Boooo!
The continuing Decline of
Which?
The story so far...
Which? - once called the Consumers' Association - used to be the standard bearer for consumer protection. Sadly, things went South under the previous CEO.
The problems started when the CEO decided that running a company based on a Charity was a real pain, particularly as it needed Trustees who kept asking awkward questions.
The answer was to slowly erode the power of the trustees
1, In regard to the underhanded change of the terms and conditions prior to sending out the email service termination notice our legal advice is "𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝."
2. We wondered if Which had breached its contract, and our legal advice is: 𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐟𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐯𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 ..….. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞...𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝..., 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝.”
3. "𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡? 𝐢𝐟 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠"
Given the above advice we have examined whether a class action might be possible. Again, Legal advice is
"𝐈 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝."
Our next step, therefore, is to ask as many aggrieved users as possible to write letters to Which? which requires several points to be addressed. All the major points are listed in the posts preceding this one, but we need to inundate Which with letters and these can then be sent on to our legal team who may well be able to make a case for a class action.
1, In regard to the underhanded change of the terms and conditions prior to sending out the email service termination notice our legal advice is "𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝."
2. We wondered if Which had breached its contract, and our legal advice is: 𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐟𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐯𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 ..….. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞...𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝..., 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝.”
3. "𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡? 𝐢𝐟 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠"
Given the above advice we have examined whether a class action might be possible. Again, Legal advice is
"𝐈 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝."
Our next step, therefore, is to ask as many aggrieved users as possible to write letters to Which? which requires several points to be addressed. All the major points are listed in the posts preceding this one, but we need to inundate Which with letters and these can then be sent on to our legal team who may well be able to make a case for a class action.
And back to the studio...
The latest episode to damage the reputation of the once mighty Consumers' Association occurred on the 28th March 2018, when the loyal subscribers who'd originally signed up for the Which.net ISP, forum and email service in 1995/6 were abruptly informed it was being closed within a matter of a few weeks.
The powers that be in Which? had made no provision for closure when the original subscribers joined, a problem they cunningly solved by altering the Terms and Conditions of Which.net the day before the email was sent out.
As an organisation that's supposed to protect the consumer they didn't do so well with the consultation process, either; they didn't do one. Instead they tried to spin things by telling members that "The which.net service is now increasingly out of date and risks not being fit for purpose. We are mindful that keeping a service that is of the standard you'd expect from Which? will require major resource investment, not least to ensure your data is kept safe in an increasingly complex environment. And we cannot justify this as part of our overall mission to empower consumers.". In other words, we can't afford it.
Of course, had they simply maintained the system as time went on it would have been fine, but they chose not to spend any money on keeping it in shape. The CEO, Peter Vicary-Smith, has attempted to get rid of the service before, and made no secret of the fact that having it at all was a real nuisance. So why was no money spent? Read on...
Which?'s decision
to close the email service on which so many of its longest-serving members have depended for 22 years has encountered strong opposition. Many of us have been concerned that the process of changing email addresses is hard enough for the computer literate and able bodied, but many long-time Which? members are elderly, infirm and disabled.
On 8th April, this post was made in a topic in Which?'s own Conversations site:
Jonathan xxx says:Today 17:50
To the Most Senior Management at the Consumer Association,
I have just received your letter advising me that your closing the which.net service.
I am a totally dependent paralysed man, who is been using my which email address to advertise for my carers ever since you issued email addresses. This is not a business, I do not make any money from it! You have no idea how much work you are giving me, as I can only type with a mouse stick!
I have been a great fan of the Consumer Association and have continuously received your publications since 1978.
You now are requiring me to do a colossal amount of work within just 6 weeks, to advise literally hundreds of people across Europe that my email address is having to change. All my advertising, has gone out with my which email address on! It’s going to cost me hundreds of pounds to perform the exercise again! If you are giving us 6 months notice then I would have a chance to do what you are forcing me to have to do! If you do not extend the notice, then I will cancel all my various subscription items with you and take every opportunity to point out to friends and relatives and other contacts that your organisation cannot be trusted!
You are supposed to be a champion of consumers, setting a benchmark for companies and organisations, but the lack of notice you are giving is frankly irresponsible!
Yours faithfully,
Jonathan xxx”
Link to the original message
There are clearly major problems in the ability of the Which? top management to empathise with their members.
