeholder audiences.

That is why we will be continuing our work on Who pays? over the coming months as part of the work plan of the RIU. We’d be interested to know whether you think it should be consumers who bear the brunt of infrastructure bills.

In the digital economy personal data is a growth business. The volume of personal data gathered by smart devices, searches, site visits, purchases, recommendations, likes, tweets and status updates is on the rise. Growing too is the value of this data to companies who capture, store, analyse and sell it on. They use the data to predict consumer behaviour, target advertising and increase profits. While trading personal data may not have been the original core mission of digital giants such as Google and Facebook, they now get significant revenue from the personal data trails left by service users. The services are free to use but, as the social media phrase goes, ‘if the service is free, then you’re the product.’

The major commodity of the age

Such is the potential for personal data to transform business models and underpin new services that some people now talk about personal data as the ‘new oil’ in the connected digital economy. Commentators claim it is set to become the major commodity of the age, a critical resource from which new innovations and value will flow. Markets such as banking are rapidly rethinking how to better mine the data they hold, or obtain additional information in order to increase the value they can derive from customers.

Yet consumer understanding of what happens to this valuable data does not appear to be growing at the same pace, even though the commodity originates with them. We are far from naïve – our intuition tells us that a lot is being collected but we are somewhat vague about why and what the long term implications of this might be. Despite our concerns, we still don’t engage with the existing opportunities to take control over our information. We sign our data over by agreeing to (but rarely comprehending) terms and conditions of sometimes epic length.

Open to exploitation

There’s a big contrast here between the importance that external agencies now attach to consumer data, and the significance consumers themselves assign. The response from consumers is mixed; they are concerned and aware but are not making moves to protect themselves. This suggests a scenario where consumers, by not exerting control over their digital footprint, could be left open to exploitation. I’ll be looking at what can be done about that in my next blog post.

Consumer understanding

Consumer Focus wanted to develop a better appreciation of the extent to which consumers know their data is being collected and controlled, and understand the ways in which it is being exploited. We also wanted to find out what controls consumers put in place to protect themselves, and what value they put on the data that they impart, knowingly or unknowingly, about themselves. We commissioned ICM to survey 2,002 adults aged over 18, with results weighted to provide a representative sample. Respondents included online service users and loyalty card holders. Full details of the research findings (PDF 582KB) are available.

Headline research findings

The findings show a conflict and contrast in consumer behaviour and sentiment regarding personal data:

• Surprisingly high levels of trust

Some consumers are pretty trusting of online providers’ data collection motives, despite a general impression that they were not to be trusted: One in 10 consumers had not realised any data was collected on them via online services. And a further fifth thought that the provider only collected the minimum amount required to make the service work better. That means almost two fifths of respondents (39 per cent) have a benign interpretation of online organisations’ intentions. This is surprisingly high given that online providers were ranked lower in trust terms than any other type of organisation, including banks (for managing current accounts), the police and supermarkets. Similarly, four out of five of loyalty card holders acknowledge that the card provider gathers data about them, but just under a third recognise that the card provider then packages this up as sells it on as anonymised data, or uses it to segment its customer base and target offers etc.

• Tick, click and hope for the best

Despite concerns about the implications of terms and conditions, people generally tend to tick, click and hope for the best: attitudes and behaviour around terms and conditions and license agreements throw up some interesting insights. We were surprised to find that almost a third of consumers claim they always read terms and conditions online. Over half told us they rarely do and one in seven never do so. For this group, the length of terms and conditions are off putting, and the desire to access the product or service would appear to override any concerns about data exchange. A few also believed that nothing bad could come from not reading them.

Having said that, three out of five consumers who do not read the small print still have concerns about assenting without reading the details. Unknown financial implications were the top concern for a third of people, with just over half (52 per cent) mentioning personal data concerns as a top issue.

Of the third that do claim to read terms and conditions, only one in five feel they fully understand the implications when they tick the ‘I agree’ box. That makes a mere 16^th of the total sample who claim to fully comprehend the implications of terms and conditions.

• Declining services

When it comes to using online services, only 18 per cent of those who always read terms and conditions mentioned how information is gathered and used as the main reason for checking on provider’s terms and conditions. Of those who end up declining online services and products, it is a small number – 13 per cent – who pull out because of privacy concerns, and 7 per cent say that it was because too much personal information was demanded.

• Low understanding of value

In an age where our personal data is conceived of as the commodity which will drive the digital economy, we as originators of the data are in the dark about its value.

When asked to guess the value of the personal data collected about them via their most frequently used service, 61 per cent of people did not attempt to volunteer a figure. Of those who did try to value it, 15 per cent thought it had no value at all – the largest proportion of the respondents who attempted to give an estimate of the value.

For consumers that suggested a value above zero, there was no consensus, with some suggesting it is worth only up to £50 or £100 a year and others opting for many hundreds of pounds. It’s not only consumers who can’t agree – many digital and business experts differ greatly on what the value of data actually is.

Nevertheless, when asked to rate whether their data has a commercial value that organisations should pay a fee to use – three-fifths of consumers agree and only one in six disagree.

Consumers do not yet have a well-developed sense of what a fair exchange between a service provider and consumer looks like: when asked what they would be prepared to pay to use their favourite, free to use online service, fewer than one in 10 suggested a figure, and two-thirds said they were not prepared to pay at all.

What does it all mean?

