I was wondering where the law stands on advertisers, manufacturers and
promoters who make medical claims for foods and household goods such as
shampoos (typically along the lines of "cures cancer", "reverses baldness",
etc).

Are they merely transgressing advertising codes of conduct, or are there
specific laws in place that prevent, say, all but authorised, tested and
peer-reviewed medicines from attracting this sort of promotion?

Many thanks.

TrentSC

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:40:20 +0100, "Trent SC"
wrote:

I was wondering where the law stands on advertisers, manufacturers and
promoters who make medical claims for foods and household goods such as
shampoos (typically along the lines of "cures cancer", "reverses baldness",
etc).

Are they merely transgressing advertising codes of conduct, or are there
specific laws in place that prevent, say, all but authorised, tested and
peer-reviewed medicines from attracting this sort of promotion?

It is illegal to claim medical benefits from the use of anything which
does not have a product licence under the Medicines Act. But weasel
words which produce the same impression are legal if carefully
drafted, as in the case of all the useless rubish marketed as "food
supplements".

Anyone using either of the wordings you quote would find themselves in
court pretty rapidly.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On 17 Jul, 23:40, "Trent SC" wrote:
I was wondering where the law stands on advertisers, manufacturers and
promoters who make medical claims for foods and household goods such as
shampoos (typically along the lines of "cures cancer", "reverses baldness",
etc).

You'll notice that the quack stuff is never sold as a "cure" but as a
"remedy". Which basically means that it doesn't work.

Ian

Don Aitken wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:40:20 +0100, "Trent SC"
wrote:

I was wondering where the law stands on advertisers, manufacturers and
promoters who make medical claims for foods and household goods such as
shampoos (typically along the lines of "cures cancer", "reverses baldness",
etc).

Are they merely transgressing advertising codes of conduct, or are there
specific laws in place that prevent, say, all but authorised, tested and
peer-reviewed medicines from attracting this sort of promotion?

It is illegal to claim medical benefits from the use of anything which
does not have a product licence under the Medicines Act. But weasel
words which produce the same impression are legal if carefully
drafted, as in the case of all the useless rubish marketed as "food
supplements".

Anyone using either of the wordings you quote would find themselves in
court pretty rapidly.


And there are plenty of things marketed in all sorts of ways
(supplements and even gardening products) that actually do/can have
medical benefits that cannot be claimed.

Examples include Epsom Salts (Magnesium Sulphate) and Vinegar. I really
can't see anyone paying to get either of these a Medicines Act product
license. So they end up as potentially beneficial agents that cannot be
sold as such.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Hi All

Just had my Landlord's Agent call me to say he has a "Handy man" outside my
house trying to gain access with a key to do some repairs. He failed
(luckily) as the lock is a bit dodgy.

However, In our Tenancy Agreement, is states that the landlord (or his
agent) must provide 24hrs notice before coming round

The Exact wording is :

To permit the Landlord or the Landlord's Agent to enter the premises at a
reasonable time on giving at least 24 hours notice (except in an emergency)
for the purpose of:

Examining the condition of the premises;

Inspecting, maintaining, repairing, altering, improving or
rebuilding any adjoining or neighbouring property;

Maintaining, repairing or replacing the Fixtures and Fittings;

Complying with any obligations imposed on the Landlord by law.


I would just like to know where we stand. We have suspected someone has been
in our house without our consent previously. Only now has the Landlords
Agent admitted the attempt.

If we were to breech the agreement, I imagine we could be evicted. But what
if the other party breeches the agreement?

TIA

Regards

Bongman

Note to mods : Sorry if this is a duplicate, I have been having issues
creating *new* topics here.

Bongman wrote:

Hi All

Just had my Landlord's Agent call me to say he has a "Handy man"
outside my house trying to gain access with a key to do some repairs.
He failed (luckily) as the lock is a bit dodgy.

However, In our Tenancy Agreement, is states that the landlord (or his
agent) must provide 24hrs notice before coming round

The Exact wording is :

To permit the Landlord or the Landlord's Agent to enter the premises
at a reasonable time on giving at least 24 hours notice (except in an
emergency) for the purpose of:

Examining the condition of the premises;

Inspecting, maintaining, repairing, altering, improving or
rebuilding any adjoining or neighbouring property;

Maintaining, repairing or replacing the Fixtures and Fittings;

Complying with any obligations imposed on the Landlord by law.


