Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

War over the photocopier

Peter Koenig
Saturday 27 June 1998 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A DISPUTE over leased photocopiers between Canon, the Japanese giant with UK sales of pounds 500m a year, and Addenbrooke's, the Cambridge- based hospital trust, is under review by the Department of Trade, the Office of Fair Trading, and the Department of Health.

"I am disappointed that a company of such a high reputation as Canon has taken so long to resolve this matter," Addenbrooke's chief executive John Ashbourne said, discussing the referral of the trust's complaints to Minister for Consumer Affairs, Nigel Griffiths, on 2 June.

"We are disappointed that Addenbrooke's has refused to talk to the dealer involved," replied a Canon spokesman. "We believe there is a misunderstanding, and are ready to mediate."

The dispute, over the terms under which Addenbrooke's leased 59 Canon photocopying machines for five years, casts doubt on OFT claims that photocopier selling practices have improved since the results of the its investigation into the industry were published five years ago.

In a letter to Canon last February Addenbrooke's assistant finance director, Adrian Goodchild, complained that the hospital trust was paying 1.92 pence per copy for the use of Canon photocopiers, compared with 1 pence for a photocopier supplied by Minolta, and that it faced a penalty of pounds 317,500 if itterminated its contract early.

Canon and the authorised dealer involved in the dispute, Hertfordshire- based Vision (Office) Automation, maintain that the hospital trust entered into the 11 separate contracts signed in 1997 with its eyes open. Both Canon and Vision claim that Addenbrooke's could have fine-tuned its contract without going to the Government.

The dispute illustrates the complexity of deals where manufacturers, their dealers and finance companies split the profits from sales of leased office equipment, while customers lease rather than buy office equipment to minimise up-front costs and exploit tax breaks.

Canon and Vision suggest that the dispute has been made worse by Copywatch, a cost-reduction consultant brought in by Addenbrooke's to assist in renegotiating the contract. Company executives charge that in encouraging Addenbrooke's to take its complaints to the Government, it was pursuing its own interest.

Huw Williams, of Copywatch, said: "We stand behind every bit of information we have supplied Addenbrooke's."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in