Your magazine arrives as "Winter" 1998 — with the weather we've been having it seemed absurd to call it "Autumn". It has of course come out later than usual, but that's not just idleness on the part of the new Committee. As summer moved into autumn previous committees have several times said "Let's look at mince pies for Christmas." But we always found that stocks wouldn't come into the shops long enough before Christmas to give us time before our normal press deadline. Sometimes bakers would offer to make us a special batch ahead of their normal date, but we always refused this as conflicting with the fundamental principle of consumer research that everything to be tested is bought just as a normal shopper would buy it. This year we decided to go for it, and accept postponement of the publication date. It will probably happen again next year, when we hope to look at local bakers' mince pies. There was one unfortunate hitch this year. We set up our test when stocks were reported as in all the stores we wanted to survey. But when our buyer went to get the pies from the Co-op, stock had run out, after selling so slowly that the management had decided not to restock until nearer Christmas. It was too late to rethink our plans, so Co-op pies are regrettably not dealt with in our report.
With the pies, in the first section of the magazine, we've taken a look at sausages, and in line with our policy of regularly re-surveying things when time has changed the market position, an updated look at oatcakes. These have a strong Aberdeen association, with many local bakeries in competition with the big makers.
The second section of the magazine reflects the concerns of two individual members, but in each case about matters of general concern. The first is entirely an Aberdeen matter. We all know about the Common Good Fund, but few of us will have tried to find out details of how the Council, on our behalf, spends the money for our common good. A member who did reports on the difficulties of doing so, and on some of the things that could be found out. The second reflects a national rather than a local problem, the hard-sell tactics of those trying to get signatures on time-share and similar contracts. However, when one of our members has direct knowledge of such a problem we've always been eager for it to be shared with others, as in the last issue with the cards rather dubiously sold as "discount phone cards". This time a graphic account of sales pressure comes with a comprehensive list of precautions you can take against being done.
We hope you find this rather unusual mix of contents interesting.
A comparison of price and quality (supermarkets)
We decided to look first at the major supermarket suppliers, as the sources from which the majority of our members probably get their main supplies. For comparison we put in sausages made by a well-known independent Aberdeen butcher, whom however we think it fairer not to name, since we brought him in simply as an example from a class which we hope to report on at a later date. We chose the standard top quality pork sausages, of similar size, offered by each supplier.
When they were examined raw, everyone was favourably impressed by those from Marks & Spencer - plumply appealing, with flecks of no doubt country herbs showing attractively through the skin. By contrast, the Somerfield sausages were rather long and thin, a flat uniform pink, somewhat floppy and looking exactly as one would imagine mass-produced sausages. But we weren't testing uncooked sausages. They were grilled to give an even, crisp, brown skin, and were tasted hot. It was a blind trial, with the sausages labelled only by numbers; the panel of four tasters individually assessed sausages from each batch, scoring appearance, odour, flavour and texture on a scale of 0 to 4.
The striking contrasts between the raw sausages were gone. The panel was rather surprised to find the overall differences small. All the sausages were deemed to be quite acceptable. Individual preferences became evident, with some tasters preferring 'coarse' textures and/or stronger spices. Nevertheless, a tendency to a consensus view on relative merit clearly appeared, and it completely reversed the impression given by the uncooked sausages, with the Somerfield sausages now at the top, and the handsome M&S well down the list. This was shown by simply adding up all the scores. The position was hardly changed when, on the basis that flavour was the all-important thing, we multiplied the score for that to outweigh all the others. It was hardly changed when we added texture as another weighted aspect, on the view that we were interested in total quality in the mouth rather than under the eye or the nose. So we think it fair to print in our table below (page 8) the averaged score our tasters gave, alongside the price we paid. The price differential is large, with the most expensive almost twice the cost of the cheapest. We don't know to what extent this a reflection of the relative meat concentration; it certainly does not reflect the eating quality as our tasters reported it. Since the top mark went to the cheapest sausages, we suggest that you might like to try Somerfield's to see if they please you too. We would be delighted to hear what you think of them if you do.
