Letter of the Day: Why won't consumer watchdogs bite FLOW?
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Why has no effective action been taken against FLOW to get it to redress the gross injustice inflicted on its clients when it withdrew some of its contracted cable channels without a commensurate rebate on its charges?
The fact is that FLOW sourced, packaged, priced, advertised and entered into contracts for cable service, including some channels that were illegally tapped, to unsuspecting members of the public. At no time before entering into such contracts did FLOW disclose that some channels were illegally sourced or that its price excluded such channels.
Now that it has been forced to withdraw these illegally sourced channels, its president, Garfield Sinclair, has had the temerity to add insult to injury by publicly stating that FLOW?s charges will not be rebated as customers were never paying for these channels in the first place.
How can this be allowed to stand and why have the Government?s consumer-protection agencies failed to redress this injustice? Are they all afraid to sanction FLOW?
Also, could any other merchant engaged in similarly unethical activity expect to get away with it when discovered?
I dare say that such a merchant would have to quickly compensate its clients while being exposed to the possibility of being charged with a criminal offence for sourcing its commodity illegally.