On 8th April, this post was made in a topic in Which?'s own Conversations site:
Jonathan xxx says:Today 17:50
To the Most Senior Management at the Consumer Association,
I have just received your letter advising me that your closing the which.net service.
I am a totally dependent paralysed man, who is been using my which email address to advertise for my carers ever since you issued email addresses. This is not a business, I do not make any money from it! You have no idea how much work you are giving me, as I can only type with a mouse stick!
I have been a great fan of the Consumer Association and have continuously received your publications since 1978.
You now are requiring me to do a colossal amount of work within just 6 weeks, to advise literally hundreds of people across Europe that my email address is having to change. All my advertising, has gone out with my which email address on! It’s going to cost me hundreds of pounds to perform the exercise again! If you are giving us 6 months notice then I would have a chance to do what you are forcing me to have to do! If you do not extend the notice, then I will cancel all my various subscription items with you and take every opportunity to point out to friends and relatives and other contacts that your organisation cannot be trusted!
You are supposed to be a champion of consumers, setting a benchmark for companies and organisations, but the lack of notice you are giving is frankly irresponsible!
Yours faithfully,
Jonathan xxx”
Link to the original message
There are clearly major problems in the ability of the Which? top management to empathise with their members.
Which?
has a curious attitude towards money - especially for a Consumer Advocate. On their landing page on their main site, they proclaim "We’re your consumer champion", which is slightly odd, given their recent behaviour towards their own consumers. And in a letter to a member, they stated "As you may know, Which? is a not-for-profit organisation and the only income we receive is the regular subscription payments from our members." Notwithstanding that this is not actually true, you'd expect a Charity that depended for almost all its income on membership subscriptions to be very prudent with managing its business aspects. It seems not.
Between 2004 - the year the current CEO took office - and 2018, the charity has managed to lose the somewhat eye-watering amount of £33m. Between 2010 and 2016 Which? Financial services managed to lose more than £21m. A great deal of that was money wasted in trying to start an Indian version of Which? But another venture was the Which? Mortgage Service, which has contrived to lose millions during its operation.
Some argue that's the nature of business; risk brings rewards, but Which? is a Charity which claims all its income comes from subscribers - the same subscribers who now stand to lose the email services, the cost of restoring which comes to a tiny fragment of what the Charity has lost over the years.
As if that wasn't enough, it was then thought to be a wonderful idea to devise the LTIP - which managed to reward four employees to the tune of more than £2.4m in bonuses - all while the Charity was continuing to lose money.
Add to this that their HQ is not only in one of the more expensive districts of London, but that they've just added another storey to the place, and it's easy to see what money was being wasted - which the newly designed and created roof garden did nothing to change.
In summary, while the elderly, often infirm and disabled long term subscribers to the Charity were having their valued email service whipped off them and their Which? Legal fees increased, Which? itself was enjoying cash bonuses and roof gardens..
Between 2004 - the year the current CEO took office - and 2018, the charity has managed to lose the somewhat eye-watering amount of £33m. Between 2010 and 2016 Which? Financial services managed to lose more than £21m. A great deal of that was money wasted in trying to start an Indian version of Which? But another venture was the Which? Mortgage Service, which has contrived to lose millions during its operation.
Some argue that's the nature of business; risk brings rewards, but Which? is a Charity which claims all its income comes from subscribers - the same subscribers who now stand to lose the email services, the cost of restoring which comes to a tiny fragment of what the Charity has lost over the years.
As if that wasn't enough, it was then thought to be a wonderful idea to devise the LTIP - which managed to reward four employees to the tune of more than £2.4m in bonuses - all while the Charity was continuing to lose money.
Add to this that their HQ is not only in one of the more expensive districts of London, but that they've just added another storey to the place, and it's easy to see what money was being wasted - which the newly designed and created roof garden did nothing to change.
In summary, while the elderly, often infirm and disabled long term subscribers to the Charity were having their valued email service whipped off them and their Which? Legal fees increased, Which? itself was enjoying cash bonuses and roof gardens..
According to Which? they'e now considering auto-forwarding of emails. This would, of course, be for only a limited time but it does raise an interesting question.
