If you have ever wondered why I call journalists repeaters then look no further than the article in the SST about Richard Bradley and Chrisco where they try to justify their gouging and usury. The repeater in question proves that the whole article is just spin by starting of the article with this;
RICHARD BRADLEY, owner of the giant Christmas hamper company Chrisco, feels demonised.
Stoked by rival Hampsta, critics have drawn attention to his wealth and contrasted it with the low incomes of his customers; they have focused on the apparently high prices of his products and on a dispute with business partners over a consumer finance company.
Up till now the English immigrant had held himself aloof from the fray but stung by some of the claims, Bradley invited the Sunday Star-Times to his North Shore offices in an attempt to debunk what he sees as myths and misconceptions.
Right, so instead of asking for Chrisco to justify their outrageous pricing as shown in multiple posts at this blog, the repeater Rob Stock, gets and invite from Bradley to get spun to. The repeater says that Bradley wants to debunk “myths and misconceptions”. Yet fails utterly to do so, instead accepts Richard Bradley’s excuses that it is big business and expensive to run and it is all Hampsta’s fault he has bad press.
What a load of bollocks. I have proven with my own research that Bradley is ripping off customers, by operating under the antiquated Laybys Act he is getting around the fact that he is accepting deposits without issuing a prospectus. He lies about the huge costs because for the majority of the year all this guy does is collect funds for product he hasn’t even bought yet. In fact it is arguable he even qualifies for the Laybys Act as if a customer bowls up and asks to see his product he is putting funds aside for all he is able to get shown is a photo, a promise that what is what is going to be delivered….in actual fact Richard Bradley is selling promissory notes. That makes him a finance company.
Nowhere in the article can they justify the massive price differences between retail and their gouging. They just say they have massive operating costs. In fact the price gouging is worse than my research has shown because ONCE A YEAR Chrisco buys in bulk for 300,000 – 400,000 customers and therefore he would be getting a massive wholesale discount. Even allowing for packaging which is probably done at source anyway and then courier he is still going to get a massive discount from the contracting courier company. Ask any big Trademe seller what sort of discounts are available to ship quite large packages nationwide, you would be astounded by what they pay and the same would apply to Chrisco.
The start of the article quietly hints at the troubles at Hopscotch Finance but doesn’t go any further. The repeater fails to ask why on Bradley’s application the court documents were sealed so no-one can access them. Simple questions that require simple answers.
One thing the repeater does cover a little bit the outstanding issues that the Commerce Commission is dragging the chain over. The illegal Visa Card that Chrisco tried and failed to launch and the remaining issues of their problem with inertial selling which is illegal. Again though the answers aren’t forthcoming.
Then there is the issue surrounding Mrs Christmas. The repeater doesn’t even do the most basic research. When Mrs Christmas fell over the liquidator in a press release said;
Based on indications of interest, the liquidators feel confident that all customer orders will be honoured and anyone who has an account with Mrs Christmas will have any payments credited to their new account.
and subsequently on TV3 said;
He says, IF the company is sold then those funds will be transferred to the new owners.
However in a letter to Mrs. Christmas customers from Chrisco it clearly states Chrisco is NOT receiving any money from Mrs. Christmas. The question the repeater failed to ask is where did $113,000 of customer deposits disappear to? Essentially the business was sold, to Chrisco, they got all the customers so I fail to see how that isn’t sold and their deposits weren’t transferred over.
This article leaves all the questions that this blogger has raised unanswered despite the repeater being invited by Richard Bradley to clear up the myths and mis-conceptions. If anything the myths have become facts that Bradley is unable to dispute and the mis-conceptions are reality.
The real questions are though, Why are Labour bitching about small percentage points in interest rates from banks when Richard Bradley and his company Chrico are committing usury against 400,000 kiwi “savers”? Why is the Consumer Affairs Minister not looking very closely at this blatant rip off of customers?