It must be emphasised that this was not a trained panel operating under laboratory conditions. However, the panel feels that the results are sufficient to give some reassurance to Aberdeen consumers that in terms of flavour etc. the supermarkets are producing 'the goods', and that you will not necessarily do better by paying more, either within or outwith the supermarket field.
| Preference scores for "Best Quality' PORK Sausages | ||||||
| Make | Style | Number | Weight | Price | p/100g | Mean Score |
| Somerfield | - | 8 | 454 | 1.09 | 24 | 3.0 |
| Asda | Speciality Old English | 8 | 454 | 1.79 | 39 | 2.9 |
| Tesco | Thick | 8 | 454 | 1.25 | 28 | 2.9 |
| Sainsbury | JS Butchers Choice | 8 | 454 | 1.29 | 28 | 2.8 |
| M&S | Top Quality | 8 | 454 | 1.99 | 44 | 2.7 |
| Safeway | Traditional Thick | 8 | 454 | 1.60 | 35 | 2.7 |
| Co-op | Thick | 8 | 454 | 1.19 | 26 | 2.4 |
| Independent | - | 8 | 454 | 1.75 | 39 | 2.4 |
The basis and procedure for this test was close to that for sausages. We intended to use the same suppliers, but as noted in the Editorial no Co-op pies were available at the time required, and an unfortunate failure of organisation left out Safeway too. Our buyers' instructions were to get pies with shortcrust pastry, of standard size, the best quality if there was more than one sort on offer. However, our M&S buyer didn't feel sure that their most expensive pies ("luxury"), with port and brandy, and chopped glacé cherries as well as the normal mincemeat ingredients, were really comparable with normal pies from elsewhere, so got "traditional" pies too. And our Somerfield buyer was so impressed with their offer of "basic" pies at a very attractive price as to get these as well as the more expensive ones, giving us seven types to taste. The panel was the same as before, but made up to five by a non meat-eating member who stood down for the sausages.
All the pies came in packs of six. The only important difference when we looked at them straight out of the packet was that, while all the pastry cases were of very similar size and appearance, the lids of the Somerfield "basic" pies were visibly below the top edge of the case, whereas in all the others they tended to rise above it. Thus there was clearly less room for filling, and, since none of the pies suffered from empty space inside, presumably less filling. This would probably have shown up in the overall weight if the pies had come with a stated weight, but it seemed to have no effect on the attractiveness of these pies for eating, since none of our tasters reported any skimpiness when they — or any of the pies — appeared for tasting simply as a number.
Just like the sausages, they were tasted hot, in a blind trial, with scores this time for appearance, flavour and texture of both pastry and filling. Once more, all were judged quite acceptable. Once more there were individual preferences. Some tasters saw light-coloured pastry as more attractive, others dark; some liked sweet pastry while others thought it should be plainer to contrast with the very sweet filling. Once however, a weight of opinion clearly showed itself more, whether the scores were simply added up, or weighted in favour of flavour, or based on individual tasters' orders of preference rather than actual marks (since some were clearly more generous with high marks than others). So again we think it fair to print the averaged score alongside the price (over the page). The price differential is even larger than among the sausages, but here there is a degree of correlation between price and perceived quality. The two that seem most to recommend themselves are Sainsbury' s, at a moderate price and as well thought of as any, and Somerfield's "basic", at a remarkably low price and judged little inferior to pies costing almost three times as much. After the pies were identified one taster claimed to have detected the alcoholic content of the M&S "luxury" pies; others doubted it.
