CCT decision not honoured - clarification

I kindly ask you to feature a clarification about a case included in an article you carried on February 25 in which you featured a list of cases referred to the Consumer Claims Tribunal (CCT) and the traders did not honour the arbiter's decision.

One of the companies in question is A to Z TV Teleshopping. We would like to make it clear that this company is in no way connected with ours, namely A to Z Electronics Ltd.

While we thank you in advance for your attention in this matter we await your reply. (Charles Bonici Mompalao, managing director)

I have spoken to Mr Bonici Mompalao. I stress that the company that has not honoured the CCT arbiter's decision in question is A to Z TV Teleshopping, not A to Z Electronics Ltd. This is the relative arbiter's decision:

Mary Ann Grima vs A to Z TV Teleshopping

The decision on this case was made on August 31, 2006. On January 17, 2006, Mary Ann Grima bought five items, including a radio for Lm13. Subsequently it transpired that nothing worked. She asked A to Z TV Teleshopping to refund her the Lm13 she had paid.

However, rather than a refund, the staff at A to Z TV Teleshopping were only prepared to give her a credit note. Despite having been advised about the hearing, nobody from A to Z TV Teleshopping attended the hearing of the case.

The CCT arbiter accepted Ms Grima's claim and ordered A to Z TV Teleshopping to refund her Lm13 plus expenses.

I appeal to A to Z TV Teleshopping to abide by the arbiter's decision.