The research results show some conflicting attitudes and behaviours that can be explained in part by differences of opinion between people – with age being a major factor. The Demos Data Dialogue survey puts the public into five categories, of which 27 per cent recognise the value of sharing data, see key benefits and are comfortable with sharing. That’s just under a third of people who are not overly concerned about the risks of sharing personal info and who see the benefits of the value exchange.

Attitudes towards terms and conditions suggest an acceptance of exchanges weighted heavily towards the provider which consumers feel compelled to go along with in order to access services.

But surely if more consumers knew the value of their personal data they wouldn’t be so happy to stick to the status quo?

On Tuesday Golden Eye International sent out the first batch of letters threatening court action for alleged copyright infringement via peer to peer filesharing networks. The allegations concern copyright infringement of various Ben Dover Productions films. The letter writing campaign concerns mainly O2 broadband customers, and some BE Broadband customers (both brands are owned by Telefonica UK).

Affected customers will have received a letter from O2 and BE in December last year, informing them that their personal data has been released to Golden Eye and Ben Dover Productions following a court order for disclosure. The High Court granted the court order on 26 March, Consumer Focus intervened on behalf of consumers.

Where to get advice?

If you have received a letter from Golden Eye threatening court action it is vital that you contact Citizens Advice for information on how to respond.

O2 and BE customers will have to respond to Golden Eye within 28 days from the date shown on the first page of the letter, top right hand corner.

The Citizens Advice consumer service provides free, confidential and impartial advice on consumer issues. Visit www.adviceguide.org.uk or call 08454 04 05 06 from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday. Alternatively, visit your local Citizens Advice Bureau – you can find the details online at www.adviceguide.org.uk or under C in the phone book.

Are O2 and BE customers liable for the alleged infringement?

The High Court has recognised that the subscriber, that is the bill payer for an internet connection, may well not be the individual that has committed the alleged infringement. Most internet connections in the UK are shared, that is one person pays the bill and other people in the household use it as well. Golden Eye could only identify IP addresses relating to alleged infringement of Ben Dover Production films, which identify an internet connection, not a computer or the individual at the keyboard.

In order to safeguard the rights of subscribers who may well be innocent, the High Court sanctioned a so called letter before action, or pre-action letter, which Golden Eye is required to send out. However, regardless of whether O2 and BE customers are guilty of the alleged infringement, they need to respond to Golden Eye within 28 days, setting out whether they deny the allegation, or admit to copyright infringement.

Getting free, confidential and impartial advice

Getting advice on alleged copyright infringement is not easy, and the fees commonly charged by copyright lawyers are unaffordable for most consumers. Therefore Consumer Focus and Citizens Advice have worked together to establish detailed advice scripts for alleged copyright infringement. The legal system is devolved, therefore Citizens Advice has prepared suitable advice scripts for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

Citizens Advice provides advice free of charge, and will be able to advise O2 and BE customers who have received a letter from Golden Eye regardless of whether they are guilty or not. If it turns out that the copyright infringement was committed by a child in the household, Citizens Advice will be able to advise O2 and BE customers on possible courses of action.

The High Court recognised that the pornographic nature of Ben Dover Production films may cause embarrassment, and the threat of court action in relation to the alleged infringement may cause distress. O2 and BE customers should rest assured that Citizens Advice provides entirely confidential and impartial advice. Consumer Focus strongly recommends that O2 and BE customers who have received a letter from Golden Eye contact Citizens Advice.

Pay-up or else?

In the past letter writing campaigns designed to extract ‘compensation’ from internet subscribers for alleged copyright infringement have attracted significant criticism. Dubbed ‘speculative invoicing’, solicitors deliberately targeted innocent subscribers for ‘compensation’ which bore no relation to the alleged infringement.

Many consumers were vulnerable to these campaigns because legal advice on copyright is unaffordable for most and many consumers eventually paid hundreds of pounds to make the threat of court action go away. A number of solicitors were suspended by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in relation to such letter writing campaigns.

However, in principle copyright owners have a right to take legal action against individuals they suspect of copyright infringement. If a consumer has admitted to copyright infringement then they are expected to engage in negotiations to settle the claim, to avoid unnecessary court action. But copyright owners do not have the right to extort compensation out of innocent consumers, or pressure guilty consumers into paying compensation that bears no relation to the copyright infringement committed.

So what has changed? Quite a lot:

• The High Court imposed a condition on Golden Eye, which is a limited company, to only send the letter before action that has been approved by the court
• The High Court ruled that Golden Eye cannot ask subscribers for £700 in compensation upfront, and must first establish the extent to which copyright infringement may have been committed
• The High Court ensured that the letter before action does not cause unnecessary distress, and does not leave the subscriber with the wrong impression that the court has already found them guilty, or that they are liable for any infringement on their Internet connection
• Citizens Advice is now able to provide free, confidential and impartial advice to consumers who have received a letter from Golden Eye threatening court action. This advice script includes:
• Detailed advice on what to do if subscribers deny or accept the allegation
• Advice on what to do if someone else in the household has committed the alleged infringement, including in cases where children have committed the infringement
• Detailed advice for those who admit to the infringement on how to calculate and negotiate an appropriate settlement sum
• Advice for consumers who feel they are subject to unfair commercial practices, that is misleading or aggressive practices, and help with making a complaint to Trading Standards through the Citizens Advice consumer service

What happens if consumers are taken to court for copyright infringement?

Copyright infringement by consumers would typically be what is known as a ‘small claim’. In England and Wales, until recently, copyright infringement disputes could not be heard in the small claims track of ordinary County Courts, and many low value copyright infringement disputes were brought in the High Court. In practice this meant consumers could not afford to defend themselves.

