Rip Off Ireland - Reviews

Status
Not open for further replies.

"Conveyance is anti-competitive? Nonsense! It was up until around 5 to 10 years ago. It is viciously competitive now. It may still be expensive, but that is down to our archaic property ownership system, not down to the individual solicitors. "



Brendan I think the point Eddie made was in relation to the number of conveyance that happen on one piece of land. Therefore the point being made was in relation to our archaic property ownership system not the solicitors making a fair bit of money off of it. I wonder however, if we tried to change what you agree is our “archaic property ownership system” will all the solicitors pat us on the back and wish us luck or try and prevent change?



I think that programme was trying to effect a change of logic in the minds of the masses and get people to question and not simply accept everything that is presented to them by business and government. Given our history I think that is long overdue. This website did it for me, why not a programme like rip-off republic to do it for others?
 
I didn't get to see it at all - is it being repeated at any stage? Can't find any mention of it on rte website.
 
great show.

Eddie Hobbs as opposed to any other consumer "head" ranting off in the media at least looks like he means every word he says. No lip service "shop around" statements thank god!
 
Bishop said:
This website did it for me, why not a programme like rip-off republic to do it for others?
Click to expand...

Whats this rip off ireland website ?? Did a google on it and found a Fine Gael site called www.ripoff.ie - is that it ? I closed it down immediately when I saw a picture of Enda Kenny.
 
Teabag said:
Whats this rip off ireland website ?? Did a google on it and found a Fine Gael site called [broken link removed] - is that it ? I closed it down immediately when I saw a picture of Enda Kenny.
Click to expand...

Sorry Teabag I was referring to askaboutmoney which I've always found to be a site that asks questions of big business and government without simply accepting everything at face value. Run by a great team who look for very little in return.



As for http://www.ripoff.ie/ that is just as bad as listening to government. The opposition telling people what they need to hear but only in their own self interest.


[broken link removed] I've always found it useful if a little out fo date.


[broken link removed] never saw this one, looks interesting will check it out.
 
podgerodge said:
great show. Eddie Hobbs as opposed to any other consumer "head" ranting off in the media at least looks like he means every word he says. No lip service "shop around" statements thank god!
Click to expand...

I disagree with the above, and with the assertion by Eddie that we mightn't actually be bad shoppers.

The fact is that the majority of people (maybe not the community of AAM users) are bad shoppers in this country.

People want stuff NOW, rather than waiting a while, getting a better price, and buying later.
 
ronan_d_john said:
People want stuff NOW, rather than waiting a while, getting a better price, and buying later.
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely. All I meant is that he looks enthusiastic about the subject. When I referred to the "shop around" slogan getting boring I was referring to the fact that consumer groups consistently tell us that we can save money by shopping around - which I think everybody from all "classes" knows already. Not shopping around is because we are lazy or , as Ronan D John says - we want it now. Not because we're thick and have to be told by organisations such as IFSRA that we can save money on car insurance if we ring more than one company to check the price! Do they really think that people are that silly? (ok maybe it's useful as a guide to general prices but I don't think so - the danger with these surveys is that you might make an assumption that because a company is cheaper in one instance it might be for all others)
 
This is really a "letting off steam" thread.
New policy on LOS has killed it.
I suggest a rethink.
 
So is there anyone on this thread that did not post a nappy ?

If so, why not ?
 
With respect Clubman, I asked for feedback from "anyone on this thread".

I think that was your first posting but thanks for your input anyway.
 
Teabag said:
With respect Clubman, I asked for feedback from "anyone on this thread".

I think that was your first posting but thanks for your input anyway.
Click to expand...




I would think Clubman was trying to be funny with the ARSED reference what with nappies being the item sent.



BTW, mine is going to today with the following letter:



Dear Minister Martin,



On Monday night the 8th of August 2005 I watched a television programme on RTE where a Mr. Eddie Hobbs explained the details of the Groceries Order legislation that is currently undergoing review by your department.



As a registered voter, consumer and citizen of this country, I would ask that you not betray the trust that I have placed in you as an elected minister of state by allowing big business lobby groups such as IBEC and RGDATA to influence your decision on the Grocery Order in any way and that you allow only the needs of the citizens of this country to direct your decisions.



I would also ask that you repeal the Groceries Order as I feel that it unnecessarily adds to the cost of purchasing everyday goods.



P.S. please sent this nappie and the rest you have been inundated with to St. Vincent De Paul so that they may make some good use of them, I promise to do the same with the rest of the pack I purchased to make my point.



Regards,
 
Bishop said:
[/font][/size]I would also ask that you repeal the Groceries Order as I feel that it unnecessarily adds to the cost of purchasing everyday goods.
Click to expand...

