Consumers fight back

They are the new breed of consumer champions. Passionate, computer-literate professionals who are hitting back at companies by providing internet forums for angry shoppers to share their nightmare experiences.

These high street super heroes have set up hundreds of campaigning websites over the last couple of years to highlight what they perceive to be poor quality products, potential scams or dismal customer service.

It’s a very effective approach. Every month the most successful sites will receive millions of “hits” from people eager to take revenge on corporations by airing their grievances online.

Lisa Jones, editor of .net magazine, believes the sharp rise in the number of households with hi-speed internet connections has helped fuel the enthusiasm for these so-called gripe sites.

“The appeal of the internet to consumers is that they find it cheap and easy to post information and they know it’s probably going to be read by a lot of people,” she says. “In the past they had to write to the editor of their local rag where it would have to be selected and edited before appearing. The community aspect of forums means they can find out if others have had similar experiences. It’s all about people power.”

But even in this relatively new hi-tech world, there are differences between the approaches taken by these sites. While some focus on a single issue, others encourage dissatisfied customers to exchange information on a variety of topics.

One crusader who favours the all-encompassing approach is Adrian Harris who set up Grumbletext.co.uk after being disappointed with the quality of customer service he experienced in a local store.

The 37-year-old, who previously worked for an investment bank, decided to establish a forum for complaints to be aired about unsatisfactory goods and services, flaky marketing promises and delivery problems.

He believes the principle reasons why people bother to post messages on the site are to have a go at “faceless” companies in public and take revenge by advising others not to buy from them in the future.

“It’s been very gratifying to see that people have used the site to help them get money back that they would have otherwise lost,” says Harris.

Grumbletext has also been a particularly vociferous campaigner against premium rate number scams where mobile phone users are lured into an expensive trap by replying to text and voicemail messages.

There are now plenty of specialist message boards and chat rooms where such problems are discussed. They include blagger.com encourages visitors to leave comments – good and bad – about companies they have used, and letsfixbritain.com which features consumer issues among a range of topics.

However, some sites take a particularly hard line on individual firms. Often they can begin life as the result of a particularly bad experience but end up garnering support from people who claim to have had similar problems.

Graphic designer Richard Dobbie started a site – www.shellpluspoints.co.uk- last year to protest about the problems he claimed to have endured with the pluspoints loyalty scheme operated by petrol station giant Shell.

The 29-year-old discovered serious discrepancies between the number of points that he had earned and those which had been credited to his card. He contacted customer services but, after running out of patience waiting for the problem to be sorted out, he decided on a more drastic course of action.

“I noticed the website was shellpluspoints.com and then found the .co.uk version was available so I bought it for a few pounds,” he recalls. “I posted an account of what had happened to me and put an email address asking anyone who had similar problems to get in contact. It snowballed from then.”

Dobbie, who claims to have received over 600 emails since the site first went live, is now in talks with Shell about selling the domain name. While reluctant to be drawn on the actual amount sought, he says he wants a five figure sum.

In a statement, Shell defended the scheme which it insisted was “valued by customers” and offered competitive rewards. It also stated that the dispute had now been amicably resolved – a claim which is denied by Mr Dobbie.

“Shell takes the views of its customers very seriously,” it read. “In response to a small number of concerns, we changed the customer service response, so that pluspoints can be awarded over the telephone. When errors do occur, we are more than happy to recompense customers.”

No industry is free of complaints. A five-minute trawl on the internet provides access to numerous sites targeting particular companies and industries. Everything from small electrical retailers to international car manufacturers will be mentioned.

We found sites focussed on a string of companies and services such as BT Openworld, BMW, Ford, Volkswagen and American Express. Some look highly professional with a serious message; others are clearly just mad rants.

For example, typing “natwest bank” into one search engine not only gives you links to sites affiliated with the bank itself but also to a site called natwestfraud.com which has been set up by a disgruntled former customer.

“NatWest takes the issue of sites like natwestfraud.com very seriously,” said a spokeswoman. “We regularly monitor the use of our brand names on third party sites and will not hesitate to take action as and where appropriate.”

Software giant Microsoft has also come under attack from online opponents. Self-employed IT consultant Dheeraj Vasishta, 30, from New Jersey in the United States, is behind the website microsuck.com.

The site, which looks very similar to the design of official Microsoft pages, criticises the way the company goes about its business, while visitors suggest buying software packages produced by rival companies instead.

“The site is better known among technical people, where it has almost household name status, than the general public and has its own community of people on the forum,” he explains. “People can discuss their own experiences of Microsoft products or talk about better alternatives they have found elsewhere.”

“Our main concern is that customers know how to get hold of legitimate information about Microsoft rather than being phased by these sites,” said a spokesman. “We have seen it and it’s quite obvious from the content that it’s not an official Microsoft site.”

Some consumer sites are now shunning the confrontational response in favour of building bridges with the companies they criticise and helping customers to actually get satisfaction.

One such example is howtocomplain.com which, as well as providing a chat forum to share experiences, also has detailed information on consumer rights, complaints procedures and even links to the firms themselves.

According to its 36-year-old founder, Stuart McCandlish, whose day job is banking, it’s proved to be a popular combination for everyone concerned. As well as receiving over a million “hits” each month, it also handles up to 50 complaints every day.

“Our aim is to bring consumers and companies together in order to resolve issues and the feedback we’ve received proves the site is successful,” he explains. “People can complain about pretty much everything but can also get access to help and advice.”

Well, the trend for this consumer approach is likely to continue. Last month BT signed up its five millionth broadband customer – a year ahead of schedule. By this summer it is predicted that 99.6% of the UK’s households and businesses will be connected to broadband-enabled telephone exhanges.

Many service providers offer free space as part of the monthly connection package, while a domain name will only set you back a few pounds every year.

You don’t even require design skills to produce your pages as specialist web companies can provide a variety of templates. All you need to do is add the content.

However, anyone considering starting up their own such site must be aware that there are potentially disastrous legal consequences for making untrue allegations which are defamatory of companies or individuals, warns Guy Martin of law firm Carter-Ruck.

“If what they have written is defamatory then they will need to be able to provide evidence admissible in a court proving that what they are alleging is substantially true,” he says. “If they are sued - and lose - then it could cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds.”

However, as is often the case with legal issues, nothing is straightforward. The general definition of defamation is something said which lowers a person or company in the estimation of others.

Also, if the material is defamatory then the claimant hasn’t got to prove they have suffered any particular loss – the court will automatically presume that damage has been done to their reputation.

“If someone is criticising goods produced by a company that may not be defamatory of the company itself - it all depends on the context and language used,” adds Martin. “However, they would need to be very careful before making an allegation that a company was fraudulent or had acted without good faith.”

Consumers fight back - online