HOW TO CHOOSE SAFE GOODS?

The project is co-funded by the European Union. Implemented by Latvian National Association for Consumer Protection

Safe goods are any goods that don't create risk in normal or foreseen usage conditions or create minimal risk connected with usage of goods that is considered tolerated and corresponds to high level of safety, human health, personal belongings, as well as environment protection.

Goods must be safe, taking into account:

• characteristics of goods, including their structure, content, packaging and, in cases of necessity - instructions for installing and maintenance;
• appearance and design of goods, labelling, warnings, usage instructions, liquidation directions and other instructions offered by producers;
• whether there are any category of persons, especially children and elderly people who can be endangered when using the goods.

Things to pay attention to before buying goods

• Check if goods are labelled with CE mark (toys, electrical goods, individual safety devices, glasses, lamps etc.). Remember that the CE mark does not guarantee safety of goods but only testify the compliance with the determined demands in the European Union.
• Do the goods fit you? Check it before buying, inform the trader regarding special desires about good's quality.
• Read the enclosed usage and care instructions (electrical goods, footwear, textile, toys, and furniture) - whether there is information how the goods should be used, how to keep them in order. Make sure that the information is available in your official language.
• Take a look at the special labelling and warning signs:
  • large household electrical appliances - labelling of energy efficiency;
  • toys - about possible risks and child age restrictions.
• Ask whether there are necessary any special protective devices for safe usage of the goods? For example, crash helmet, safety device for knees, gloves, glasses, etc.

Remember that you should receive complete information about goods before you pay for them.

Things to be observed before using goods

• Read all usage instructions and safety information before you assemble/install the goods, switch to electrical network or begin to use!
• Look after children when they are playing!
• Use the goods only for foreseen purposes, as well observe all safety demands, in particular, if children are near!
• Regularly check the technical condition of goods and, if necessary, repair or carry out the maintenance without delay.
• If serious problems have occurred and goods could be unsafe - inform the trader and consumer protection authority.

What to do if things go wrong?

If the good gets broken when using it in the foreseen way:

• Bring it back to the shop and ask for repair, exchange, cash refund or decrease in price.
• Submit a complaint about the purchase of goods which don't correspond to the contract provisions. This can be done within 2 years from the day of purchase. The application should be submitted in the place of purchase/order or legal address of the company.
• Ask the trader to familiarise you with the Regulations for submitting consumer complaint (In Latvia - the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.631, adopted on 1 August 2006).

If the good is unsafe?

• Inform the consumer protection authority (in Latvia - Consumer Rights Protection Centre).
• If you see a recall from consumers due to safety problems, immediately discontinue using the good and follow the procedure in the recall.
• In Latvia, if the unsafe good has caused damage to human life, health or personal belongings, the responsibility of the producer is to recover the damage caused (if they exceed 500 EUR). In such cases, you don't have to prove producer's fault, it's enough that you can show the good's defect and caused damage.
• In order to receive the compensation, you should apply to the producer or trader within 3 years from the day you discovered the defect or damage. You should claim not later than 10 years from the moment the good was placed on the market.

The leaflet "How To Choose Safe Goods" was written in co-operation with Consumer Rights Protection Centre. In printed form it is available free of charge in the information points of the largest shopping centres in Latvia - «Origo» and «Mols», as well as «Rimi» hypermarkets in Riga, Jelgava, Ventspils, Liepaja and Daugavpils. The leaflet can also be obtained at Consumer Rights Protection Centre and its regional branches, as well as at Consumer Association (PIAA) and other consumer NGOs.

Toy safety

26 toyshops and other places of selling were visited in Riga, Jelgava, Jurmala and 853 toys were inspected, including 228 toys which needed usage instruction and 116 soft toys.

Traders were often poorly informed about requirements for toys regarding product safety and about labelling regulation.