However, at the end of last year the Patents County Court, a special court for intellectual property disputes of up to half a million pounds in value, launched a small claims track specifically designed for copyright infringement disputes of up to £5,000 in value.

The new small claims track in front of a specialist judge is a significant improvement for consumers in England and Wales. If a case goes to the small claims track consumers will be in a position to defend themselves without a lawyer. Ultimately it is for Golden Eye to proof its allegation, though consumers should be aware that the so called Pre-Action Protocol requires them to engage in settlement negotiations if they have committed the infringement. If it is not possible to negotiate a reasonable settlement sum, the court will determine appropriate damages.

In Scotland and Northern Ireland

Consumers in Scotland and Northern Ireland are not subject to the Pre-Action Protocol, though there is nevertheless an expectation that consumers who have infringed copyright should make an attempt to settle the claim out of court. In Scotland and Northern Ireland copyright infringement disputes of up to £3,000 in value will be dealt with as small claim. If a settlement sum cannot be agreed out of court, the claim will be heard by the Sheriff Court in Scotland and the Small Claims Court in Northern Ireland.

If Scottish and Northern Irish consumers find that Golden Eye is bringing claims against them in the small claims track of the Patents County Court (for England and Wales), they should contact their local Citizens Advice bureau immediately for information on how to mount a jurisdiction challenge.

Limited costs

Consumers should bear in mind that for small claims the cost that can be recovered by the winning party is severely limited. Thus consumers should not feel that they need to settle for a sum that is disproportionate to the infringement committed in order to avoid the costs of going to court. Citizens Advice will be able to assist consumers who are threatened with court action, or are being taken to court.

‘Traffic management’ sounds like technical gobbledygook for most internet users, yet policy makers hope increased transparency about the term can safeguard the principle of the open internet, drive switching and enhance competition in the broadband market.

So what is the fuss about and why consumers should care?

Traffic management is a tool used by broadband providers to control online traffic by giving priority to some types of internet applications over others. The term is central to the debate on the principle of the ‘open internet’. Also known as ‘net neutrality’, the success of the internet was built on this principle. It defines the aspiration ‘to treat all content, sites and platforms equally’ without negative discrimination.

Traffic management is not necessarily negative per se; imagine roads without any traffic control mechanism. However, also imagine a different scenario when Vauxhall car drivers would be asked to pay higher road tax because this brand of cars generates too much traffic, or yellow car owners being banned from using roads altogether. Although such scenarios would be considered inconceivable they are centre stage in the net neutrality debate.

Currently broadband providers use traffic management to deal with congestion, though some of these practices such as making it difficult or completely restricting certain websites, applications or services, have raised concerns. The recent Ofcom Infrastructure Report (2012) shows that some operators either block access to services such as Skype VoIP service, charge a premium to access such services, restrict the speed of video traffic, or slow down speeds of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications.

How can it be ensured that the prioritisation of internet traffic is performed in a way that does not adversely or arbitrarily affect particular users, online services and content providers?

The EU regulatory framework for electronic communication implemented into the UK law in May 2011 does not enshrine the principle of net neutrality into law, and only partially protects it by a set of new provisions on transparency, quality of service and ease of switching. Policy makers hope clearer information about this obscure term can safeguard the principle of the open internet, drive switching and enhance competition in the broadband market. In an attempt to enhance transparency major UK broadband providers with the support of the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG) developed a voluntary industry code of practice on traffic management transparency.

Is transparency an adequate tool?

As consumers, we are all in support of transparency, but will improving information on traffic management be sufficient to guide consumer purchasing decisions, and protect the neutral architecture on which the success of the internet was built? Will consumers be really inclined to study all the small print? Will they be able to understand complex technical information and assess what type of traffic management policies will affect their internet use? Will there be a real choice of broadband providers?

In our report Lost on the broadband super highway, released today, we investigated consumer understanding of information on traffic management and we conclude that increased transparency alone is unlikely to safeguard effectively the open internet and prevent discriminatory restrictions online. Our research finds consumers are not aware of traffic management practices, and even if they find information on traffic management restrictions on providers’ websites they cannot digest the meaning of unfamiliar terms such as P2P or VoIP. This conclusion is reinforced by the findings of a Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) investigation and Ofcom’s Infrastructure Report that shows that many broadband providers place restrictions on access to online applications and services despite the regulatory framework that fosters transparency.

Way forward?

The findings of our research demonstrate the need to extend the existing regulatory framework by additional non-blocking and non-discriminatory principles that would clarify which type of traffic management is legitimate. If a self-regulatory or co-regulatory solution is a preferred option it must have a robust compliance and enforcement mechanisms monitored by Ofcom.

In addition broadband providers need to do more to raise awareness of traffic management through improved marketing of information to customers. This is the only way to ensure consumers can use the broadband connection of their choice to access the internet and any legal online content and applications they wish, free of negative discrimination, and to protect the innovation.

With a proliferation of deals on the market and the complexity of products and services, price comparison websites can be very useful for consumers and they are more popular than ever. In 2010, the OFT report Advertising of Prices showed 73 per cent of consumers had used a price comparison website; up from 62 per cent in 2009. Civic Consulting reports that 81 per cent had used one in 2011.

The sites enable consumers to compare a large number of offers quickly and easily. For example MoneySupermarket boasts it compares 843,021 mobile phone deals.[1]

Is all what it seems?