The original reasoning for closing the service was the need for compliance with the new GDPR, coming into force on the 25th May. But if they can forward emails after that date they could do it in perpetuity, so why hasn't that option been offered well before now? And given the negative publicity this thoughtless and nasty decision has incurred, why do they not grasp the nettle and reverse the entire, badly thought-through decision?
The original reasoning for closing the service was the need for compliance with the new GDPR, coming into force on the 25th May. But if they can forward emails after that date they could do it in perpetuity, so why hasn't that option been offered well before now? And given the negative publicity this thoughtless and nasty decision has incurred, why do they not grasp the nettle and reverse the entire, badly thought-through decision?
Things
weren’t always as bad as they have become. Which? was once driven by compassion, empathy and commitment. There are signs that those qualities still exist in pockets, but they’ve been quarantined by the drive of the current top management to make money through business ventures - and it has to be said Which?’s track record isn’t inspiring.
Soon after the start of the current CEO’s tenure, Which was granted Super Complainer status - which gives Which? the power to make super-complaints to a number of government agencies about markets that are failing consumers.
Thereafter things started to change. In the magazines, there was criticism that the reports were becoming more simplistic and lacked rigour. But what was not generally known was that Which? had got rid of its own testing facilities. Which now uses ‘independent labs’ to do its tests but is secretive about which labs are involved and, in the magazines, refers to them as ‘our labs’ and ‘when we test…’.
There was disquiet about removing all the testing facilities from Which? among the elected Council, and it’s the Council, at that time elected by Ordinary members, that bears some scrutiny.
The Council
Described as ‘overseeing the Consumers’ Association’, elections to the council of 12 used to be by Ordinary members' voting only; to become an Ordinary member required a little effort until the CEO, in conjunction with Patrick Barwise, the Council Chair, proposed changes so that any subscriber of more than a year could vote. Although this split the council it passed - as any student of Sociology could have predicted. This, of course, had the effect of diluting the power of the vote of those members who cared sufficiently to become Ordinary Members - a position which entitled them to the reports and accounts. Curiously, it somehow never occurred to the CEO that if anyone could vote but only Ordinary members could see the annual reports and accounts the votes of those who had the essential information could easily be overwhelmed by those who knew only what the CEO chose to tell them; the membership, who are informed, are now outvoted 100 to 1 by those who lack essential information.
But more was to follow: the rules allowed a small sub-committee the power to disallow candidates if the total standing exceeded a certain number. In the history of the council elections, it had never had to be used but (and perhaps unsurprisingly given the issues being noticed) a very large number of candidates suddenly appeared to put their names forward for election. In the words of a seasoned Which? watcher “Once they filtered out candidates for Council elections, then the CA rulers became a self-perpetuating oligarchy.”
This may all have been part of a long term plan: First dilute the effect of the Ordinary (read: better informed) members by making it possible for anyone to vote in council elections. Secondly, reduce the council membership. But what would happen when the ratio of elected council members to co-opted members changed?
Problems...
The real issue emerges when you consider that the Council is comprised of elected members and co-opted members. The co-opted members are co-opted by the CEO, in effect, but they should never be in the majority, under the constitution. But then the third aspect of the plan takes effect: reduction in tenure of elected councillors. By forcing councillors to leave as they're starting to understand how things work, you further weaken the elected body by denying it the benefits of accrued experience. Finally, it's possible to arrange to field a lot of candidates, many of whom might well be known to the CEO. If there are a lot of them, then the tiny subcommittee can determine who's allowed to let their names go forward.
Skullduggery
Patrick (Paddy) Barwise was the chair of the Which? council for many years. In May 2009, this gentleman was one of two founders of newly formed Verve. At roughly the same time, Which? began using Verve to put out surveys to its members. As was observed at the time “the Verve Partners firm came into existence in 2009 with PB (Patrick (Paddy) Barwise) as an owner and shareholder and then nets a rather high profile customer within two months.”.
Even from a completely objective viewpoint, it does seem as though the CA was being steered towards a commercial entity which benefited the few and away from the original charitable aspiration.
Soon after the start of the current CEO’s tenure, Which was granted Super Complainer status - which gives Which? the power to make super-complaints to a number of government agencies about markets that are failing consumers.