I would just like to know where we stand. We have suspected someone
has been in our house without our consent previously. Only now has
the Landlords Agent admitted the attempt.

If we were to breech the agreement, I imagine we could be evicted.
But what if the other party breeches the agreement?

TIA

Regards

Bongman

Note to mods : Sorry if this is a duplicate, I have been having
issues creating new topics here.


In the first instance very little is likely to happen unless you lodge
a formal complaint , if you do so its quite possible that your tenancy
will be reviewed and terminated as soon as the contract allows

If your landlord is half decent you dont really want to antagonize any
situation , from your posts on the other legal groups it appears as
though the handyman was going to replace faulty taps (i assume you
notified the landlord)

You could change the locks , however this may well breech your tenancy
agreement , it may also lumbar you with a bill for repairs to a door
and frame if for any reason the landlord needs to gain entry in a
hurry (leaks etc)


Have you spoken to the landlord (not the agent) about your concerns ,
it may have just been an oversite



--

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:20:08 +0100, Bongman put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Hi All

Just had my Landlord's Agent call me to say he has a "Handy man" outside my
house trying to gain access with a key to do some repairs. He failed
(luckily) as the lock is a bit dodgy.

However, In our Tenancy Agreement, is states that the landlord (or his
agent) must provide 24hrs notice before coming round

The Exact wording is :

To permit the Landlord or the Landlord's Agent to enter the premises at a
reasonable time on giving at least 24 hours notice (except in an emergency)
for the purpose of:

Examining the condition of the premises;

Inspecting, maintaining, repairing, altering, improving or
rebuilding any adjoining or neighbouring property;

Maintaining, repairing or replacing the Fixtures and Fittings;

Complying with any obligations imposed on the Landlord by law.


I would just like to know where we stand. We have suspected someone has been
in our house without our consent previously. Only now has the Landlords
Agent admitted the attempt.

The contract doesn't force the landlord to give 24 hours notice. It
merely states that, provided he does, you can't refuse to let him in.
He is entitled to call round at any reasonable time even without
notice, and if he hasn't given notice then it's up to you whether to
let him in or not.

If the landlord (or his agent) sends a workman round to fix something
while you're out without giving notice, then you do have the right to
refuse him access (provided, of course, it's not an emergency). But
many - probably most - tenants are usually happy for things to get
fixed as soon as possible when they need fixing, and often prefer the
work to be done while they're out as it's less disruptive to them. So
the agent may well have simply assumed you fall into that group -
especially if the visit was in response to a matter which you reported
as being in need of attention.

So, where you stand is that you need to let the agent know that you'd
prefer not to have workmen coming round without notice, unless it is
an emergency. So long as he knows that's what you want, then he should
have no problem complying. The downside for you is that it might take
longer to get things fixed when they do need fixing, as the agent will
need to schedule appointments rather than being able to send someone
round straightaway if they're free. But that's your choice, and all
you need to do is to let your choice be known.

If we were to breech the agreement, I imagine we could be evicted. But what
if the other party breeches the agreement?

The landlord can't breach this clause of the contract because it
doesn't apply to him - it's a clause which binds, you, the tenant to
allow acess when given sufficient notice, not a clause which binds him
to give it. However, entering the property without giving notice when
you have explicitly requested otherwise could be construed as
harrasssment, which is a criminal offence. It would take rather more
than sending a handyman round when you're out, though, for that to be
the case.

Mark

Mark Goodge ] said:
The contract doesn't force the landlord to give 24 hours notice. It
merely states that, provided he does, you can't refuse to let him in.
He is entitled to call round at any reasonable time even without
notice, and if he hasn't given notice then it's up to you whether to
let him in or not.

If the landlord (or his agent) sends a workman round to fix something
while you're out without giving notice, then you do have the right to
refuse him access (provided, of course, it's not an emergency). But
many - probably most - tenants are usually happy for things to get
fixed as soon as possible when they need fixing, and often prefer the
work to be done while they're out as it's less disruptive to them. So
the agent may well have simply assumed you fall into that group -
especially if the visit was in response to a matter which you reported
as being in need of attention.