Consumers are faced with a choice of dozens of price comparison websites. They vary in terms of market segment covered and business models operated. For example:

• some relate to specific markets (eg energy, insurance, telecom) while others offer comparisons on a range of consumer goods and services
• some provide information only on deals and prices and others enable purchase through links with suppliers
• some get information through direct arrangements with suppliers, while others scrape information from suppliers’ websites
• some capture consumer feedback on their purchases
• some rely on advertising revenues, adverts and sponsored links, but others are paid commission for a completed sale or switch

The nuances of business models and commercial arrangements may not be visible and known to consumers, yet they may impact on the quality of advice consumers will rely upon. They may also determine whether consumers end up with a better deal.

Impartiality, reliability and accuracy

Issues of impartiality, reliability and accuracy of information all play such an important role in the context of price comparison websites and are increasingly the subject of close scrutiny by consumer bodies. In particular issues of accurate pricing, comprehensiveness of information, updating and verifying user-generated reviews (see our In my honest opinion report for more on this topic) deserve to be the centre of attention. There are also transparency aspects such as financing models, contractual relationship with retailers and service providers, as well as personal data collection and sharing that need to be examined. 

Our recent mystery shopping survey[2] of price comparison websites across six markets (energy, mobile phones, broadband, rail fares, package holidays, home and car insurance), examined 99 price comparison websites with 596 mystery shops. It indicates that not all comparison websites have the same standards. It also found the reliability and transparency of information provided may vary.

No automatic saving

The research found that price comparison websites were a useful platform for a basic search, displaying a high proportion of relevant search details. They are also usually accurate about products’ availability from suppliers. However, consumers should not automatically assume that a price comparison website will save them money on their purchase; in our survey this was only true in 21 per cent of cases.

The research also found that not all price comparison websites allowed more tailored research and some lacked clarity on costs. For example, we found that many did not disclose in the final costs compulsory fees such as a booking fee, early contract termination charge, cost of mobile handset and handset insurance. In other instances no compulsory additional charges were automatically added to the total costs, such as airport transfers and travel insurance or emergency home cover insurance.

Therefore addressing both reliability and transparency of information is essential in order to fully empower consumers to get reliable, clear and unbiased information.

More user-friendly

It is also important that price comparison tools enhance the user-friendly aspect of their service. In particular they should allow input of more variable criteria at the outset to enable a tailor-made search specific to individual consumer’s needs. For example in the case of energy tariffs consumers should be able to use a tool that calculates the approximate consumption, based on the amount of the last bill or other information available to the user.

Giving consumers more data in their hands through initiatives like midata presents an opportunity for a new generation of comparison services. These could build on what BillMonitor already makes possible for example, and utilise the portable electronic data to better identify the best deal, based on individual circumstances, and managing the switching process.

Better accessibility

And finally we must not forget about the eAccessibility aspect and consumers who face barriers to online access. Action is needed to help them to get a price comparison through at least one additional communication channel free of charge or at minimal costs.

All these are vital for building consumer confidence in using comparison tools. This is especially the case for consumers in vulnerable situations who may lack trust in engaging with price comparison sites altogether.

As a tool for setting standards and inspiring consumer trust in switching sites Consumer Focus runs a voluntary accreditation scheme for domestic online energy price comparison services known as the Confidence Code. The code guarantees the accredited site is independent and impartial, well managed with up-to-date data, helps consumers to find the best deal easily, and includes information on the widest range of energy tariffs available. Some telecoms comparison websites are also accredited by Ofcom and some financial services are compared by the Money Advice Service.

In conclusion, we urge consumers to go through an accredited site if available, check information on deals isn’t being filtered out, check how often the information is updated, and read the small print before agreeing to a privacy policy.

Jonathan Stearn
Director of Projects

When the Department for Business Innovation and Skills produced its strategy document Better Choices Better Deals, Consumer Focus and Citizens Advice were asked to consider how vulnerable consumers could be empowered. After carrying out a series of workshops and seminars, the first thing we did was to discuss consumers in vulnerable positions rather than vulnerable consumers. And we defined consumers in vulnerable positions as:

‘People who cannot choose or access essential products and services which are suitable for their needs or cannot do so without disproportionate effort/cost/time’

Talking about consumers in vulnerable positions rather than vulnerable consumers is more than just twisting a few words around. It recognises that consumer vulnerability is linked to how markets operate.

This recognition that the market may not be equally benefiting all groups of consumers has been one of the drivers behind civil society and empowering consumers in vulnerable positions.  Voluntary and community organisations, social enterprises, cooperatives and mutuals are trying to make the companies that create the markets more inclusive. Civil society organisations are acting as intermediaries to encourage companies to recognise how they exclude certain consumers.  Some are directly providing goods and services to include and empower the consumers that are being ignored or getting a poor deal.

Take some examples. The RNIB is running a campaign to encourage the introduction of talking cash machines so blind and partially sighted people have choice and safer access to their money.

Insurance can help prevent those who are older, have epilepsy or are affected by cancer being in a vulnerable position when travelling. But it is often only thanks to charities like Age UK, Epilepsy Action and Macmillan Cancer Support that insurance is available.

Then of course there are credit unions working tirelessly to try to ensure that people are not financially excluded.

These and thousands of other actions by civil society organisations are based on an understanding of people who are in vulnerable positions.

But this engagement with the market is not getting the level of recognition or analysis that might be expected. Nor are some of the searching questions being answered.

