Consumer Claims Tribunal decisions not honoured

Maria Sammut vs Victor Galea, Coralline Stone Malta Ltd.

Yet again, we have not received any news as to whether Victor Galea, of Coralline Stone Malta Ltd, has honoured the Consumer Claims Tribunal (CCT) arbiter's decision. I appeal, yet again, to Mr Galea, to honour the CCT decision. I am in possession of a copy of the decision regarding Ms Maria Sammut's case.

As I have already explained, if Coralline Stone Malta Ltd do not honour this decision, I have no other option but to continue asking them to do so regularly in this column until they do. The decision, incidentally, was made on January 18, 2005 - one year and four months ago!

Christine Steege vs Miss Sixty

Christine Steege bought a pair of jeans from Miss Sixty and, since they did not fit her properly, she took them back. Rather than give her her money back, she was given a credit note (Lm22.95) with an expiry date.

When she went back to Miss Sixty to use it during a sale, she was informed that they had a policy whereby, during a sale, consumers are not allowed to pay with a credit note.

Subsequently, quite rightly I must add, Mrs Steege referred the case to the CCT.

On April 25, the CCT arbiter, after having heard both parties, accepted Mrs Steege's claim and ordered Miss Sixty to pay the claimant Lm6 plus expenses.

In the prevailing scenario, consumers who are in a similar situation as Ms Sammut and Mrs Steege are welcome to inform me and send me a copy of the CCT decision so that I can include them in the list of traders who do not honour the CCT arbiter's decision.

This list will be featured regularly in this column until the respective traders honour the arbiter's decision.

It is very important for consumers to know about traders who do not respect their customers and the CCT arbiter. In no uncertain terms, such traders do not deserve our custom.