Thereafter things started to change. In the magazines, there was criticism that the reports were becoming more simplistic and lacked rigour. But what was not generally known was that Which? had got rid of its own testing facilities. Which now uses ‘independent labs’ to do its tests but is secretive about which labs are involved and, in the magazines, refers to them as ‘our labs’ and ‘when we test…’.
There was disquiet about removing all the testing facilities from Which? among the elected Council, and it’s the Council, at that time elected by Ordinary members, that bears some scrutiny.
The Council
Described as ‘overseeing the Consumers’ Association’, elections to the council of 12 used to be by Ordinary members' voting only; to become an Ordinary member required a little effort until the CEO, in conjunction with Patrick Barwise, the Council Chair, proposed changes so that any subscriber of more than a year could vote. Although this split the council it passed - as any student of Sociology could have predicted. This, of course, had the effect of diluting the power of the vote of those members who cared sufficiently to become Ordinary Members - a position which entitled them to the reports and accounts. Curiously, it somehow never occurred to the CEO that if anyone could vote but only Ordinary members could see the annual reports and accounts the votes of those who had the essential information could easily be overwhelmed by those who knew only what the CEO chose to tell them; the membership, who are informed, are now outvoted 100 to 1 by those who lack essential information.
But more was to follow: the rules allowed a small sub-committee the power to disallow candidates if the total standing exceeded a certain number. In the history of the council elections, it had never had to be used but (and perhaps unsurprisingly given the issues being noticed) a very large number of candidates suddenly appeared to put their names forward for election. In the words of a seasoned Which? watcher “Once they filtered out candidates for Council elections, then the CA rulers became a self-perpetuating oligarchy.”
This may all have been part of a long term plan: First dilute the effect of the Ordinary (read: better informed) members by making it possible for anyone to vote in council elections. Secondly, reduce the council membership. But what would happen when the ratio of elected council members to co-opted members changed?
Problems...
The real issue emerges when you consider that the Council is comprised of elected members and co-opted members. The co-opted members are co-opted by the CEO, in effect, but they should never be in the majority, under the constitution. But then the third aspect of the plan takes effect: reduction in tenure of elected councillors. By forcing councillors to leave as they're starting to understand how things work, you further weaken the elected body by denying it the benefits of accrued experience. Finally, it's possible to arrange to field a lot of candidates, many of whom might well be known to the CEO. If there are a lot of them, then the tiny subcommittee can determine who's allowed to let their names go forward.
Skullduggery
Patrick (Paddy) Barwise was the chair of the Which? council for many years. In May 2009, this gentleman was one of two founders of newly formed Verve. At roughly the same time, Which? began using Verve to put out surveys to its members. As was observed at the time “the Verve Partners firm came into existence in 2009 with PB (Patrick (Paddy) Barwise) as an owner and shareholder and then nets a rather high profile customer within two months.”.
Even from a completely objective viewpoint, it does seem as though the CA was being steered towards a commercial entity which benefited the few and away from the original charitable aspiration.
What now?
- There's no doubt that Which? has faced difficulties, primarily falling membership and rising costs but even the most disinterested of observers could be forced to conclude that the organisation has lost its way. Despite the mainstream press affording Which? a greater latitude than many similar organisations, a Charity that claims to be devoted to consumers, yet treats those same consumers so poorly has questions to answer. A brief recap on the timeline:
- 2004 Peter Vicary-Smith is appointed as the new CEO. The organisation is ‘rebranded’ and all mention of Consumers’ Associ ation is removed from all publications and the web site. Anglia Business Associates is sold at a loss of £65,000. Which? is granted official super-complaint powers by the Department of Trade and Industry
- 2005 Constitution amended so all magazine subscribers become eligible to vote by default. This eliminates the need for them to apply for the right to vote in Council elections whilst simultaneously increasing the likelihood of inertia voting. It also ensures that the substantial majority of those electing Council members are doing so largely uninformed, without seeing AGM minutes or the general report and accounts, which are the preserve of Ordinary members.
- 2007: The AGM, previously held on Saturdays, is now moved to a Weekday, severely limiting the ability of working members to attend.
- 2008: The Constitution is amendedso no council member can serve for more than 9 years without having to leave for a period. This, of course, doesn't apply to the CEO and senior executives.