Does linking up with charities influence the mindset and behaviour of companies? What about deals that compromise the policy of the charity? What happens when the trading arm of a charity strikes up a deal that is undercut by competitors in the market place. Is ‘alternative’ activity going to be scaled up? Is inclusive thinking ever going to become mainstream?

NCVO and Consumer Focus have teamed together and organised a conference to ask some of those questions and seek some answers. Find out more at: Civil society and the market place, 6 December  or see here for a booking form

Have you ever had that sinking feeling when you’ve had bad service from a company and realise you can’t ignore the matter – you’re going to have to ring up or email customer services and make a complaint? The last time left a bitter taste in your mouth as you were passed between call centres on the other side of the world.

We commissioned research to find out what people’s experiences of companies’ complaint procedures and ombudsman services have been in six different markets: legal services, gas and electric, mail, telecoms, water, and financial services. We asked 800 people to fill in an online survey and we also organised three in-depth focus groups to find out how the service might be better.

The list of people’s problems won’t come as a surprise: poor quality call centres where it was hard to get through to the right person; ‘amnesiac’ data systems that meant you had to explain your problem over and over; uncertainty about how long it would take to get the problem sorted. It is no wonder that a fifth of people abandoned the process dissatisfied. The ombudsman services were much better regarded; many more customers were satisfied with their experiences.

People were least satisfied with the complaint systems in telecoms and energy, and most satisfied in legal and the water sectors.

What does good complaint handling look like?

Find out more in our new report Dealing with dissatisfaction and our complaints section.

The new public health responsibilities of local authorities that come into place next year could create the opportunity to tackle the terrible triumvirate of cold housing, poor health and fuel poverty.

Local authority Health and Well Being Boards will work to ‘improve the health and wellbeing of the local population and reduce health inequalities’.

The link between ill health and cold and damp homes is well established. UCL Epidemiology and Public Health Professor Sir Michael Marmot has clearly shown the health benefits of reducing fuel poverty and improving the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock.

Professor John Hills in Getting the measure of fuel poverty said: ‘Living at low temperatures as a result of fuel poverty is likely to be a significant contributor not just to the excess winter deaths that occur each year (around 27,000 each year over the last decade in England and Wales), but to a much larger number of incidents of ill-health and demands on the National Health Service and a wider range of problems of social isolation and poor outcomes for young people.’

The bottom line

Investing in warm and energy efficient homes could provide significant cost benefits to the NHS. Back in 2009 the Chief Medical Officer estimated that the NHS spends £859 million each year treating cold related illnesses due to poorly insulated homes. This all suggests that tackling energy efficiency and fuel poverty should be high on Health and Well Being Boards ‘to do’ lists. 

We live in cash strapped times but there is some funding to help. Much of the responsibility for making homes energy efficient rests with the energy suppliers – using money collected from consumers’ bills. And, at the moment, they are struggling to deliver.

The energy suppliers are some 60 per cent short of the target for the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) aimed at a ‘super priority group’ of households on low incomes – and that scheme ends in December. CERT will morph into the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) in 2013 and that is where local authorities and Health and Well Being Boards can help.

£190 million must be focused on the most deprived areas. Eligible areas are the lowest 15 per cent in the index of multiple deprivation and rural areas with households on low incomes.

Fuel poverty commitment

A group of local and national organisations in the End Fuel Poverty Coalition are asking local authorities to sign up to a local authority fuel poverty commitment. Signing up will show that councils are clearly joining up their strategic and public health duties and are committed to tackling the scourge of fuel poor housing and poor health.

The coalition is launching the commitment at its Local Action for Warm Homes event on Wednesday 17 October 2012. Energy minister Greg Barker and LGA Environment and Housing Board deputy chair Keith House are speaking at the event.

Last year a web map appeared that displayed real time reports of people in India who were experiencing a power cut. It came about after Twitter users – fed up with the unreliable power supply during the summer – began a discussion with the hashtag #powercutindia. They used it to report details such as the location and duration of the power outage and whether it was planned or not. Given the high response rate, some of the tweeters took the initiative to feed the tweets into an infographic that collected and mapped this information, thereby highlighting the need for investment.

The map has since expanded to include many other methods of reporting and has helped to develop a better understanding of electricity demand by exposing areas where there is a need for investment in power production and distribution. The map creators also aimed to use the map to draw more attention to the rural areas of India which they say have been previously neglected in public discussions. This type of interactive map is often referred to as a ‘crowd-sourced map’.

The Power cuts in India map is one of many examples that demonstrate how crowd sourcing supports empowerment and helps consumer representatives better understand and respond to emerging issues. Other recent examples include Hackney CAB’s housing benefit map showing the effects of the changes in legislation to housing benefits and BBC’s 3G mobile data network crowd-sourcing map which challenges the availability rates that had originally been suggested. Further exploration of cases like these can be found in our new report Putting problems on the map. It illustrates how data collected in this manner can complement and enhance traditional forms of intelligence gathering.

Interactive maps offer the opportunity for consumers to report their experiences. The geographical element means these maps can work as powerful visibility tools. Common features, such as the clusters of ‘flagged’ reports and the ability to filter reports according to the map’s key (for example, by company), mean that displaying data in this way paints clear pictures of emerging problems or hubs of activity.

This type of tool also produces real-time data. Not only can this result in a powerful early warning system, but it visualises the changes in consumer sentiment and the prevalence of an issue over time. Generated data can also be stored and re-used for further analysis. For instance, other data sets can be plotted on the same map in the form of additional layers as a way of investigating possible correlations. Maptube is a good example of a tool designed for this process.

