StopECG, reproduction of letter sent by the ECG to MEPs

StopECG is implacably opposed to all companies that mail documents that they claim to be legally binding contracts where the document is formulated in such a way as to make it possible that people will sign it in error.

DISCLAIMER This website is in no way affiliated or assoaciated with the European City Guide (ECG).
StopECG is not responsible for the content below which was forwarded by an MEP to their constitient and is attributed to the ECG. StopECG is also not responsible for the content of external sites which we link to. The Letter and ECG contracts below are reproduced under terms of 'Fair Use' in that the ECG is distributing them in order to canvass support.

Page created 15th Dec 2008, Last Updated 16th Dec 2008

The letter below is reproduced in a form as close to the original text as possible. It was sent to a constituent by an MEP who had received it and it appears to originate with the ECG. Where a letter (^{A, B, C}) is placed next to the text you can click to see StopECG’s comments on the message

Please find attatched the following documents: position, contract.

Dear Mr./Madam,

We are writing to you in relation to a report by Mr. Busuttil -a Member of the Committee of Petitions-, on misleading advertising referring to European City Guide (ECG), a Spanish company, which has been operating for more than 15 years and employing more than 40 people on a permanent basis.

As you may know, this report is provisionally scheduled for vote during the Parliament’s plenary session of the week of 12 January 2009.
ECG considers that this report is unfair; it does not offer a contrasted version (ECG was never consulted)^A and ignores evidence provided by the European Commission^B on the compliance of ECG’s activity with the requirements by the relevant national authorities of the countries where it operates.
Indeed, in the response provided in 8 September 2006 by Commissioner Mr Kyprianou on behalf of the Commission to the Written Question E-2788/06 tabled by Pronissias de Rossa, the Commissioner states “the Directorate-General for Commerce and Consumer Protection (la Dirección General de Comercio y Consumo) of the Generalitat Valenciana negotiated several improvements from European City Guide:
— In the new contract model, which apparently has been used since February 2005, the price of the order appears in bold characters, and, on the back of the form, there is a reference to the right to cancel the order within seven days¹
. — A so-called ‘Defensor del cliente’ (Ombudsman) was created on 1 January 2005. The ‘Defensor del cliente’ is a lawyer whose role is to deal with future complaints within three months. According to the ECG’s website, his decisions are binding on the ECG.
— A code of conduct has been published on the ECG's website in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. Amongst other things, it sets out the possibility to rescind the contract on a case-by-case basis after the seven-day period has expired.
In addition, the Valencian authority obtained a commitment by the ECG to examine a number of complaints lodged since 2003.
Having regard to these steps taken by the ECG, the Valencian “Dirección General de Comercio y Consumo” no longer deals with complaints, referring businesses which have not been able to resolve their dispute with the ECG to the courts. ^C
(1 The current cancelling period has been extended to 15 days)

This clearly states that since the first complaints were raised, ECG has made significant improvements in its order form and its service to clients, improvements that have been negotiated upon and approved by national authorities and in place since at least 4 years^D.

It was also found that some complaints related to other companies have been mistakenly attributed to ECG, which proofs once again the lack of contrast and verification of the information contained in this parliamentary report. ^E
Therefore, ECG calls for the modification of Mr Busutill’s report in order to admit at least that it has been verified that ECG has made significant improvements in its order form in order to avoid further complaints, having the approval of the relevant national authorities.^F
ECG wants to underline that it is not opposed to Mr Busuttil’s proposals for a better protection of SMEs against misleading advertising. Contrarily, ECG is just calling for the Parliament to recognize its efforts to comply with the requirements from the authorities in all the countries in which it operates.
As a proof of our good will and disposal for cooperation and dialogue with the European Parliament, ECG puts at your disposal the order form currently used, for your consideration. So that you can therefore verify by yourself if our business practices can be considered as misleading, or –as the relevant national authorities have verified- they comply with the existing legal requirements (please, see document attached).
We therefore call for your support for the modification of Mr. Busuttil’s report in the terms we demand (please, see document attached).
We continue at your disposal for any additional information you might require.
Yours faithfully,

Francisco López Peláez

StopECG Comments
A
to claim that the ECG was never consulted is an outright lie! Director Francisco López Peláez attended a Session in person to defend the ECG StopECG hopes ECG will not attempt to mislead MEPs in this manner.

