The Association has recently received a number of complaints from consumers after they claimed to have been ripped off following an offer received through various leaflets (click here to see the various leaflets used up to now) which have been distributed to households.
Consumers are offered a discounted price, a 15 or 30 year guarantee and claiming to have years of experience. Initially the individual (or individuals) do project themselves as professionals and pretend to have an extremely busy schedule.
In one case a consumer was given a 30 year guarantee but there are no company details on the “certificate” so there is no traceability. In another case the consumer, after having paid, never received the receipt and guarantee (if it is of any value – click here to see a typical guarantee provided to us by a consumer).
Most important, in reported cases, when it rained consumers reported that water still leaked from the roof or else did not complete the work as agreed.
Another characteristic is that when consumers become aware of what happened it is useless trying to contact this individual (or individuals) afterwards as it will be impossible to get them back to fix the roof. These individuals (or individual) feign to either forget, confuse places or else disassociate themselves from each other.
From the various leaflets it seems that this individual/these individuals use various contacts, such as: :firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
They also use a variety of mobile numbers such as 79832609; 79832575; 99583339
Consumers also passed on to us a number of decisions issued by the Consumer Claims Tribunal. You may read through them below (they provide some interesting reading):
Case Number Date Decision Published Parties
CCT 507/09 July 2010 Ivan Abela vs Marphil Gauci
CCT 562/09 July 2010 Simon and Ruth Cassar vs Charlot k/a Carmel Gauci and Marphil Gauci
CCT 212/10 November 2010 Suzanne Vella vs Marphil Gauci
The Consumers’ Association has written to the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority on the 27th November 2011 and 2nd December 2011 to verify whether the above three decisions have been honoured by the defendants, that is, if the consumers concerned got their money back. Up to now the Authority has not provided any reply. However, the Association managed to get in touch with Ms Suzanne Vella who confirmed that to date, she did not get her money back despite the Tribunal’s decision.
Consumers who fell victim to this are encouraged to approach the Association