Tweet
The National Audit Office has published an OFT 'Progress report on maintaining competition in markest'
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0...mpetition.aspx
Some of it doesn't make for good reading.
The findings include:
Complaints and intelligence
The OFT has been too reliant on complaints as a source of its competition enforcement work. The OFT should start a greater proportion of investigations on its own initiative, rather than waiting for a relevant complaint. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
The OFT has no database of intelligence to support its investigations. The OFT needs to supplement information from competition complaints with data from other sources such as the new Consumer Direct helpline and the work of Trading Standards officers across the UK. A database would help it to do so efficiently. (PAC 2006 Recommendation
Timescales
At present, the OFT does not work to any deadlines. The target timescales on its website are completely unrealistic and are never met. The OFT should have amended these deadlines as soon as it realised they were not achievable. It should now set clear and realistic timetables for each case. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
Small case teams are a cause of the OFT’s long timescales on cases. The OFT should employ larger teams on its investigations. In small teams, the
loss of important members of staff endangers the investigation’s progress. Larger teams will reduce this risk and bring a broader range of skills and experience to the investigation. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
The OFT does not publish information about performance against timescales. This lack of transparency limits effective scrutiny, making it difficult for Parliament to assess the OFT’s operation against expectations. The OFT should publish its performance against its timescales. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
Information gathering
The OFT does not use its powers to compel companies to provide information. The OFT can impose criminal penalties if companies do not provide information. It has not used the penalties as it considers them heavy-handed. It should use them where companies wilfully obstruct an investigation and should explore with the DTI whether it can raise civil penalties against companies in less serious circumstances. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
Staff turnover
The OFT suffers from high staff turnover, and many employees do not have sufficient experience to deal with complicated cases. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0...mpetition.aspx
Some of it doesn't make for good reading.
The findings include:
Complaints and intelligence
The OFT has been too reliant on complaints as a source of its competition enforcement work. The OFT should start a greater proportion of investigations on its own initiative, rather than waiting for a relevant complaint. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
The OFT has no database of intelligence to support its investigations. The OFT needs to supplement information from competition complaints with data from other sources such as the new Consumer Direct helpline and the work of Trading Standards officers across the UK. A database would help it to do so efficiently. (PAC 2006 Recommendation
Timescales
At present, the OFT does not work to any deadlines. The target timescales on its website are completely unrealistic and are never met. The OFT should have amended these deadlines as soon as it realised they were not achievable. It should now set clear and realistic timetables for each case. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
Small case teams are a cause of the OFT’s long timescales on cases. The OFT should employ larger teams on its investigations. In small teams, the
loss of important members of staff endangers the investigation’s progress. Larger teams will reduce this risk and bring a broader range of skills and experience to the investigation. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
The OFT does not publish information about performance against timescales. This lack of transparency limits effective scrutiny, making it difficult for Parliament to assess the OFT’s operation against expectations. The OFT should publish its performance against its timescales. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
Information gathering
The OFT does not use its powers to compel companies to provide information. The OFT can impose criminal penalties if companies do not provide information. It has not used the penalties as it considers them heavy-handed. It should use them where companies wilfully obstruct an investigation and should explore with the DTI whether it can raise civil penalties against companies in less serious circumstances. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
Staff turnover
The OFT suffers from high staff turnover, and many employees do not have sufficient experience to deal with complicated cases. (PAC 2006 Recommendation)
Comment