I may be nitpicking here, but please bear with me for a minute.

Part of the statement above was also given as the reason from the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business as why the Groceries Order must be kept in place - that is, that in the Committees opinion, the Groceries Order is not making goods more expensive.

Isn't the issue that the Groceries Order isn't allowing us get goods at the cheapest possible price?

I accept that it's not making goods more expensive - but isn't it the case that the Groceries Order is artificially supporting a level of pricing, that without it, would make things cheaper - and that this is the reason it must go?
 
Groceries Order 'adds €500 to food bills'

August 10, 2005 13:30
The Competition Authority has estimated that the Groceries Order, which bans below-cost selling, costs the average Irish household up to €481 a year.

In a submission to the Enterprise, Trade & Employment Minister Micheal Martin published today, the authority calls for the removal of the order.

Authority chair John Fingleton said the order pushed up food prices and was against the interest of consumers and the economy.


'The successful prosecution of two supermarkets in January 2004 for providing discounts on baby food is a perfect example of why the Groceries Order needs to be abolished. If this logic was applied in other sectors, for example clothes, it would make post-Christmas sales a criminal activity,' he added.

In an analysis carried out for the submission, the authority found that food prices had risen by just under 10% between 2000 and 2004, while prices of clothing and footwear had fallen 16% and household durables prices had dropped 4%.

The competition body said business costs could not be blamed, as rents, insurance, waste charges, electricity and wages were common across all retail sectors. It added that farm gate prices had remained stable in the period, and could not be blamed.

The authority said that food prices had stabilised in recent years - although at a higher level than in other countries - but it attributed this to increased competition following the arrival of Aldi and Lidl in Ireland.

It found that prices of food items covered by the Groceries Order has risen by 7.4% since June 2001, while items not covered had declined in price by 5%.
 
"Brendan I think the point Eddie made was in relation to the number of conveyance that happen on one piece of land. Therefore the point being made was in relation to our archaic property ownership system not the solicitors making a fair bit of money off of it. I wonder however, if we tried to change what you agree is our “archaic property ownership system” will all the solicitors pat us on the back and wish us luck or try and prevent change? "

Hi Bishop;

Eddie Hobbes was objecting to the fact that a conveyance has to be registered 201 times on a single land registry folio - once to the developer and 200 times to the individual house purchasers. The problem is that when a house is sold, the transaction is quite separate (and, as it happens fundamentally different) from when the site was sold to a developer. To suggest that this involves some sort of needless duplication of work is just plain wrong.

Certainly there are elements of work which are duplicated in each transaction, but that is just the nature of commerce.

You might as well complain about the inefficiency of 200 individual motorists each having to go through a petrol station forecourt to fill their cars. It's not really relevant that all that petrol was delivered by a single tanker delivery, is it?

Having said that, I enjoyed the programme, and it will undoubtedly help to make consumers more aware of price issues. Mind you, I would sit through an "info-mercial" advertising the all new no-more-slaving-in-the-kitchen, your-kids-will-love-you, super duper chop-n-slice device, thoroughly enjoying the "but that's not all" from the helpful host, so perhaps my opinion is not to be relied upon.
 
"Conveyancing is anti-competitive? Nonsense! It was up until around 5 to 10 years ago. It is viciously competitive now. It may still be expensive, but that is down to our archaic property ownership system, not down to the individual solicitors."

It is when only solicitors are allowed do it. But the key issue as Eddie pointed out is solicitors taking a percentage of the property cost. It should be a flat fee the same as what a doctor would charge. It should be based on the value of the work done not on the value of the transaction
 
"But the key issue as Eddie pointed out is solicitors taking a percentage of the property cost.It should be a flat fee the same as what a doctor would charge. "

It is actually quite common for solicitors to charge a flat fee. In fairness to Eddie, he pointed this out.

I don't think it is wholly accurate to say that doctors charge a flat fee. At G.P. level, many doctors now have one charge for a short consultation and a higher charge for a longer consultation (which by the way is fine by me).

Overall, the medical profession has a charging system which lacks transparency. While I would have to agree that legal fees can also lack transparency I don't think that this is true of residential conveyancing fees.

I don't think you are really on to a winner by suggesting that the legal profession should align its billing methods more closely to those of the medical profession.
 
MOB said:
Certainly there are elements of work which are duplicated in each transaction, but that is just the nature of commerce.
Click to expand...
Hi Mob - Is it possible for you to quantify to this duplication? If you were to offer a 'special deal' on conveyancing in an estate where you had done the initial conveyance to the developer, how much would you reduce your price by?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register