The recent intrepid and courageous actions by a UK public house landlady in challenging and winning against the overwhelming odds and bully-boy tactics of the service providers, a ruling relating to a very basic consumer rights issue in the way sports broadcasting is assigned is a groundbreaking milestone for consumers.

However, the overwhelming conclusion one reaches in this sorry saga is one of immense disappointment and failure.

Disappointment in the unaccountable fact that to achieve this level of probity, fairness and accountability a consumer is once again compelled to initiate and pursue such consumer rights and protection individually via their own volition, and failure insomuch as no assistance or support whatsoever was provided by the purported consumer protection agencies and entities supposedly formed to supply such noble aims and objectives.

This formidable English lady was constrained to challenge the “big boy” conglomerates in the European Court of Justice under her own steam and at her own expense (after already suffering a massive fine of £8,000 in the English courts) to seek fair play, transparency and just terms and conditions for a consumer without the benefit of any “assistance” from those designated not only to help provide such but also to be proactive in highlighting and to be responsibly vigilant in recognising such unfair and unjust contract conditions in the first place by their own due process protocol.

This should be their role, sense of purpose and raison d’être and not adopt and cultivate a “wait-and-see” approach as assistance and encouragement is urgently required, indeed crucial, to all consumers at every stage of the process.

This marvellous English lady – a true heroine in my eyes – procured a service from Greek service provider, Nova, as she quite rightly did not consider that Sky/ESPN should have the exclusive rights to show Premier League football matches in the UK and that this was especially pertinent given the vast disparity in subscription fees (Nova equals £800 per annum compared to Sky/ESPN’s £700 per month). All this happened in that purported bastion of high-content, consumer awareness and protection, namely the UK.

However, in mitigation, their consumer protection entities are generally “on the ball” (pardon the pun) with regard to their responsibilities and duty of obligation. But can the same be said of our government’s consumer protection agencies? What was their reaction to this massively impacting benchmark ruling regarding a consumer’s right to choose and freedom of choice of service provider within the common marketplace that is the EU? Absolutely nothing at all is the answer to my own question, which should have been rhetorical, I dare say, as we all knew the answer in any event!

For as anybody who has had any dealings with the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA as they are now known) will readily testify, a recent name change does not remotely reflect nor initiate a change in policy which borders on apathy and benign indifference and one which is never troubled by proactiveness but merely a reactive regime, when eventually, and only when ultimately being compelled to, it is forced into presenting a charade of accountable activity to consumers (although not yet in this case).

Lip service reigns supreme when considerations are given to consumer service or protection. It would appear that such governmental agencies, similar to others, are in cahoots and collude with the very people they are duty-bound to investigate and provide protection for consumers against. Go out and fight must never be printed on high denomination euro notes and money must never be a key consideration in battling corruption or inequity.

Consumer protection – don’t make me laugh please as regrettably in Malta it only exists in the dictionary!