| Preference scores for Christmas Mince Pies | ||||
| Make | Style | Number | Price £ | Scores |
| Marks & Spencer | Luxury | 6 | 1.49 | 2.6 |
| Sainsbury | Deep | 6 | 0.99 | 2.6 |
| Marks & Spencer | Traditional | 6 | 1.15 | 2.6 |
| Somerfield | Basic | 6 | 0.57 | 2.5 |
| Asda | Luxury | 6 | 1.09 | 2.4 |
| Somerfield | - | 6 | 0.99 | 2.3 |
| Tesco | Deep Filled | 6 | 0.79 | 2.2 |
It's more than eight years since we looked at oatcakes, and a good deal has changed in the local supply. Not everything. The stalwart standard brands Nairn's (from Edinburgh) and Paterson's (from Livingston) are still widely available, in sturdy 300 gm cartons, with four separately sealed packets inside; the oatcakes baked to be hard and robust enough to stand the handling involved in national distribution. Prices may vary quite widely — we found Nairn's at 69p in Sainsbury's, 52p just across the way at ASDA — but you'll have no difficulty in finding them. Similarly presented are Walkers (from Aberlour), but we succeeded in getting them only at the Olive Branch (on the corner of Queens Road and Spademill Road, formerly the Shopping Bag, and before that the Rubislaw Stores), and the price we had to pay, £1.02, may reflect the shop more than the make. In this group there are two important changes. On the one hand the disappearance of Littlewood's own brand, which offered the best value for money of any in our previous survey; the Littlewood food hall now stocks no oatcakes at all. On the other, the appearance of a Sainsbury's own brand. Probably made for them by Walkers; our tasters agreed that the two were identical, though there's a slight difference in the stated ingredients, the normal raising agent sodium bicarbonate being renamed 'sodium hydrogen carbonate'. At 65p they are good value but not exceptionally so, though certainly much cheaper than the Walkers we bought. The best value we found was certainly Naim's at the ASDA price of 52p. We suspect that of being a short-term promotional price, but 63p at Scottish Co-op is still cheaper than anything else we found.
Besides these, there are many makes by individual bakers, sold either in the baker's own shop or in limited outlets. They come in single transparent-wrapped packets, normally from 100 to 150 gm (200 gm for particularly thick ones), and the oatcakes naturally cost more than in the larger packs: you'll expect to pay from 3Op to 50p per 100 gm against around 20p (that's normally between 4 and 8 oatcakes, depending on size and thickness). If you simply want to buy a few oatcakes, look for small packs of Paterson's, which we found at 19p for 75 gm (25.3p per 100 gm) in both Sainsbury and ASDA; the pack is simply one of the inside packets of the big carton in a rather solider wrapping. In this "individual bakers" group for presentation and price come Stockan & Gardens (of Orkney), but they are as widely available as the "standard brands"; the makers have clearly solved the problem of getting their wares to the buyer uncrumbled. In this group, too, there have been changes. Among the disappearances is one that our tasters of 1990 praised as unusually close to a traditional handmade oatcake: Murdoch of George Street is no more. On the other hand we have a number of new makes to report on.
The traditional oatcake is made of oatmeal, a little fat, a little salt, and water to mix, cooked on a griddle. The cake is crumbly, with a toasted flavour, and a shape that curls up at the edges away from the heat — very unsuitable for packing. Nobody makes them like that for sale. At our last survey J. G. Ross sold a handmade oatcake that got quite close to it; they still sell a handmade oatcake but it isn't quite what it was. Three frequent additions to the basic ingredients are a raising agent to lighten the cake, sugar (Paterson's use malt) to modify the flavour for current tastes, and wheatflour to soften the texture. Most oatcakes sold contain all three, though they can be found with any one left out. The third is certainly significant. The first two can make surprisingly little difference to the perceived quality, but for consumers with allergies they can be important, and we give the facts in our table, where we also mark those (the majority) which contain only vegetable fat or oil.
We did not face our tasters with fifteen oatcakes in a single massive blind tasting, which would simply overwhelm the capacity to make the quite fine distinctions needed. We presented them in groups, asking for any discriminations detected between the specimens, and then, as the test went on, between them and specimens from groups already tried. The tasters didn't know where the individual specimens came from.
