Which? reveals trading standards postcode lottery
A new Which? investigation has exposed a trading standards postcode lottery which has left millions of people exposed to crime, fake and dangerous products, and scams.
In a comprehensive Freedom of Information request into trading standards’ capacity and performance, the consumer association contacted 187 trading standards services in England, Wales and Scotland – receiving responses from all of them.
The responses expose shocking differences in staffing levels depending on where people live and services in some areas stretched to the point where it is impossible for them to effectively carry out essential work like intercepting fake and dangerous products, rooting out misleading food claims and cracking down on cowboy builders.
Which? found two local authorities that have just one full-time trading standards officer and shockingly low levels of enforcement by a number of services. There are three London boroughs with only one or two members of staff in their trading standards team, amounting to less than one per 100,000 people living there.
Enfield has the smallest team, with 0.43 staff per 100,000 people. By comparison, trading standards for Devon, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay has 67 total staff and 3.7 staff per 100,000 people. Lancashire County Council has 55.6 total staff and 4.44 per 100,000 people. In Orkney, there are almost five trading standards staff covering the islands – the equivalent of almost 21 staff per 100,000 people.
Liverpool City Council, with 5.5 staff in total (1.11 staff per 100,000 people) and Barnsley Borough Council, with 3.1 staff (1.26 staff per 100,000 people), were among the areas found to have low staffing levels.
The best-staffed areas per head of population were mainly rural, with 11 Welsh authorities in the top 15. This may be because of differences in the approach of devolved governments as well as demographic and geographical issues.
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) has previously said that spending on trading standards services has been cut by more than 50% over the past decade and staffing levels have fallen by 30%-50% over the same period.
About two-thirds of trading standards services that answered Which?’s question about allocating resources said that low staffing levels meant they could not investigate tip-offs at least some of the time. They are facing a constant battle in choosing where to focus resources, and some say they are having to deprioritise traditional areas of work and routine inspections.
Says Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy:
“Our research shows that trading standards is no longer fit for purpose. Millions of people face a postcode lottery, which dictates whether they get adequate protection from crime, dangerous products and blatant rip-offs.
“The government could be spending taxpayers’ money more wisely. Without urgent reform to the current system, there could be disastrous consequences for consumers, responsible businesses and economic growth. Which? is calling for the government to look at overhauling the consumer enforcement system as part of its spending review, with more scrutiny of its effectiveness, better use of intelligence, sharing of services and more oversight and accountability.”
