Page 3 of 4
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:30 pm
by Tony McC
Still no word from the BBC despite it being a fortnight since I submitted my "complaint". Anyone got any idea how long it normally takes then to issue a reply or even an acknowledgement?
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:33 pm
by seanandruby
Tony McC wrote:Still no word from the BBC despite it being a fortnight since I submitted my "complaint". Anyone got any idea how long it normally takes then to issue a reply or even an acknowledgement?
looked on the bbc complaints framework and nothing there, or in the editors blog. it is quite a detailed document for the complaints procedure and says they have to reply within four weeks.
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:51 pm
by lutonlagerlout
Tony McC wrote:Still no word from the BBC despite it being a fortnight since I submitted my "complaint". Anyone got any idea how long it normally takes then to issue a reply or even an acknowledgement?
have you checked your spam folder?
I get a lot of stuff picked up by mine that shouldnt be
LLL
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:07 pm
by Tony McC
I asked for a reply by email, and by post, so even if it had fallen into my fiendishly pathetic spam traps, the postie should have made it up the drive in one piece!
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:02 pm
by msh paving
Resend it to them Tony don't let them fob it off MSH 
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:15 pm
by Tony McC
As several Brew Cabin Irregulars have been on to me asking what response we had from the BBC, I thought I'd give a public update.
I wrote to them on March 20th and so far, the response has been..... bugger all!
So, I wrote to them again yesterday, and here's the text.....
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Rogue Traders inaccuracy
I originally wrote to you on March 20th 2009, and sent a copy by email, regarding the Rogue Traders programme broadcast on Monday, March 16th 2009.
To date, I have not had the courtesy of a reply or any form of acknowledgement. Several readers of my website have been contact to ask what response I had from the BBC regarding our industry’s concerns over the inaccurate and misleading comments made during the programme, and what steps would be taken to rectify the issue.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
...if they deign to provide me with a reply, I'll update this thread.
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 5:06 pm
by msh paving
send email to watchdog , that might liven things up MSH
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:33 pm
by Dave_L
Bet you'll get a "big fat nothing" for a reply Tony!
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:18 am
by piggy steve
Sorry, I know I am new to this but cant get the thought of dressing up in a bush!! out of my mind.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 5:22 am
by Simsy
Tony,
you may have found this, but assuming you addressed the original to the correct person, this is from the BBC website...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#reply
Regards,
Simsy
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:06 am
by Tony McC
I wasn't given a named person to contact: just told to send to the Complaints Unit in Glasgow.
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 7:45 pm
by Tony McC
While I've been away on me travels, the following email fell into my inbox on Wednesday May 13th....
Dear Mr McCormack
Thank you for your email and letter regarding the paving item on BBC Rogue Traders.
This is an update to let you know that I am dealing with your complaint but am waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before I reply more fully.
I'm sorry this is taking a little while; this is because the production team has disbanded and it has been tricky locating a member of the team who is able to assist us with your concerns. I hope to reply very soon.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Ewen
Complaints Coordinator
BBC Complaints
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:58 pm
by Tony McC
Here we go then, the long awaited reply. To be fair to the BBC, this was sent to me on June 4th 2009 but because I've been so busy, I never had the chance to post it.....
Dear McCormack
I'm no longer *Mr* McCormack, notice!
Thank you for your email and letter about the paving feature on Rogue Traders back in March.
Firstly, please accept my sincere apologies for the time it has taken to reply to your concerns. The programme has not been in production for several months and the production team have been working on other projects, sometimes filming overseas. It has therefore taken a while for those who worked on this particular feature to get back to me with the relevant information. However I am now in a position to respond to the points you raise.
Rogue Traders were made aware of a particular operator who was tarmacing over driveways in an illegal fashion and so we decided to employee him for a job, as is the usual premise of the show.
The intention was to raise awareness that legislation exists because we found many people are unaware of it. The legislation is quite complex and difficult to explain simply and accurately. That is why, within the established tone and approach of the programme, Matt Alwright the presenter used, in a tongue-in-cheek way, the phrase "slightly illegal." This is the transcript from the scene in question:
Matt - Ah, there we go. So you know the difference between these two don't you?
Dan - No, you tell me.
Matt - Yours needs planning permission.
Dan - This needs some planning permission.
Matt - Yours needs planning permission. This doesn't need planning permission mine. Lovely job. And not only that yours is legal, mine is slightly illegal.
Dan - What about this, is this illegal?
Matt - Oi, get away from me.
Commentary -
We're talking front garden legislation. So many people are paving over their gardens for parking it's causing a real flood danger. Now a new law says that paving must be permeable.