So, where you stand is that you need to let the agent know that you'd
prefer not to have workmen coming round without notice, unless it is
an emergency. So long as he knows that's what you want, then he should
have no problem complying. The downside for you is that it might take
longer to get things fixed when they do need fixing, as the agent will
need to schedule appointments rather than being able to send someone
round straightaway if they're free. But that's your choice, and all
you need to do is to let your choice be known.

If we were to breech the agreement, I imagine we could be evicted. But what
if the other party breeches the agreement?

The landlord can't breach this clause of the contract because it
doesn't apply to him - it's a clause which binds, you, the tenant to
allow acess when given sufficient notice, not a clause which binds him
to give it. However, entering the property without giving notice when
you have explicitly requested otherwise could be construed as
harrasssment, which is a criminal offence. It would take rather more
than sending a handyman round when you're out, though, for that to be
the case.

I am astonished that a handyman would want to enter someone's home while
they are out as they are putting themselves at great risk of being
accused of theft or breakage.

Aside from that, it is completely unreasonable for *anyone* to assume it
is OK to enter someone's home without prior arrangement and I taken
aback that you think otherwise - in fact you seem to suggest it is
rather odd of the OP to also be of this opinion. Surely, no one expects
to come home to discover someone has just left themselves in while they
were out.... do they?

Mark Goodge posted

The contract doesn't force the landlord to give 24 hours notice. It
merely states that, provided he does, you can't refuse to let him in.
He is entitled to call round at any reasonable time even without
notice, and if he hasn't given notice then it's up to you whether to
let him in or not.

Quite. So far, the landlord is in the same position as the guy selling
blue dishcloths door to door. If he enters without permission, he is a
criminal.

If the landlord (or his agent) sends a workman round to fix something
while you're out without giving notice, then you do have the right to
refuse him access (provided, of course, it's not an emergency). But
many - probably most - tenants are usually happy for things to get
fixed as soon as possible when they need fixing, and often prefer the
work to be done while they're out as it's less disruptive to them.

Really? What is your evidence for this? It sounds to me like pure
assumption, and in fact more likely to be false than true.

What if the dweller is a leaseholder and the person wishing entry the
freeholder? Does it still apply that the freeholder should assume he can
waltz in whenever he likes? If not, why not? What is different in
principle?

I'll tell you what. If it *was* a freeholder-leaseholder arrangement, a
court would have no hesitation whatsoever in finding against a
freeholder who forced entry. None at all.

So
the agent may well have simply assumed you fall into that group -
especially if the visit was in response to a matter which you reported
as being in need of attention.

So, where you stand is that you need to let the agent know that you'd
prefer not to have workmen coming round without notice, unless it is
an emergency.

No, where he stands is that the agent needs to give him 24 hours notice
of when he proposes to come in. That's what the agreement says, and
failing any other arrangement that's what the landlord should respect.

--
Les

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:25:15 +0100, Yellow put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge ] said:

The landlord can't breach this clause of the contract because it
doesn't apply to him - it's a clause which binds, you, the tenant to
allow acess when given sufficient notice, not a clause which binds him
to give it. However, entering the property without giving notice when
you have explicitly requested otherwise could be construed as
harrasssment, which is a criminal offence. It would take rather more
than sending a handyman round when you're out, though, for that to be
the case.

I am astonished that a handyman would want to enter someone's home while
they are out as they are putting themselves at great risk of being
accused of theft or breakage.

If the handyman was sent in response to a request from the tant to fix
something, then it would be quite normal.

Aside from that, it is completely unreasonable for *anyone* to assume it
is OK to enter someone's home without prior arrangement and I taken
aback that you think otherwise - in fact you seem to suggest it is
rather odd of the OP to also be of this opinion. Surely, no one expects
to come home to discover someone has just left themselves in while they
were out.... do they?

Not as a general rule, no. But, if you're a tenant, and you report
that something is broken and needs fixing, it's not unreasonable for
the landlord to assume that the report constitutes an invitation to
enter in order to fix it. That's what normally happens, anyway.

Mark