We took first the "standard brands". Our tasters had no difficulty in distinguishing Nairn's from Paterson's, as being "slightly crisper" and with a "slightly fuller flavour", possibly the effect of using sugar rather than malt, possibly of the raising agent, which Paterson's do not use. Of the two, Nairn's were preferred. Sainsbury/Walkers had the softer texture expected from the use of flour, and a taste which we can most safely call intermediate between Paterson's and Nairn' s, since our tasters were not agreed as to which side they swayed to.
Given the price, Nairn's clearly emerge as a recommendation, if you are happy with the harder texture.
All the "individual bakers" oatcakes contained flour. We took next a group which had no sugar. Those by John Smith called "Howe o' The Meams" in most outlets, and clearly identical with simply "Scottish Oatcakes" at ASDA, were regarded as having a taste very close to Sainsbury/Walker despite the absence of sugar from the recipe but — not by all tasters — as slightly less crunchy. John Smith's thicker oatcakes, "Old Scottish Recipe", were found less attractive. One taster reported a "baking powder taste", another that they "come out rather chewy", though the stated ingredients are identical with those of "Howe o' The Meams". Chalmers' oatcakes were found quite distinct, with a definitely toasted flavour and a crisp crunchiness that left little crunchy bits in the mouth as you chewed, whereas in other cases the crunchiness was only at the first bite. The panel liked them; as the cheapest from "individual bakers" they too are a recommendation.
Next came a group like the previous one, but containing sugar. As elsewhere this seemed to make no identifiable difference to the taste, and Duncan's, Stockan & Gordons Thin and Highland Rough from Stonehaven Fine Foods (oddly, of Tullich, Aberarder, not Stonehaven) were found very like most of the previous group — Duncan's rather less crispy than the others, Stockan's with a fine texture, almost melt-in-the mouth after the initial crispness. Highland Rough was not really very rough. The same taster who identified a "baking powder taste" in Smith's Old Scottish Recipe found it in all three of these. Stockan's Thick on the other hand was favoured, regarded as getting the balance of texture just right — substantial but not hard, not melting in the mouth but not leaving it full of gritty bits either, and having a flavour with a proper degree of toastiness and no "baking powder taste". It is notable for achieving its texture with no raising agent at all. Almost as cheap as Chalmers, this is another recommendation. "McK" (McKenzie's of Turriff) was thought rather too sweet.
The final group is distinguished by all containing milk (liquid, powdered or both) — but by no similarity in quality. Stonehaven Foods' "butter oatcakes", containing both butter and "butter essence", struck our tasters as having a slightly greasy quality, not well liked. Cumming's (of Tarves), in our previous survey the only example with milk powder, and regarded as having an interestingly rich taste, now appear to have a different recipe, using actual milk, and unusual in including cream of tartar as well as sodium bicarbonate, and in having more wheatfiour than oatmeal. They did not impress this time. That left the hardest of all the oatcakes we tasted, Stonehaven Foods' "Ruthven" — big, thick, solid cakes, but our panel found the taste rather insipid (perhaps because, exceptionally, the recipe uses no salt as well as no sugar). And at the other end of the spectrum J. G. Ross's (of Inverurie) handmade, still as fragile as eight years ago but now with the gentlest, most melt-in-the-mouth texture of any cakes we tried, and an appealingly smooth version of the oatmeal taste, perhaps attributable to the "cream powder" as well as milk powder they uniquely contain. If your taste lies in this direction you may think them worth their price — but carry them home carefully!
There is a rough variant of Naim's, and a Safeway own brand "rough", and possibly other such variants. We did not deal with these, or with oatcakes containing cheese, or bran.