With these online maps, organisations can communicate among themselves as well as directly with consumers to capture information on the specifics of a consumer issue – be it a roll-out, a collective buying initiative or customer service related issues. For example, bodies such as Trading Standards could use this type of tool to help address interregional problems and determine how to co-ordinate responses in each of the affected regions. This is valuable as many issues surrounding consumer detriment spread across local authority boundaries.

For other users, this service would function as a valuable tool to raise awareness of matters affecting their local area. Importantly, all of this can be achieved through user friendly services that in some instances are more straightforward, convenient and powerful than conventional channels.

Since several of our own policy areas would benefit from mapped consumer-contributed data, we are in the process of trialing this technology with the hope of using it in future projects. Issues we have in mind include: collaborative buying of renewable technologies, community or area based roll-outs of new policy initiatives and mis-selling.

There appear to be many advantages to consumer crowd-sourced maps. They can amplify consumer voices and present the opportunity for co-operation between consumers and the various bodies that work on their behalf. The intelligence that these maps capture can help bring greater transparency and scrutiny to provider performances; and can support consumers in collaborating on peer-led responses. In doing so, they form part of wider trends in the new and powerful forms of consumer empowerment initiatives that are driven by social technologies.

Do you work at an advice agency or in trading standards? Can you see uses for this type of software? As a consumer would you want to be able to report issues this way? Are there any downsides that we’ve missed?

Today (Monday 1 October), a small claims track for copyright infringement disputes of a value up to £5,000 is being launched in the Patents County Court (PCC) for England and Wales.

What does this mean for consumers? Copyright infringement by consumers, for example through peer-to-peer filesharing networks, will now be heard in the PCC, and in most cases in the new specialist small claims track.

This is a significant step to update the UK’s copyright enforcement regime so that it deals proportionately with online copyright infringement by consumers. This type of small claims track was first recommended by Justice Jackson in 2009 as part of his Review of Civil Litigation Costs, and Prof Hargreaves re-stated the case for such a small claims track in his Review of Intellectual Property and Growth in 2011. The PCC itself went through significant reforms over the past two years to make it a cost effective alternative to the High Court for intellectual property disputes of up to half a million pounds in value. (There has been talk of a name change to better reflect its jurisdiction, which includes copyright).

Consumer Focus has been campaigning for such a specialist small claims track since 2010 because consumers who had been taken to court for copyright infringement were unable to effectively defend their case and were landed with disproportionate costs.

For instance, in 2005 record company members of the BPI took six consumers to the High Court, resulting in one summary judgement, where damages were not determined, but £14,309.52 of claimant’s cost were allowed.

Consumers who were taken to the PCC did not fare much better. In 2008 Davenport Lyons obtained a default judgement against Isabella Barwinska, for sharing a copy of Dream Pinball 3D on a peer-to-peer file-sharing network. Isabella was neither present nor represented by a lawyer when £10,000 of cost was allowed. (More information on these cases can be found in our 2010 consultation response on the reform of the PCC)

In the PCC small claims track the costs the winning party can recover are capped. This means that consumers who are sued for copyright infringement can now own up to infringement without having to fear thousands of pounds in costs being awarded against them.

So far only a small number of court cases have been brought against consumers for peer-to-peer filesharing copyright protected works, which have not been fully fought in court. One reason why so few cases have been brought against consumers is that suing for low value but high volume copyright infringements was disproportionately expensive in a system designed for high value business disputes.

Therefore copyright owners have sought to settle as many cases as possible out of court. But some solicitors took advantage of the fact that legal advice on copyright law is unaffordable for consumers. Since 2005 ‘speculative invoicing’ campaigns were conducted against thousands of internet subscribers, even targeting people innocent of any copyright infringement for hundreds of pounds in settlement payments.

We are currently working with Citizens Advice to ensure that consumers have access to reliable and impartial advice in the event they are accused of copyright infringement. Where it is not possible to settle out of court, consumers can now look to the PCC to resolve the dispute fairly and cost effectively.

We’re used to thinking about energy in terms of annual spend by individual households but this can be misleading over time. For example, if consumers use less energy because suppliers raise prices those would-be savings are partially offset by the higher unit rate consumers still face. In effect you are running up a downwards escalator. Furthermore, suppliers often do put up unit rates in response to falls in consumption to maintain their profit margins – and so the cycle perpetuates itself.

We can see this pattern of using less energy over time but still facing higher bills using data from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in a chart below:

On the left is all the energy used by UK households each year since 1970. You can see how it roughly tracks general economic activity and traditionally goes up over time as the economy grows and living standards rise. It looks like consumption is now on a downward trend that began in 2004, with people becoming more conscious of their energy use and installing energy efficiency measures. But then look at the overall spend on energy by households (blue line, right axis and inflation-adjusted) especially the nearly vertical line in mid 2000s. Despite using much less energy the overall spend was higher in 2010 than it has ever been.

If we isolate the 2000-today part of the chart this increase in spend despite markedly lower consumption is clearer.

If the current trend continues the graph would should us not using any energy by the year 2100! Of course, this cycle cannot go on forever – people clearly have a minimum energy demand that will then affect the overall expenditure.

It is worth remembering that energy spend is ultimately based on a price per unit and using less is not always as cost-saving as you might hope, despite the obvious gains from energy efficiency.

