Consumer Claims Tribunal decisions not honoured

Yet again we have to name traders who do not honour the decissions taken by the arbiter of the Consumer Claims Tribunal (CCT), Dr Martin Fenech. These traders do not deserve our custom.

So, if you have referred a case to the CCT, a decision was made by the arbiter in your favour, and the trader refuses to honour the arbiter's decision, write to me and send me a copy of the decision.

On my part I will add the respective cases to our current list of CCT decisions not honoured, featured below:

Simone Calaio vs Mr Jones of Cecile Boutique

The decision was made on September 6, 2005. The CCT arbiter accepted Ms Calaio's claim and ordered Cecile Boutique to pay her Lm30.

I appeal to Mr Jones, owner of Cecile Boutique, to pay Ms Calaio the Lm30.

Josephine Attard vs Sandro Bianchi of Flexi Marketing Ltd

The decision was made on June 9, 2005. The CCT arbiter accepted Mrs Attard's claim and ordered Mr Bianchi to pay her Lm400, and Lm50 as moral damages plus expenses against Flexi Marketing Ltd.

I appeal to Mr Bianchi of Flexi Marketing Ltd to honour the CCT arbiter's decision.

Mary A. Smith vs C. Gauci - Waterproofing

The decision was made on January 11, 2005. The CCT arbiter accepted Ms Smith's claim and ordered C. Gauci - WaterProofing to pay her Lm800 plus expenses. In line with our policy, we will continue asking C. Gauci - Waterproofing to honour the CCT decision.

Emanuela and Saviour Brincat vs Radamatic Ltd

The decision was made on August 31. The CCT Arbiter partially accepted Emanuela and Saviour Brincat's claim and ordered Radamatic Ltd to pay them Lm500 plus expenses.

Finally, if any of these traders honour their CCT decision, I appeal to the consumers concerned to inform me.