After analysing the obtained data from toys, we found incompliance with:

• Regulation No.128 "Toy safety regulations" adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Republic of Latvia on 4 April 2000
  • 257 toys lacked CE mark (30,12%);
  • Proportions of CE mark on 136 toys (15,9%) were inappropriate to the standard sample (Annex 2);
  • Name and address of the producer of distributor were not indicated on 136 toys (15,9%).
• Consumer Rights Protection Law
  • Usage instruction was not added to 33 toys (14,4% of toys which need the instruction);
  • 104 toys (45,6%) did not have usage instruction in the Latvian language;
• Toy Safety Standard EN-71
  • Age warning text did not correspond to the definition of EN-71 - 150 toys (17,6%);
  • There was no indication about specific hazard or risk calling for age restriction - 207 toys (24,3%);
  • Illegal age restriction was put on 76 soft toys (65,5%). Soft filled toys with simple features intended for holding and cuddling are considered as toys intended under 36 months;
  • Length of cords and strings exceeded 220 mm (art.5.4) on 60 soft toys (51,7%). For example, souvenir monkey had an elastic cord 400 mm and was placed on a shelf together with soft toys. Besides, the batteries inside the toy were easily accessible.
  • Age warning text in the Latvian language did not correspond to the original text on 39 toys.

In order to obtain information about cases of children accidents and injuries, we visited University Clinical Hospital for Children, Bulduri hospital and Jelgava hospital.

Results obtained in University Clinical Hospital for Children, covering the first half of 2005, show that 26 children were hospitalised due to swallowed alien objects: batteries from toys (12 cases, 1 child has died of chemical burn), plastic parts (4 cases), Christmas tree decorations (1 case), plastic wrapping (1 case) and others.

From 21 July until 31 August 2005, five toyshops and other places of selling were visited together with Consumer Rights Protection Centre inspectors and ten samples of toys were purchased for safety testing in notified body, Latvian Certification Centre "Latsert": water ball with duck (Made in Poland), wooden blocks puzzle (Made in China), soft toy "Mouse" (Made in China), soft toy "Velvet Dog" (Made in China), tool set for sandbox (Made in China), toy intended to be strung across perambulator (Made in Poland), tool set for sandbox (Made in Poland), rattle with handle (Made in Poland), toy perambulator for dolls (Made in China) and yo-yo type toy, enclosed with Dambo Magazine #8/2005 (Made in China).

Conclusion of conformity assessment by "Latsert" showed that out of ten toy samples only one sample fully complied with requirements of "Toy Safety Regulations" adopted by Cabinet of Ministers of Republic of Latvia on 4 April 2000 and "Toy Safety Standard" LVS EN-71; two were considered unsafe.

Toy perambulator did not comply with LVS EN-71-1 art.4.7, 4.10 and LVS EN-71-3 because the edges of metal rivets were sharp, locking device of folding mechanism failed, causing risk of finger entrapment, and the migrating amount of lead from pink paint exceeded allowed norms.

Yo-yo type toy did not comply with requirements of LVS EN-71 art.7.2 because there was no age warning and thus the small parts, the length of cord and the perimeter of noose on cord could be dangerous for children under 36 months. A recall from consumers was published in the Latvijas Vestnesis gazette only on 3 January 2006.

Safety of electrical appliances

45 shops of electrical goods were visited in Riga, Jelgava and Jurmala, and 466 small household electrical appliances were inspected.

After analysing the obtained data from electrical goods, we found incompliance with:

• Consumer Rights Protection Law
  • Information about country of origin was not indicated on 19 electrical appliances (3,9%);
  • Address of producer was not indicated on 28 goods (5,8%);
  • Information about the distributor was not indicated on 41 goods (8,5%);
  • Instruction of usage in Latvian language was not added to 59 goods (12,2%);
  • Instruction of usage was not fully translated - 11 goods (2,3%).
• Regulation No.187 "Electrical safety regulations" adopted by Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia on 30 May 2000
  • 3 electrical appliances (0,6%) lacked CE mark

On 12-13 October, 30 November 2005 and 19 January 2006, three shops of electrical goods were visited together with inspectors from Consumer Rights Protection Centre and 10 samples were bought for testing at Latvian National Metrology Centre (LNMC): toaster Taurus Planet II, electrical oven Scarlett SC-098, foot massage bath Scarlett SC-203, electrical cooker Luxell LX 7010, Christmas decoration lights DF-180/ML, Christmas decoration lights GS-100, electrical kettle Mia EW 100N, table lamp Art. 959, coffee-grinder Elco Finland EL-185 and lighting unit "Waterfall" SH65.