Notes for Column Heads Below:
| * 5 | No Wheatflour? |
| * 6 | No Sugar? |
| * 7 | No Raising Agent? |
| * 8 | All Fat & Oil Vegetable? |
| Make of Oatcakes | Wt | p/pk | p/100 | Num | Shape | Thick | *5 | *6 | *7 | *8 | Bought at |
| Chalmers | 150 | 46 | 30.0 | 9 | R | 3 | x | x | Chalmers | ||
| Cumming | 150 | 50 | 33.3 | 8 | T | 2 | Spar | ||||
| Duncan's | 100 | 36 | 36.0 | 8 | T | 1 | x | Mace | |||
| Highland Butter *1 | 150 | 77 | 51.3 | 9 | T | 2 | Mace | ||||
| Highland Rough *1 | 250 | 90 | 36.0 | 21 | R | 2 | x | Mace | |||
| Howe 0'. Meams *2 | 150 | 49 | 32.7 | 12 | T | 2 | x | x | Sainsbury | ||
| John Smith's *2 | 125 | 49 | 39.2 | 10 | R | 3 | x | Sainsbury | |||
| MkK *3 | 200 | 52 | 26.0 | 10 | T | 4 | x | Co-op | |||
| Nairn's | 300 | 63 | 21.0 | 28 | R | 2 | x | x | Co-op | ||
| Paterson's | 300 | 64 | 21.3 | 24 | R | 2 | x | *4 | x | x | Safeway |
| Ross hand-made | 111 | 50 | 45.0 | 4 | T | 2 | J.G. Ross | ||||
| Ruthven *1 | 150 | 72 | 48.0 | 6 | R | 3 | x | Mace | |||
| Sainsbury | 300 | 65 | 21.7 | 24 | R | 2 | x | Sainsbury | |||
| Stockan & G. Thick | 200 | 61 | 30.5 | 8 | T | 3 | x | x | Co-op | ||
| Stockan & G. Thin | 100 | 35 | 35.0 | 8 | T | 1 | x | Sainsbury | |||
| Walkers | 300 | 102 | 34.0 | 24 | R | 2 | x | Olive Bch |
Notes:
| * 1 | Stonehaven Fine Foods Thin | (c. 3 mm) | 1 |
| * 2 | John Smith's Biscuits Normal (Scotland) Thick |
(c. 4 mm) (c. 5 mm) |
2 3 |
| * 3 | Mr McKenzie's Biscuit Very. Thick | (c. 6 mm) | 4 |
| * 4 | Malt |
There can't be an Aberdonian, native or incomer, who hasn't heard, at least, of the Common Good Fund. Most people probably think of it — quite correctly — as providing grants to charities and other groups, parties for pensioners, and the money for civic functions and hospitalities. They probably know that it purchased Hazlehead Park. The full list of spending objectives for the fund is as follows
In recent months cuts made by the Council to Common Good expenditure have featured in the local press, which has highlighted substantial cuts to pensioners' entertainment and the Instant Neighbour Trust, not accompanied by cuts in councillors' meals. The press has also pointed out that expenditure has recently seriously exceeded income. As an Aberdonian I decided to investigate these issues.
I began in the Reference Library, where I found an excellent account of the history of the Fund, the accounts for the financial year ending in April 1996, and a paper for consideration by the Council (dated December 1996) suggesting how expenditure, at that point gravely exceeding income, might be brought into balance. The proposals involved transferring industrial estate from the Fund to the Council. I found their reasoning impenetrable. I was also taken aback to find that such a situation could have arisen.
The next moves were clearly (1) to find out what action the Council took, and (2) to look at the accounts for the years 1996-7 and 1997-8. I went to the Town House and spoke to Mr. Fraser of the Finance Department. I learned that (1) the Council had turned down the transfer of the estate, but had put in place a three-year programme of expenditure reduction, and (2) that the accounts were not available to me. The procedure is that after the end of the financial year when the accounts are finalised there is a period in which they are open to the public. The dates are advertised in the press; this year it was from August 3 to August 21. The accounts are only put into the Reference Library when the formal audit is complete; those for 1996-7 will, probably, be in the Library soon.