- 2010 Which? announces the closure of its once pioneering online forum.
- 2012: Constitution amendedto reduce the number of directly elected Council members by 25%
- 2014: A councillor offers to stand for council again, having earlier been forced to stand down after nine years' service. He is informed his name will not be allowed to stand as there are too many candidates. A record number of candidates appears.
- 2015: In response to pressure Which opens the 'Which Community Forum' and goes for a 'soft launch' in which the opening is rolled out gradually to 'selected' members. Naturally, this results in an almost deserted forum.
The Timeline above we believe reveals a pattern, one of gradually shifting control from the elected council towards the non-elected, usually business-oriented Which? Ltd. The diagram below shows how Which? is organised. As can be seen, between them Which? Ltd and Which? Financial services effectively control Which? as an organisation, but both are theoretically responsible to the Consumers' Association Council.
That sounds okay, until you remember that the small changes made over the years have allowed for an increasingly greater number of non-elected or co-opted members to sit on that Council. The situation has arisen, now, where the co-opted members can carry the day against the elected members, as they can outnumber them.
Is this healthy or even right?
That sounds okay, until you remember that the small changes made over the years have allowed for an increasingly greater number of non-elected or co-opted members to sit on that Council. The situation has arisen, now, where the co-opted members can carry the day against the elected members, as they can outnumber them.
Is this healthy or even right?
When an organisation such as the once mighty Which? starts behaving as dishonestly and erratically as it now seems to be, it can pay to look at the leadership.
Sukhvinder Obhi, a neuroscientist at McMaster University, in Ontario, studies brains. And when he put the heads of the powerful and the not-so-powerful under a transcranial-magnetic-stimulation machine, he found that power, in fact, impairs a specific neural process, “mirroring,” that may be a cornerstone of empathy. Dacher Keltner, writing in the Harvard Business Review says “In the behavioural research I’ve conducted over the past 20 years, I’ve uncovered a disturbing pattern: While people usually gain power through traits and actions that advance the interests of others, such as empathy, collaboration, openness, fairness, and sharing; when they start to feel powerful or enjoy a position of privilege, those qualities begin to fade. The powerful are more likely than other people to engage in rude, selfish, and unethical behavior. The 19th-century historian and politician Lord Acton got it right: Power does tend to corrupt.”
This is what Keltner has termed the “power paradox”: Once we have power, we lose some of the capacities we needed to gain it in the first place.
Perhaps it’s not a good idea to stay in post as a leader for more than - say, nine years?
Lord David Owen, a once eminent neurologist, coined the term “Hubris syndrome,” as he and a co-author, Jonathan Davidson, defined it in a 2009 article published in Brain. “Hubris syndrome is a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader.” Its clinical features include: manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence.
Sukhvinder Obhi, a neuroscientist at McMaster University, in Ontario, studies brains. And when he put the heads of the powerful and the not-so-powerful under a transcranial-magnetic-stimulation machine, he found that power, in fact, impairs a specific neural process, “mirroring,” that may be a cornerstone of empathy. Dacher Keltner, writing in the Harvard Business Review says “In the behavioural research I’ve conducted over the past 20 years, I’ve uncovered a disturbing pattern: While people usually gain power through traits and actions that advance the interests of others, such as empathy, collaboration, openness, fairness, and sharing; when they start to feel powerful or enjoy a position of privilege, those qualities begin to fade. The powerful are more likely than other people to engage in rude, selfish, and unethical behavior. The 19th-century historian and politician Lord Acton got it right: Power does tend to corrupt.”
This is what Keltner has termed the “power paradox”: Once we have power, we lose some of the capacities we needed to gain it in the first place.
Perhaps it’s not a good idea to stay in post as a leader for more than - say, nine years?
Lord David Owen, a once eminent neurologist, coined the term “Hubris syndrome,” as he and a co-author, Jonathan Davidson, defined it in a 2009 article published in Brain. “Hubris syndrome is a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader.” Its clinical features include: manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence.
We have started a new Facebook site called QROWN: Quickly Return Our Which Net. Click on the button to find the site.
New Paragraph
All the information on this site has been gleaned from the Consumers' Association Annual Reports, Accounts , the records of resolutions and Companies House.
