dodgy ebay buy

[JohnW2]

Unfortunately and unlike some other EU countries, the UK is very lax about enforcing the CE marking regulations, so many market traders and other low-cost sellers really believe that they can import anything as long as it has a CE mark. ... The products were clearly unsafe, so I asked to see a copy of the Declaration of Conformity. He didn't know what I was talking about ...

I do not doubt that such is very common in the UK.

I should perhaps explain why I have been saying some things which may appear 'defensive'. Some of the comments made in this thread hit some of my nerves in terms of prejudice/discrimination (already mentioned as 'jumping to conclusions'). Although all the suspicions may well all be correct, to immediately start suggesting, without much concrete evidence, that products are very low quality and the CE-marking probably 'fraudulent', essentially just because the manufacturer is Chinese does not go down very well with me. If I were 'jumping to conclusions' about an individual just because (s)he was Chinese, I would be rightly criticised, and I think the same essentially should apply to bodies corporate - unless/until there is hard 'evidence' against them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

John, you're missing the point. There is ample indication that the CE marking is incorrect since a) 100% of the sample has a dangerous fault, b) the so-called "CE certificate" is inappropriate for the Directives to which compliance is claimed, and c) the test house seems to have no idea what they are talking about. The involvement of China is secondary. In fac t the example I gave earlier was not Chinese.
However, it must be said that there is a Chinese source of many of the world's low-cost, counterfeit, and sub-standard products. That is partly because of the size of the Chinese manufacturuing sector; they are also the source of many of the world's high-quality products. They make about a third of all the manufactured articles traded across the world.
Another contributing factor is the economic history; several decades ago they were not allowed to buy Western high-tech products due to WTO embargoes, so they copied the few samples they had, and copying became synonymous with design. Manufacturing of products, whether locally-designed or copied, was allocated by the government to factories, depending on the availability of labour rather than on any particular competence, and those factories had production quotas measured on volume, not quality. The resulting attitudes are well-entrenched, and likely to remain so for a generation longer.

 

[JohnW2]

John, you're missing the point. There is ample indication that the CE marking is incorrect since a) 100% of the sample has a dangerous fault, b) the so-called "CE certificate" is inappropriate for the Directives to which compliance is claimed, and c) the test house seems to have no idea what they are talking about. The involvement of China is secondary.

I don't think that 100% of a sample of two proves very much. Your (b) and (c) are correct, but that in no way proves that an EEA imprter didn't do all the right things to support the CE marking. We just don't know.

However, it must be said that there is a Chinese source of many of the world's low-cost, counterfeit, and sub-standard products.

As you go on to say, they are responsible for about a third of the world's manufactured products - so, even if they were no worse than anyone else, one would expect them to be responsible for around of a third of the substandard and counterfeit products. Nevertheless, I agree that, statistically speaking, China is probably actually responsible for a disproportionate number of substandard and counterfeit goods - but one obviously should not tar all Chinese manufacturers and products with that brush without evidence. Statistically speaking, people of a certain skin colour are responsible for a disproprionate number of crimes of various types in London ... and I hope that I need not type the rest of that sentence!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

We just don't know.

You're splitting hairs. How much evidence do you need?
With you pharmaceutical background, what would you say if 100% of an imported shipment (however small) of a drug was clearly dangerous, and carried misleading claims of compliance with the relevant legal requirements?
Would you not be demanding further investigation?

Yes, it is possible that the importer (if there actually is one) of the OP's purchase has fulfillled his legal obligations, but the balance of probability is that he has been mislead by the Far Eastern supplier into accepting a certificate that has no legal standing in the EEA.

By the way, I accept your point about skin colour - Caucasians are responsible for a disproportionate numer of corporate frauds in London! I assume that's what you meant?

 

[JohnW2]

We just don't know.

You're splitting hairs. How much evidence do you need?

Some evidence would be a start As should be apparent from its position in the sentence, my "We just don't know" statement related to whether or not an EEA importer had taken the necessary steps to support/justify the CE marking. If you have any actual evidence (either way) in relation to that, I'd be interested to hear it!

With you pharmaceutical background, what would you say if 100% of an imported shipment (however small) of a drug was clearly dangerous, and carried misleading claims of compliance with the relevant legal requirements? Would you not be demanding further investigation?

I wouldn't really say that I have a 'pharmaceutical background', although it is certainly true that I have had a lot of involvement with pharmaceutical products.

As I've said, I don't know how the rules work in terms of other types of product (e.g. electrical ones), but the situation with pharmaceutical products imported into the EU from outside the EU is strictly and specific regulated in a way which is probably not the case with many other types of product. In particular, one is not allowed to rely on the Certificates of Analysis, or other documentation, provided by the manufacturer (or anyone else outside of the EU). Instead, each shipment has to be tested in the EU and then 'released' by an approved responsible EU person known as a 'Qualified Person'.