And that's the bit that is completely wrong. The new law says no such thing!
Matt - piece to camera -
Lovely, dry paving. All the water's gone through into the earth, making the flowers grow. Not into the drains. While over here, oh my goodness look at this. All this water and more would end up going into the drainage system making it difficult for it to cope. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Matt was inferring that what we were explaining in regard to permeable driveways was not necessarily straightforward. Our main aim was to inform the audience that there are rules and regulations and if this led to them seeking professional advice from reputable organisations, such as pavingexpert.com or other professional bodies, this is all for the better.
Driveways are usually at the front of a property (as was ours in the film) and although our expert acknowledges that planning permission is only needed if it is drained onto the public highway or into existing house drains he says "if you are avoiding the storm drains and the main road drains, then a soak-a-way is an option, however, a soak-a-way has to be at least 5m away from your house (Building regulations)." The majority of homes in Britain do not have a front garden in excess of 5 metres and furthermore a soakway is not always appropriate, for example on heavy London soil.
We acknowledge that we did not go into the full details of the legislation in the programme. In the time available for the item this would simply not have been possible. However, we did say that further information could be found on our website. From our website people were directed to links with further information. The programme did not go into all the detailed legislation relating to permeable vs. non-permeable paving but what is important is that we made the public aware such legislation exists.
With regard to the "Enfield facility" we used on the programme. We did not name, identify or credit the site we used, nor did they have any other undue prominence. We made a general point about permeable paving and did not endorse any single product.
We do not believe that the film and the information we gave would cause hardship to honest paving contractors. At the end of the day, an honest contractor will take the time to explain the complexities of the legislation and how it applies in any speicific case . A rogue trader will not.
We have noted your concerns and will take them into account if we ever feature this subject again.
However if you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit who will independently investigate your complaint. You can write to them at the following address:
Editorial Complaints Unit
BBC
Room 5168
White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
Alternatively you can email the Unit at the address: ******@bbc.co.uk. Please note that any complaints submitted via email must include your postal address as all responses will continue to be issued via letter.
Whether or not you choose to pursue your complaint with the ECU please be assured your further concerns have been registered.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Ewen
Complaints Coordinator
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
So: it's OK to be inaccurate and misleading as long as it is "tongue in cheek" or merely "inferring", and it's only natural to expect "honest contractors" to have to spend their valuable time explaining the real implications of the legislation to customers misled by this so-called piece of entertainment.
Imagine the scene: you roll up at a potential job and tell the client that they don't need planning permission and they don't need permeable paving because you can use one of the many workarounds. Now, who does the customer believe: some hairy-arsed contractor with mucky jeans and two-day's stubble because he doesn't have the luxury of a make-up dept to look after his personal grooming, or that nice man off the BBC?
Not sure why they make such a song-and-dance about the use of a certain manufacturer's display facilities at Enfield. At no time have I or anyone else said this was wrong; the point remains that the piece implied that the only suitable form of permeable paving is CBPP, because there was no mention of any of the many other formats that could be used. *That* was wrong, not the choice of location or benefaction of the site owner.
Their "expert" (who they don't name, but I know who he is and paving is not his primary area of expertise) claims that soak-a-ways, soakways or whatever the expert wants to call them, are not always suitable, but doesn't comment on other options such as swales or rain gardens. Nor does the expert comment on the fact that CBPP is, in effect, one huge soakaway with a bit of concrete paving on top of it. Strange that, innit?
At the end of the day, the program via its comedy presenters told the watching nation in no uncertain terms that only permeable paving was legal and that anything else was "slightly illegal". That is WRONG - this program presents itself as a paragon of virtue and best practice, but when they get it wrong, it doesn't really matter because it's "tongue in cheek". It's refreshing to know that our trade is held in such high esteem by the production company and their "expert".
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:18 pm
by henpecked
Bite the bullet ,Tony. Charge them through the nose 
Full suds install ,the lot!
Then wait for the phone call two weeks down the line, 'Err..you quoted for a job that I gave to some very reasonable 'European' builders. Can you come and put it right?'
It does make you look like a right client if you contradict Aunty Beeb. But a little knowledge cant be a dangerous (and expensive) thing.
Hp
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:44 pm
by worldofpaving
Absolutely HP, and that is what I find so bloody annoying about it - people watching believe implicitly in what they see on the Beeb, who are supposed to be public service broadcasters yet, apparently, do not appear to understand that with this power to influence millions of people comes responsibility, in this case for the potential loss of earnings of thousands of decent tradesmen.
Perhaps we should invite the programme makers and their expert to World of Paving to hold an open forum to discuss the program - would they have the balls - I wonder?
Best,
WOP