Mr. Fraser was kind enough to give me a copy of the Budget for 1998-9. This was subjected to severe cutbacks, including proposed savings of £50,000 on civic receptions, £23,000 on entertainment for the elderly and handicapped, and £20,000 on the grant to the Instant Neighbour Trust. A more detailed look at the figures should enable the citizen to get a clear picture of the expenditure — it should, but it doesn't.
The projected total is £3,894,350. Certain items are obvious, e.g. spending on property (rates, insurance, repairs and maintenance) £71,800, and civic hospitality about £650,000 (of which £178,000 is for the elderly, handicapped and children). But what about "donations, grants, contributions" at £449,100? Are citizens not entitled to know which charities and groups are benefitting? By how much? These questions are not answered when the accounts are published, as this expenditure is not broken down in any way.
Other serious questions:
I was able to get the following additional information from a City Councillor:
(a) The "Recreational Facilities" payments are towards the Ice Rink
(b) The transfer for 1998-99 is intended to be the last one.
I still can't understand how the reserve works!
Anyone who looks at the accounts — and is prepared to spend some time — can
study the balance between the objectives.
The Budget for 1998-99 can be simplified as follows (figures in
thousands of pounds, to the nearest thousand):
| Expenditure on properties | £72 |
| Council miscellaneous (of which 86 for councillors' meals) | 110 |
| Central support (another mystery heading!) | 123 |
| Donations, grants, contributions | 449 |
| Civic hospitality (of which 178 for entertainment) | |
| for the elderly, handicapped and children) | 681 |
| "Dignity of the City" | 531 |
| Ice Rink payments | 1,887 |
| TOTAL | 3,853 |
When I look at these figures it does not seem to me that they are a suitable balance between the spending objectives. Others may disagree. But what is certainly true is that one's ability to have a view on the spending of the Common Good Fund that could then be raised with a councillor or put to the press is severely limited by (1) the lack of necessary information in the published accounts, and (2) because if you missed seeing them in August, it will be Autumn of the following year before you can.
About a year ago, we received a telephone call advising us that we had been selected to receive a completely free, 7 day holiday including flights. in the Mediterranean area. On expressing considerable doubts about the veracity of this, it was explained that it was a promotionary offer and that to receive it, we would have to attend a 'no obligation' presentation showing the 'Dalfaber' project at Aviemore. We asked that this was put in writing and we shortly received details with an appointment date to visit Dalfaber. The company, Travel Time (UK) Ltd in Birmingham, shows no affiliation on their headed paper to any organisation such as ABTA.
On arrival at Dalfaber, we were part of a party of about 20 couples. We received coffee and sandwiches and were then 'interviewed' by a 'presenter' who, by asking leading questions and offering his own answers, 'proved' to us that we could save money and have great holidays in perpetuity at Aviemore. We were then shown the properties and, curiously, were approached by a couple about our own age (60 or so) who wasted no time in telling us that they intended to jump at this offer. Back for more coffee and chat and then a film about the complex.
When we made it clear that we were not interested and that we had a rule NEVER to buy anything large until we had discussed it overnight, it was pointed out, rather forcefully, that this was a now or never offer and delay would cost us Hundreds of Pounds! Sticking to our decision, our presenter excused himself and returned with the 'boss'. This rather radiant, pleasant but forceful 'Kojak' style gentleman again pointed out what we were losing by not signing now and he came over as being genuinely puzzled that we were not taking his offer. However, things changed and he became quite abrupt when we kept pointing out that the 'maintenance charge' alone was more than we had paid for our last holiday and he promptly departed.
We then had a bit of a wait where all the presenters seem to disappear. Eventually, we collared one and on reminding them that we were waiting for our 'certificate' to get the holiday, we were assured that it was forthcoming. After a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, we were again seated and then had to repeat our details and fill in another form but eventually, we did emerge with a bit of paper giving the name and address of the people to contact within 24 hours to arrange the holiday but giving a 'special' telephone number that was only available between 10 a m and 4 p m the next day!