B
The ECG states that evidence from the commission was ignored, this is not the case, the 2006 report was discussed by the petitions committee however the report finds that member states are failing See page 4, point 4. Regrets that, despite the widespread nature of these practices, EU and national legislation does not appear to be adequate in providing an effective remedy or is not being adequately enforced at national level; regrets that national authorities also seem to be unable to provide a remedy.
I.e. The report finds that the response of the authorities in Valencia has been inadequate.

Because the letter from Commissioner Kyprianou is not mentioned directly does not mean it was not discussed, in fact stopECG is not mentioned by name in the report.

C
The ECG lay out in some detail their defence that the Authorities in Valencia are satisfied, however thousands of people continue to sign the ECGs contracts in error and the position of the Valencian “Dirección General de Comercio y Consumo” is untenable in that they appear to have washed their hands of the situation when it remains clear that there is a major problem. The independence of the ‘Defensor del cliente’ (Ombudsman) cannot be verified and consequently most organisations in dispute with the ECG do not use it. The report could not be clearer on this.

Page 12 Paragraph 5 In Spain, one of the most mentioned business directory companies, the European City Guide, was fined three times by the Generalitat de Cataluna when it was based in Barcelona and its temporary closure for one year was ordered. It eventually moved to Valencia where it now continues to operate under somewhat stricter conditions. For instance, victims are now informed of their right to cancel the order within seven days. However, they normally only become aware of what they truly signed up to after this period has lapsed. A so-called “Defensor del cliente” (ombudsman) was also set up by the company to receive complaint from clients. However, this office does not appear to be independent from the businessdirectory company itself and therefore does not inspire sufficient confidence. Your rapporteur therefore feels that this business-directory company has not done enough to ensure that its prospective clients are not misled into signing an advertising contract that they never wanted.

D
The ECG states that it has made “Significant” improvements in its order form and its service to clients. These changes are actually outlined in the section above. I.e. the price of the order appears in bold characters, and, on the back of the form, there is a reference to the right to cancel the order within seven days. Hardly Significant.

The basic layout is unchanged, with the innocuous looking preamble and the actual cost hidden in dense small print at the bottom, this is the so called Ludenbach style of form used by many similar guides and the ECG has had numerous opportunities to move away from this misleading layout, the ECG has even suffered a conviction for fraud based on this very layout! The fact that they put the 15 day cancellation on the reverse is irrelevant, because the fine grey print on the reverse is missed by most who sign the forms (Indeed nearly all do not realize that there is a counterfoil and return the whole thing) so they do not become aware of the implied cost until the ECG sends a proof (Invariably long after the 15 days has expired)

StopECG feels that the Authorities in Valencia have played into the hands of the ECG by requesting minor, ineffectual alterations to the form and that a precedent should be set that a form is misleading if sufficient numbers of people are signing it in error. The weak response of the authorities in Valencia to the ECG provides perhaps the strongest argument for a Europe wide solution, why should residfents of over 20 countries pay for the bad governance of a single region of Spain

E
The ECG claims It was also found that some complaints related to other companies have been mistakenly attributed to ECG, which proofs once again the lack of contrast and verification of the information contained in this parliamentary report. (The spelling mistake is in the original documnant).

StopECG accepts that some petitions were placed in the name of the ECG by individuals affected by other guides however to claim that this proves a lack of contrast and verification is a direct slur on the Rapporteur. In Fact Mr. Busuttil directly addresses the matter on page 4, point H. whereas most petitioners name the business directory known as “European City Guide”,which is based in Valencia, Spain, but other business-directory companies such as “Construct Data Verlag”, “Deutscher Adressdienst GmbH” and “NovaChannel” are also mentioned, whereas, however, other business-directory companies engage in legitimate business practices. Perhaps staff at the ECG should actually read the report before making such accusations!

F
The claim "having the approval of the relevant national authorities" can be considered misleading for 2 reasons

As far as StopECG is aware these changes were not negotiated as the ECG states with "National Authorities", rather with the regional authoritiy in Valencia. In another region of Spain (Catalonia) the ECG was convicted and forced to close.
While the ECG operates with imugnity from Valencia it has suffered sanction in several states in which it operates, it does not have the sanction of the relevant national authorites

Files
The attached files are reproduced exactly as mailed by the ECG, it is not known why they sent to copies of the form. There is one word doc and 4 images.
The Word doc