Your filter bubble is your individual universe of information that you inhabit online — exclusively constructed just for you by the array of personalised filters that now power the web. Google personally tailors your search queries, Amazon suggests books you might like based on your past purchases and Facebook tailors the adverts it shows you based on what you’ve ‘liked’. This has its downsides: with Google search personalised for everyone, the query ‘stem cells’ might produce diametrically opposed results for scientists who support stem cell research and activists who oppose it. ‘Proof of climate change’ might turn up different results for an environmentalist and an oil company executive. In polls, a huge majority of us assume search engines are unbiased. But that may be just because they’re increasingly biased to share our own views. As Eli Pariser, the author of The Filter Bubble says, more and more, your computer monitor is a kind of one-way mirror, reflecting your own interests while algorithmic observers watch what you click.

However, there can be some positives for consumers in the personalisation of search. As Dave Copin, Head of Search at Microsoft, explains in this short video, we can forget how important personalisation is when it’s done right. The challenge in the modern world is not that we don’t have the information we need but how we find the information we need. In 2010, Google CEO Eric Schmidt stated that every two days we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization up until 2003.

The problem is that unless information is filtered, you won’t find the information that you need. However, personalisation must be accompanied by transparency and balance so consumers know how and why information is being tailored as well as maintaining the ability to easily discover new things.

Read our report All that’s digital isn’t gold: The challenges and risks of the digital age

The world as we know it is changing. We are seeing rapid transformations in technology which are bringing about changes in the way consumers participate in the economy and society. This fast pace of change can be seen clearly in the growth of technology businesses. As of September 2006, Facebook was extended beyond its original target audience of educational institutions to anyone with a registered email address. By May 2012, it had over 900 million active users. A similar story can be seen with Twitter which had grown to 140 million active users by March 2012 since its creation in 2006.

The fast growth we have seen in these businesses is replicated throughout the digital world – we are seeing a rapid change that moves faster than the wheels of regulation can turn. In many ways, this is beneficial for consumers. New products and services as well as new channels for interacting and transacting have brought convenience, choice and better value (in some instances). They have also brought opportunities to collaborate and greater engagement with providers and producers, enabling consumers to act in more demanding, better informed and increasingly empowered ways. However, we are seeing some problems emerging such as concerns around privacy and the use and exploitation of personal data.

This rapid pace of change means that classic regulatory responses might not always be suitable for the problems that are emerging. It makes it difficult to anticipate problems and plan responses. So regulators, and other bodies working in the consumer interest, will need to start to consider how they can be more agile in order to respond to the challenges these detriments will present to our traditional regulatory frameworks.

Regulators will also need to find other, more innovative, responses to solve fast-moving problems that cut across geographical boundaries and jurisdictions. With businesses in the digital world having such a global reach, it is not as simple as regulators in the UK imposing new rules and regulations because people’s online lives do not respect national boundaries. At the very least, it will require co-ordination on an EU level but most of the time, issues emerging are global and need global co-operation and responses.

This short video from Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, highlights this fast changing nature of the digital world and what new approaches might be taken by regulators and business to help deal with some of the problems we are seeing emerge.

Read our report All that’s digital isn’t gold: The challenges and risks of the digital age

No sooner is one switch over than another comes along! The programme to switch from analogue to digital television is almost complete across the UK. And now the Government is making preparations for switching radio.

At Consumer Focus we’ve been working to make sure consumers don’t lose out ever since the planning for TV switchover began over a decade ago. We helped to made sure the assistance scheme for vulnerable consumers was set up. Now the focus is on radio as preparations for most stations to move to digital start – though some stations will be available on FM.

Before the Government can make a final decision about switching and when it will happen, over 50 per cent of radio listening will need to be from digital devices, including car radios, computers, and digital TVs. Digital transmission coverage will need to be equivalent to the current analogue too. Work is ongoing to make sure people can get a digital radio signal, and little by little people are doing more of their listening on digital. But consumers haven’t been inspired by digital radio in the same way that TV attracted them.

 Is this partly to do with the content? People wanted digital TV because they wanted to watch the extra channels. It just isn’t the same for digital radio. We’re interested in what you think too. What would make people switch to digital radio?

 We have been members of the Digital Consumer Expert Group (CEG) since its foundation, advising Ministers and influencing the action plan. You can see the reports we’ve presented to Ministers so far on our page of the DCMS website.

The Government has just published its approach to the cost­–benefit analysis (CBA) it uses to estimate the expected impacts of a switchover to digital radio on consumers, producers and wider society. The methodology is open for comment until 31 August. Find out more about the CBA.

The CEG is continuing its work to make sure consumers don’t lose out in this process and will be commenting on the CBA. Let us know if there’s something you think we need to include.

Gill Wales MMRS is an independent research consultant

Last winter I helped Consumer Focus update its research library. At the same time, I lent a hand with some end-of-year rushes, including reading draft reports from research agencies. The experience was exhausting and infuriating because the standard of report writing from these research companies was often very poor.

Failings included chunks of data unreported; objectives unaddressed; incorrect interpretation; insufficient interpretation; inconsistencies and contradictions; and poor use of English.

No one expects complex reports to be perfect first time. There are bound to be queries, and requests for more detail or tweaks to the layout.

In any case, writing well is never easy. Ever found yourself re-reading the same paragraph in a best-selling novel or national news feature, shaking your head and wondering ‘what does that mean’?

But there seemed to be a lack of basic skill and care in the production of these reports.

It matters because reports are the tangible products of research. Without a clear and accurate description of the work the research may as well not exist. And it matters because client-side project teams don’t expect to have to manage major rewrites.