Such testing would obviously never be based on just a sample of two items. However, if one, let alone two, specimens of a drug (e.g. tablets) were found to have 'dangerous defects' there would certainly be extensive further investigation (and, almost certainly, rejection of the complete batch), whether those specimens represented 100% or 0.01% of the sample examined. Needless to say, much more common is to find that a batch is 'slightly out of spec' (which is often essentially a statistical issue), rather than that it contains 'dangerous defects'.

However, at least initially, there would not be accusations, and usually not even any suspicion, that there was anything 'misleading', let alone fraudulent, about the Certificates of Analysis and batch-release documentation associated with the batch/shipment - merely a suspicion that 'something had gone wrong'. You have to understand that a drug manufactured outside of the EU will not be 'approved' ('licensed') in the EU unless/until the relevent EU regulatory authorities have inspected/ audited/ approved (themselves ,or via a third party) the manufacturing facility (wherever it is) and their systems/ processes/ practices. If (which fortunately is rarely the case, even with 'counterfeit' products) the investigation were to reveal that the batch was clearly totally incompatible with the spec of the product and the C of A provided by the manufacturer, then we would be into the scenario you are postulating. The UK medicines regulatory authority has, in fairly recent times, revoked the 'approvals' ('licences') of all pharmaceutical products manufactured by one particular company in India for such a reason.

However, as I've said, pharmaceutical products are much more highly and formally regulated than, say, consumer electrical products, so I'm not sure there are many good parallels. I doubt, for example, that there is any body in the EU which is regularly inspecting the manufacturing facilities and systems of those who produce electrical items in China, or that many importers of such items always test them before releasing them into the market!

Yes, it is possible that the importer (if there actually is one) of the OP's purchase has fulfillled his legal obligations, but the balance of probability is that he has been mislead by the Far Eastern supplier into accepting a certificate that has no legal standing in the EEA.

Quite, as I said (and you say), it's possible. The trouble with your 'balance of probability' view is that it's not much of a 'balance'. As above, it is based on some circumstantial evidence but absolutely no knowledge of what the importer did or didn't do!

By the way, I accept your point about skin colour - Caucasians are responsible for a disproportionate numer of corporate frauds in London! I assume that's what you meant?

Of course, that's one example - it works with any skin colour!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

It's not really very different. The essental point in both industries is that the responsibility for compliance rests with the responsible person within the EU. The major difference is that said person, provided that he/she is either the manufacturer, or has written authority to act for the manufacturer, can self-declare for (most) electrical equipment. What he cannot do is rely simply on a test certificate to justify that declaration. One reason for that is that many large manufacturers of electrical equipment know far more about their products than the independent test houses, and have more to lose from an inappropriate declaration.

A further difference is of course that there is very much stronger enforcement of the regulations in the case of phamaceutical companies than for electrical equipment.

In the pharms industry, as you say, testing would not usually be on a sample of just two items. On the other hand, most illegal imports of drugs are not so dangerous that a single dose can kill, whereas a single instance of a dangerous electrical appliance can.
Whatever the batch size, a 100% dangerous failure rate, in a mode that could be easily detected by a simple visual inspection, is not only not acceptable but is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, even without the seller's use of a misleading (and possible illegal) certificate.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Unfortunately and unlike some other EU countries, the UK is very lax about enforcing the CE marking regulations, so many market traders and other low-cost sellers really believe that they can import anything as long as it has a CE mark.

Are those some of the EU regulations which are stifling businesses and damaging the economy?

 

[JohnW2]

It's not really very different. The essental point in both industries is that the responsibility for compliance rests with the responsible person within the EU. The major difference is that said person, provided that he/she is either the manufacturer, or has written authority to act for the manufacturer, can self-declare for (most) electrical equipment. What he cannot do is rely simply on a test certificate to justify that declaration.

Fair enough. In the case of the floodlights, I suppose it's possible the the responsible person in the EU did, indeed, self-declare on behalf of the manufacturer (perhaps taking on board the information from the test house), with the certificates we've seen being a bit of a red herring.

In the pharms industry, as you say, testing would not usually be on a sample of just two items. On the other hand, most illegal imports of drugs are not so dangerous that a single dose can kill, whereas a single instance of a dangerous electrical appliance can.

Yes, they can. However, with a total of only a couple of dozen electrocutions per year in the UK, contrasted with probably far more than that number dying every day as a result of drug-related issues (admittedly mainly not usually due to 'drug defects'), I wouldn't like to be the many who tried to compare the risks.

As you imply, frankly 'dangerous' counterfeit or illegally-imported drugs ('proper medicines', not 'illicit/street drugs') are, fortunately, incredibly rare (although poor efficacy of life-saving drugs can obviously be an issue). In fact, most are 'pretty good', most commonly only failing tests because of a somewhat excessive production variability (e.g. of dose per tablet). Indeed, many are only really 'technically illegal' (e.g. licensed in some country, but not UK) and can be all-but indistinguishable, pharmaceutically, from the real thing. Unlike electrical products, the margins on the more expensive drugs are so massive that there is really no need for 'serious counterfeiters' to cut corners and produce significantly 'substandard' drugs. The 'illicit profits' derive primarily from not having suffered (massive) development costs, not necessarily by producing products cheaply - unless they are really greedy!

