Talk:Office of Fair Trading

Untitled
There's nothing about the OFT's lack of action on Microsoft, one of the biggest cases of anti-competitive practises since the OFT's founding, and their failure to even admit the problem exists.

The OFT is not taking action on Microsoft as the matter is being dealt with on a European level by the European Commission - Cuddlyopedia, 14 April 2006.

The United Kingdom is an independant country. The EU law does allow the OFT to take action. The reason which you gave could be stated as the reason the OFT officially gives, with the real reason stated as well, which is New Labour's support for Bill Gates and Microsoft.

Cleanup
The article lacks references - especially the Microsoft section where POV is an issue. --Mereda 15:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Microsoft section could be more NPOV, but the page should still have it.

The OFT have rewritten the entry about themselves to remove any facts that critise them, this is unacceptable so the changes have been reversed.

This page (and especially the microsoft section) reads like some nutter's personal vendetta agains the OFT. Surely it should be improved?

inacuracys surrounding article 81 and 82 refrecence before you quote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.170.4 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Support Xn4  ( talk ) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update for accuracy
I work at the OFT and have cleared up some simple factual inaccuracies and out of date information. However no criticisms or other information has been removed! I have also not sought to add further up to date examples of cases undertaken which show the impact of the OFT across sectors(though I think there are many).

The changes made for accuracy outlined below fully.

Role: I have added a fuller explanation here. I took out this bit ('As far as business conducting is concerned, studies cover some government laws and regulations to ensure a competitive environment') as did not think I can don't make sense of it. I have added some very basic information providing more up to date information on what the OFT does following a restructure a few years ago. This short addition is sourced from the OFT’s most recent annual plan: ‘The majority of the OFT’s work consists of analysing markets, enforcing consumer and competition law, merger control, licensing and supervisory work (consumer credit, estate agency, anti-money laundering supervision), advocacy, delivering information and education programmes and campaigns to business and consumers and delivering advice to consumers through Consumer Direct.’ http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/about_oft/ap11/oft1215.pdf

Structure: I have cut out the first two paragraphs which are out of date – mentioning an old OFT structure. I have left in the final two paragraphs which is up to date on the current structure and shorter! (http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/structure/).

I have removed that the OFT is situated next to the Press Complaints Commission (they've moved!).

Reputation: I changed the the last line as it is inaccurate and misleading ('the OFT claimed direct savings to consumers worth £77m; the OFT costs for the same year were £78m'). This is based only on savings from competition work only, whereas the NAO report which this is based said it was based on competition work and market studies; so in fact direct savings were £175million on two areas; the OFT costs for these two areas [competition work and market studies] is in fact £26million [evidence for this from NAO report p.5 from this cited below]. So the full NAO study says:

'Based on prudent assumptions developed using academic evidence and international best practice, and case officers’ knowledge, the OFT estimated the average saving from its competition enforcement work is £77 million each year. Based on assumptions of what is likely to happen following the implementation of the OFT’s recommendations, it estimated that market studies work had saved consumers £98 million in 2007-08.'

'The OFT spent approximately £26 million (around 33 per cent) of its £78 million expenditure in 2007-08 on its competition enforcement work (£18 million) and market studies (£8 million).' (p5) So changing the para purely to be accurate about the NAO's report which is cited I have changed to the following: 'The National Audit Office issued a report in March 2009 on the OFT's competition enforcement work,[5] which indicated progress in 7 out of 10 objectives, but also concluded: ...So whilst the OFT has improved the value for money it provides, there remains scope for further improvement. According to the same report, in 2007-08 the OFT estimated that its competition enforcement work led to direct savings to consumers worth £77m per year and that its market studies work had saved consumers £98m in 2007-08 (p13); the OFT costs for these areas of work in the same year were approximately £26 million of its £78m expenditure in 2007-08 (p5).'

Board: Some board members have left and others joined so changed this. The factual information is here http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/structure/board/

Jonathan --Marciano1111 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Office of Fair Trading