At home, we then had a great time trying to get through to the continuously engaged number — I think it took about 30 tries. By this time, we had been in contact with BT to check it was a real telephone line genuinely in use. They were only able to tell us that they knew of this problem and it was outwith their control - we just had to persevere. By this time, we were about ready to throw in the towel. We were only out of pocket for the cost of the car to Aviemore and back. But I suspected these difficulties were part of the system. Is there really a need to give only 24 hours to register and then give a number that is only in use for 6 hours. Of course not! Is it coincidence that the telephone is continuously busy in that short period? Anyway, eventually, we got through late in the afternoon. It transpired then that we had to pay an administration fee of £58 before our booking would be accepted and that the place and time would be notified to us within a year BUT we had to accept this. Luckily, being retired, this 'open' timing was no great hardship. So off went our cheque and we crossed our fingers.
Some months later, we received a letter telling us we were booked on a flight departing in 4 days from Manchester to Alicante and had to make our own way up the Spanish coast to Denia ( 40 miles). We immediately complained that we thought this very short notice and that we had definitely been told the flights were from Glasgow. It was explained, 'sorry, that's the deal — take it or leave it'. Two days later, we received another letter stating that the destination was now Althea! This suited us, it was closer to Alicante. But still no tickets! Another telephone call — tickets to be collected at Manchester Airport. I was not happy about this at all but what could I do?
So off we went to Manchester by rail. Because the flight was about 9.00 in the morning and checkout times were 2 hrs earlier, we booked B&B near the Airport. Our hosts could not have been more helpful — collected us from the station and delivered us to the Airport. To my amazement, our tickets were there. There were quite a few couples collecting tickets and we soon found that a lot of them were collecting their 'freebie'. One sad couple was turned away because their child was not on their passport; they knew this but had been (wrongfully) informed that having the birth certificate would suffice.
So off we went. From then on, it got better. Our budget hired car (Seat Marbella, pre-booked and paid for by us) was real budget motoring but it fired up and ran well. Our apartment was in a complex with restaurant, the accommodation (self catering) was quite acceptable and being (very) low season, it was delightfully quiet. Costs of eating out and in were very good. We had an excellent time and, overall, it was well worth the carry-on. We had been told we had to attend another presentation at the resort but this never materialised.
I am quite convinced that the holiday offer is genuine but we are also certain that the registration charge was not mentioned until after the presentation. We are again also certain that things are quite deliberately arranged to try and get you to give up on the holiday.
In conclusion, three things stand out;
I make no apology for reiterating these points in the following checklist. The above is my recollection of events.
Jack Lavety — Aberdeen, Nov.98
A self-protection checklist to deal with agents selling time or property for holiday use both in UK and abroad.
Numerous outfits appear to supply very appealing 'free', 'valuable' and 'guaranteed' gifts and/or holidays in return for attending a presentation outlining an offer. It is usual to be told that no pressure will be applied but numerous 'victims' have found that subtle and not-so-subtle pressures DO take place. For instance, the 'special' offer is conditional to signing up ON THE SPOT and will revert to the so-called 'normal price' the next day.
If you wish to attend a presentation, then we suggest that you take the following precautions.
If this is the first time you have read Consuming Interest you may like to know more about the Group which produces it. ABERDEEN CONSUMER GROUP is an independent association of local people concerned to see that local consumers get a fair deal. Its aims are to identify and promote the interests of local consumers, and to provide a channel for consumer opinion and consumer representation.
If you would like to join the Group and receive Consuming Interest regularly, send your name and address, with £3.00 as your annual subscription, to the Treasurer, Dr. D. Macrae-Gibson, 43 Rubislaw Den South, Aberdeen, AB15 4BD, or contact any of the committee members, whose addresses and telephone numbers you will find inside this cover.
Cartoon: Robin Kay
Material published in this magazine must not be used for any form of advertising or sales promotion. Our reports are made without bias or prejudice and are as accurate as we can reasonably make them, but no liability is accepted for inadvertent errors.