Conclusion of conformity assessment by "LNMC" showed that out of 10 tested samples two were found unsafe for consumers:

• coffee-grinder Elco Finland model EL-185 (sold by "VP Market", distributed by Plusias Ltd., made in China, recalled from consumers in Latvijas Vestnesis gazette on 4 January 2006);
• lighting unit "Waterfall" model SH65 (distributed and sold by "Gerkens un partneri", made in China by Taizhou Tangjingyuan Crafts Products, recalled from consumers in Latvijas Vestnesis gazette on 19 May 2006).

The coffee-grinder did not comply with the requirements of LVS EN 60335-1:2003 standard, art. 6.1., 7.13, 13.3, 16.5:

• the sample did not contain earthing and the symbol of 2nd protection class, thus the product had zero protection class;
• usage instruction in Latvian language was not included with the product;
• the insulation of the product did not pass the overvoltage test;
• the bushing failed the test.

The lighting unit did not comply with the requirements of LVS EN 60598-1:2005 standard, art. 2.2., 3.2., 4.14., 4.15., 4.16.1:

• the sample lacked CE mark and the labelling was incomplete;
• the sample did not contain earthing and the symbol of 2nd protection class, thus the product had zero protection class;
• the system of hangers did not correspond to the demands of the standard, thus the picture can fall off the wall;
• the insulation material was not fire-resistant;
• the "switching-on" device did not correspond to the demands of the standard.

Consumer questionnaire and complaints

In order to identify how often consumers encounter problems with product safety, we questioned 312 Latvia's citizens, covering wide range of age (including students and pensioners) and place of residence (throughout Latvia).

We found out the average Latvia's consumer behaviour model - what consumers pay attention to when purchasing electrical goods and toys - and their knowledge about CE mark and consumer rights. We also found out how consumers act when things go wrong.

Consumers do not have unambiguous idea of the definition for safe goods. With unsafe product consumers understand also product which is safe but its functionality can not be relied upon; in fact such goods should be considered as goods of unsatisfactory quality. For example, shoes with broken sole or mobile phone with no zone of reception.

Regarding the CE mark, part of consumers has false opinion that it is safety or quality guarantee.

Goods, which consumers are ready to complain about, are mostly expensive goods (for example, irons, mobile phones, and footwear).

As regards toys, our survey shows that consumers did not make a complaint, claiming replacement or refund, even when children were hospitalised. Consumers take passive position - agree on repair or do nothing.

During 2005, consumer non-governmental organisations involved in the project - Club for Protection of Consumer Interests, Consumer Support Centre (former Consumer Protection Club PIKS, Jurmala town), headquarters of Latvian National Association for Consumer Protection and Jelgava Consumer Protection Club - handled 4943 consumer complaints. Of them 4402 were received by phone (89%), 439 - by personal visit (8,9%), 73 - in written form (1,5%) and 29 - by e-mail (0,6%). Out of 73 complaints received by post, 8 were collective ones, signed by 1173 consumers. One court case was won against Regulatory body about services of general interest - public heating tariffs.

Breakdown of consumer complaints:

• legal advice - 3234;
• footwear - 130;
• electrical appliances - 145;
• textiles - 30;
• services of general interest:
  • rent and public services - 415;
  • telecommunications - 200;
• mobile phones - 193;
• other goods - 115;
• tourism - 8;
• other services - 371;
• foodstuff, catering - 102.

During the first half of 2006, 1102 consumer complaints were received and solved. Of them 915 were received by phone (83%), 165 - by personal visit (15%), 13 - in written form (1,2%) and 9 - by e-mail (0,8%). In one case of cross-border complaint the Association filled out the European consumer complaint form on behalf of a consumer that we were representing. As the consumer and the professional were unable to reach an amicable settlement, we forwarded the case to European Consumer Centre - Latvia.

