Shun these non-charitable collectors

They may give the impression that they are collecting for charity, but firms like Rutex Ltd are flouting the law.

A man recently called selling stickers that said “NO JUNK MAIL”. He said he was out of work and this was his money making idea.

He produced a pedlar's certificate allowing door to door sales. He claimed the sticker would slash junk through the door by 80%. I wasn't totally convinced but I admired his enterprise and paid £1.

The sticker is now by the front door. There are fewer pizza fliers but people collecting clothes and other items ostensibly for charity continue to batter my doormat with plastic bags and leaflets.

Some, like the bag from Barnardo's, would save me taking unwanted books, CDs and other items to their shop. I have no problem with this – or similar bags from British Heart Foundation or Age UK.

But over the past ten days, I have received three leaflets asking for items such as clothes, handbags, jewellery, perfumes and mobile telephones but refusing books and CDs.

One is headed: “Third World Clothing Collection – Please Help Those Who Really Need Your Support.” followed by “Can you spare any of your old unwanted clothes which will be sent to the Third World where the garments will be carefully sorted and worn again.”

Another said: “Your donations are sent to third world countries to help clothe the poor.” And the third said: “If you can donate any for (sic) your old and unwanted clothes, you can help people in Third World Countries. Spared clothes will be carefully sorted and worn again.”

Like many people, I probably have clothes I no longer wear. So why not give them to people in poorer countries? It would be an act of charity. And that is what I am supposed to think with words like “donate” and “help”.

But these fliers do not come from a charity. Instead, they are sent out by Rutex Ltd, a commercial firm. There is a company rather than a charity registration number – few will notice this.

Rutex even makes its commercial activities sound charitable. It says: “Your donations are sent to the third world countries to help clothe the poor. Our company provides jobs in the sorting of clothes for distribution. It provides business for the the UK export and transport companies. It provides employment for the UK factories grading the clothes and people collecting the bags door to door.”

Translated that means: You give us items for free. We sell them in street markets in poorer countries. We make a profit. We use an old van. We pay a few people to collect the bags (you have to provide your own) and sort the clothes into the sellable and what will go for rags.

Of course, if you throw out anything really good, it will be sold in a vintage clothing shop in the UK. And mobile phones, even models from three or four years ago, fetch good money abroad.

Rutex was incorporated on May 1, 2009 giving an address in east London. It had one director, Gintaras Ragauskas, a Lithuanian, now aged 43. Rutex never bothered with legal niceties such as filing annual returns or accounts to Companies House. The company was dissolved on December 14, 2010.

So a collection that would seem – and is designed to appear – charitable is from a company that no longer exists. Using the name and number of a dissolved company is a criminal offence.

Rutex has flouted the rules almost from its first day. A few months after it was set up, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint from a member of the public who “objected that the ad was misleading because it implied that Rutex was a charity.”

Rutex did not reply to the ASA. The ASA said in September 2009:

The ASA was concerned by Rutex's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 2.6 (Non-response). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.

We noted the ad did not make clear that clothing collected was sold for profit and considered that the claim "Not everyone and especially young families can afford to buy new, often expensive clothes, shoes and household things. We would be grateful if you could kindydonate [sic]" misleadingly implied that Rutex was a charity.

The ASA ruled that the flier must not appear again in this form.

Rutex ignored the ASA and continues to this day to use circulars with the same or similar wording. It ignores company law. It ignores the law that says door to door collections require a local authority permit. It flouts everything.

What will it take to end this scam?

Follow me on Twitter @tonylevene1

Award-winning scams expert Tony Levene explains why he's writing a blog about scams and why he is The Scam Magnet!