Traditionally, in large research agencies, junior researchers are involved in writing research reports. No problem! I too learnt how to interpret and describe data by actually doing it, with a senior researcher checking my work, correcting my errors, and polishing the presentation. Not just on one or two projects, but on every project for two whole years.

I wonder whether, in these straitened economic times, junior researchers still receive that degree of guidance and support from older hands.

Equally traditionally, research proposals describe at length the sample design, respondent recruitment and data collection processes. But the report will be mentioned only briefly. And yet working through the data, thinking about what it means, organising and describing it, needs a significant chunk of the project’s time and resources.

Are we all – clients and suppliers ­– guilty of giving insufficient thought to planning the reporting stage? Are we taking it for granted that we all understand what ‘the report’ means?

Here are some issues to consider spelling out in any reporting plan:

• The intended audience: the project team, a wider group of informed stakeholders, the public
• How the data will be reported: in full, reduced, in summary? As straight facts or with interpretation?
• How the report will deal with multiple data sources, complex analyses, different population groups
• How much time is needed to examine and organise all the data
• Whether the draft report will be a rough outline or a near-final document. With complex projects, reviewing a single chapter in draft can avoid a lot of wasted effort
• Who will write the report? If more than one person, or a junior researcher, who will oversee the work?
• Quality checks. As well as auto-checks of spelling and grammar, all reports should be fully proof-read. No one is perfect so, regardless of the writer’s seniority, sizeable reports need to be proof-read and sense-checked by a second person. Is that second person expected to be the client?
• A writer’s individual style can make reports more engaging, but must not be at the expense of readability

Here’s to happier reading.

With consumers co-operating online in ever greater numbers, our Empowering Consumers programme has today launched a new review of the theory and practice of co-operation and collaboration. 

We look at whether this is a new phenomena or just technology enabling us to tap into our innate tendency to collaborate. We also consider where this leaves the dominant 20th century idea that we are all individually driven, rational decision-makers. As new influences on markets emerge, we ask what this means for the role of consumer bodies in the future.

So far this year, the team has released new research on collective switching, digital engagement methods, and future digital detriments, with explorations of online trust and reputation, and collective complaints to come.

Behind all of these investigations sit some core ideas about the extent and nature of collaboration online and the changing relationships consumers have with technology, providers and of course each other. The summary released today is an attempt to pull together a range of academic insights and case studies. It will be useful for many bodies working in the consumer interest including regulators, policy-makers and advocates, and businesses. While most of the case studies are from the UK, the ideas and theory will be relevant to an international audience.

It draws on two longer research reports from Ctrl-Shift and Professor Johnston Birchall of Stirling University. Beginning with a review of the evidence about co-operation provided by behavioural scientists generally, this report looks at whether we have an inbuilt propensity to co-operate, how altruistic or selfish we are, the ways in which people participate and their motivations for doing so. For a detailed overview of the theory please see Common cause, collective action: Part 1, and for examples of co-operation on the web see Common cause, collective action: Part 2. 

We would love to hear your comments.

In the UK consumers currently enjoy an extensive universal postal service provided by Royal Mail. However, consumers have never had access to as many different communications methods as they do today. With the rise of mobile telephony, email, the internet and social media comes a re-evaluation of the role of more traditional methods of communication such as post. Since 2006 mail volumes have fallen at about 5 per cent per year and they show no signs of recovery. The only part of the market that is growing is fulfilment mail, as our increasing use of e-retail has led to a related dependence on post to get the orders placed online to us.

It therefore seems appropriate to question whether the current level of postal service provision is still necessary. It might seem strange for a consumer watchdog to be asking consumers to consider a reduced service. However, the long-term sustainability of the universal service depends on it meeting the needs of consumers, and it should not be rooted in the past or ‘gold-plated’ so that everyone who uses it pays for more than they need.

Consumer Focus has published research (Sense and sustainability) that asked consumers how they believe their communication choices will change over the next five years, and what role, if any, they envisage for the postal service. We conducted 28 focus groups across the UK with small and medium enterprises (SME) and residential consumers, including four sessions with under-18s. It is very challenging for consumers to project into the future so to make this way of thinking easier we asked consumers to think back about how their lives have changed over the past few years. This helped them to consider how they would continue to change over the next few; looking backwards helped them to look forwards.

The main findings were:

• residential consumers are willing to accept a reduced number of deliveries
• SME consumers are also willing to consider a reduction in the number of deliveries but only to exclude Saturday delivery
• residential consumers are also willing to see the removal of the distinction between First and Second Class post
• consumers want several ‘paybacks’ for a reduction in service frequency
• greater innovation in delivery options for packets and parcels
• extending the number and range of pick up points to include longer opening hours and more convenient locations
• maintaining the current pricing structure
• regulation of reliability and punctuality
• the regulator needs to be given powers to ensure all consumers are protected as consumers are concerned that the most vulnerable members of society will be further disenfranchised if changes are allowed to happen unchecked

We have also put together some video clips from Big Sofa to illustrate these findings.

This research is just the start of a wider discussion about the future of the universal service.

The universal service is defined by:

• the delivery of mail to every UK address
• the collection of mail from every post office and postbox
• service six days a week for letters (including Saturday)
• service five days a week for parcels (Monday-Friday)
• affordable prices
• ‘one price goes anywhere’: anyone in the UK can send post to any other part of the UK at the same price

The range of products that the universal service provider must offer, plus their features and standards, is specified in legislation and regulated by Ofcom.

We would be interested to hear what you think about this topic. How has your use of the postal service changed, and how do you think you will use it in the future? Please leave us your comments below.