Breakdown of consumer complaints (first half of 2006):

• legal advice - 570;
• footwear - 90;
• electrical appliances - 59;
• textiles - 4;
• services of general interest - 134, of them:
  • rent and public services - 123;
  • telecommunications - 11;
• mobile phones - 24;
• other goods - 107, of them:
  • chemicals - 5;
• tourism - 4;
• other services - 84;
• foodstuff, catering - 26.

Most part of complaints solved in 2005 and 2006 applies to consumer legislation, especially to refunds and replacements, contracts on credit, unfair contract terms and distance selling (for example, unreasonable time of delivery, no information regarding the right of withdrawal).

Large part of complaints concerns mobile phones and telecommunications (no signal, unreasonable period of time for repair, no rights of refusal for "fun" SMS subscription, fines for switching network service provider).

There were several cases when consumers complained about injuries with products. We immediately contacted Consumer Rights Protection Centre and participated in inspections at places of selling in order to find the products. For example, such cases helped us find a yo-yo toy and children bicycle that were later conformed dangerous and recalled from consumers.

Reacting to consumer complaints about non-conformity of Rock Beer television commercial, urging young consumers to use alcohol in order to succeed in their career, on 10 April 2006 we referred to Consumer Rights Protection Centre, asking to evaluate this commercial. On 13 July 2006 an answer was received from the authority, informing us that a decision has been made and the producer has been fined.

Proposed amendments to safety legislation

During the project through a close observation of all consumer accidents and injuries, consumer complaints, and product labelling, we identified lacks in the implementation of Directive 2001/95/CE and clarified the major problems in the application of the above mentioned directive. We investigated the feasibility of improving the consumer legislation about product safety and elaborated adjustments to the product safety legislation which were sent to the Ministry of Economics on 26 July 2006. Below is a brief summary of the proposed amendments:

1. As the products containing hazardous substances may not be regarded as safe, it is necessary to increase the fine determined in the Article 166.10 of Latvian Administrative Infringements Code for exceeding the volume of permissible hazardous substances because at the moment it is not sufficient in comparison to the fine determined for distribution of unsafe products. In such a way it will preclude that fine regarding dissemination of unsafe products could differ and be larger than for matters when the product is not safe for the reasons that the volume of permissible hazardous substances in it is exceeded.
2. As the term to impose the fine for administrative infringements is only four months from infringement or from the moment of its detection, if infringement is continuous, it is suggested to express the third part of Article 166.9 in following:
"For noncompliance of requirements determined by provisions of legislation regarding safety of products and services". As well as to supplement Article 37 to allow impose fine for infringements of products and services safety during four months from its detection, but not later than a year from the infringement.
3. In order to ensure information exchange from medical institutions and fire-institutions to market surveillance institutions regarding unsafe products or services, it is suggested to supplement Product and Services Safety Law with corresponding provision laying the duty to notice this information to Consumer Right Protection Centre which could address this information to other market surveillance institutions where it could be necessary.
4. Also it is suggested to precise the ninth part of Article 19 of Product and Services Safety Law in such a way to give the rights to market surveillance institutions in certain circumstances to determine how the recall of unsafe product has to be announced. Thus the Consumer Rights Protection Centre is authorised to indicate specific printed media to reach maximum audience.

About the project

On 1 June 2005 the Latvian National Association for Consumer Protection started the implementation of project «Strengthening consumer confidence in safety of large range of products» co-funded by the European Union.

The amount of co-financing by the European Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection constitutes 34 879,46 Ls (50 106,97 EUR). Project partner: Consumer Rights Protection Centre, working under the Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Latvia.

Project duration: 15 months. Main activities include: information, education and market surveillance actitivies in the area of product safety - safety testing of toys and small household electrical appliances, leaflets about general product safety and mobile phones, publicity in mass media, training workshops for consumer protection specialists.

Aim of the project: revealing of problems related to product safety, labelling, warning signs and usage instructions, analyses and recommendations for improving current situation and as a result - increasing consumer confidence and achieve safer conditions of life.