Whatever the batch size, a 100% dangerous failure rate, in a mode that could be easily detected by a simple visual inspection, is not only not acceptable but is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, even without the seller's use of a misleading (and possible illegal) certificate.

That I do agree with - "warrants further invesigation", but (at least unless/until further evidence emerges) without having to invoke any accusations about misleading/illegal certificates (or CE marking).

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No BAS, I'm referrring to the ones that are facilitating trade among the single market.
Before the CE marking, manufacturers had to gain approval in each country in Europe, at considerable expense. In addition, the testing and approval requirements were often different, demanding a slightly different product for each country. Some of the countries' test houses were very protective of their home markets; for example, the ones in France were famous for obstructing the approval process for imported products that were in competition with home-grown stuff. Unfortunately we in the UK embraced the single market principle a little too enthusiastically, and didn't maintain such trade barriers, perhaps because we came under intense scrutiny when De Gaulle finally accepted us into his club. Some EU countries whi signed the Schengen agreement kept their passport inspectors but redeployed them as CE marking inspectors, so it is easier for the cowboys to sell dodgy products in the UK than in countries where the enforcement is more rigorous.

I'm not aware of any EU regulations that are "stifling businesses and damaging the economy", though I am aware of some UK interpretations of EU policy that are having that effect.

 

[stillp]

Whatever the batch size, a 100% dangerous failure rate, in a mode that could be easily detected by a simple visual inspection, is not only not acceptable but is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, even without the seller's use of a misleading (and possible illegal) certificate.

That I do agree with - "warrants further invesigation", but (at least unless/until further evidence emerges) without having to invoke any accusations about misleading/illegal certificates (or CE marking).

Kind Regards, John

So you don't think that the publication in the advertisement of an image of a certificate from a body outside the EU, with the CE logo prominently displayed is misleading readers into believing that the product is CE marked in accordance with the applicable EC Directives?
It is by the way a criminal offence across the EEA to use the CE logo in a manner that can mislead people as to its meaning.
We don't know if the product was itself CE marked. Steve, if you're still out there and haven't yet lost the will to live, could you confirm that please?

 

[JohnW2]

So you don't think that the publication in the advertisement of an image of a certificate from a body outside the EU, with the CE logo prominently displayed is misleading readers into believing that the product is CE marked in accordance with the applicable EC Directives?

As I've said, I just don't know. IF the prouct IS "CE marked in accordance with the applicable EC Directives" (which, if one is open minded, one has to accept is not impossible), then they clearly would not be being misleading anyone in the manner you describe, even though the displayed certs don't actually indicate or prove "appropriate CE marking".

Also, the advert has been produced by a retailer (seemingly located in China) who may or may not be be the same entity (or related) to the manufacturer and/or the importer into UK (or related to the importer into the UK). I'll leave that one to the lawyers!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

If the product is CE marked in accordance with the applicable Directives, why are they not making a statement to that effect, instead of implying that the product is so marked by displaying an image of a test certificate from an organisation outside the EU that happens to have the CE logo on it?

 

[JohnW2]

If the product is CE marked in accordance with the applicable Directives, why are they not making a statement to that effect, instead of implying that the product is so marked by displaying an image of a test certificate from an organisation outside the EU that happens to have the CE logo on it?

Maybe because their (the retailer's) understanding of the CE system and command of English is on a par with that of the testing house who issued the cerificates?

I'm sure you think that I am bending over backwards far too far in apparently 'defending' all those involved - but the truth is that I'm a very strong believer in being open-minded and the notion that anyone is 'innocent until proved guilty' - even though I accept that those we're talking about very probably are guilty. However, I'm by no means ashamed of my approach.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Maybe because their (the retailer's) understanding of the CE system and command of English is on a par with that of the testing house who issued the cerificates?

I'm sure you think that I am bending over backwards far too far in apparently 'defending' all those involved - but the truth is that I'm a very strong believer in being open-minded and the notion that anyone is 'innocent until proved guilty' - even though I accept that those we're talking about very probably are guilty. However, I'm by no means ashamed of my approach.

Kind Regards, John

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I can see that you're not ashamed of your approach, and I'm disappointed, because you should be!
This willingness to accept that there might be a reasonable explanation for misuse of the CE mark, together with ignorance of the regulations surrounding CE marking is just the sort of thinking that leads to the UK being awash with substandard and dangerous products.

 

[JohnW2]

I can see that you're not ashamed of your approach, and I'm disappointed, because you should be! This willingness to accept that there might be a reasonable explanation for misuse of the CE mark, together with ignorance of the regulations surrounding CE marking is just the sort of thinking that leads to the UK being awash with substandard and dangerous products.

Fair enough. If I had convincing (or even just strong) evidence that the CE mark had been 'misused', I would agree with you. We all (including myself) suspect, maybe even 'strongly suspect', that it's been misused, but if we 'convicted' everyone about whom we had just 'strong suspicions', it would, IMO, be a sad state of affairs, which I would hope never to see in the civilised world.

Kind Regards, John