UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008 and BRIGHTHOUSE

[Lefty]

Oh dear... Poor, poor BrightHouse...

They're going to have to really clean up their act now...

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

There's a few nuggets in there that BrightHouse AIN'T gonna like!

I suggest you give it a good read!


Cheers
Lefty

[steven4064]

Oo, I like schedule 1

and s7

but it repeals s78(6)(b) CCA 1974

[Lefty]

I like this bit, too...

Aggressive commercial practices

7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—

(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and
(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—

(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;
(b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;
(c) the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;
(d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and
(e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.

(3) In this regulation—

(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and
(b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.


I think an awful lot of this can be applied to the way BrightHouse sell Optional Service Cover and Damage Liability Cover...



Cheers
Lefty

[steven4064]

Those are the bits I liked These are the bits of schedule 1 I liked

10. Presenting rights given to consumers in law as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer.

25. Conducting personal visits to the consumer’s home ignoring the consumer’s request to leave or not to return, except in circumstances and to the extent justified to enforce a contractual obligation.

26. Making persistent and unwanted solicitations by telephone, fax, e-mail or other remote media except in circumstances and to the extent justified to enforce a contractual obligation.

27. Requiring a consumer who wishes to claim on an insurance policy to produce documents which could not reasonably be considered relevant as to whether the claim was valid, or failing systematically to respond to pertinent correspondence, in order to dissuade a consumer from exercising his contractual rights.

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

Just a general point: I think some, if not most, of the major banks come under this category, as they make charges or often answer telephone calls in such a way to make a significant proportioin of customers unable to complain.

[gyzmo]

Just on reading Lefty's post, please do be careful when interpreting these regulations.

regulation 7 refers to context and all relevant circumstances. Paragraph one is double limbed. It is not merely that the consumer would make a transactional decision, but also that they have been harassed or coerced into making that decision (para 1(a)). And even deciding that, the circumstances include, location and timing and use of threatening behaviour.

If one is in a shop and a good sales patter is being given, it is unlikely that this will fall within the meaning of the legislation. It is more likely to refer to doorstep selling or a mock auction.

Now I am not defending Brighthouse here. But it seems, with respect, that CAG has placed so much emphasis on these new regulations that they are seen as a miracle cure to consumer ills. They are not.
Asides not doing much than was available already (except bits sch. 1), it is the ability to enforce the regulations that determines its effectiveness. And remember that these regs are for enforcement use - not for civil contract disputes as, e.g, SoGA is. the fact that an offence has been committed does not necessitate the contract being voidable.

[whitesox]

we had a problem with brighthouse and their so called optional service cover when buying a washer from them, which we told them we did not want on at least 5 occasions, to which their rply was we will remove the said cover ? Mmmm. I saved every payment slip, and wrote down every transaction, when we reached the ammount that we had signed and agreed to pay for the washer(without the extra cover) we walked into brighthouse and made our final payment, to which they replied " but you still owe Z number of pounds, we explained that we had paid for the washer and that the money they were now asking for was the optional cover that we didn't want. I showed all my receipts, to which they were not too happy about, they then dissapeared into the back office and to our amazement they found the supposedly original contract which had a brand new tick darker than all the rest stating that we wanted extra cover. We left the shop and wrote a strong letter to brighthouse, sent with copies of all the slips and the contract , HA HA ! not heard anything since dont let brighthouse bully you which is what they seem to do to all their customers.

[gyzmo]

Report it. I insisted on a new contract for my mobile phone from P4U. They printed one off stating I had elected for insurance. A request to remove resulted in "oh its ok, we know - we just wont charge you" (yeah right). several protests ended in the production of paper specifically stating taht I did not want insurance, followed by a letter to head office and trading standards.

[business_diamond007]

T-mobile is doing really an unfair trade with me. they are involving moorcroft debt recovery limited to help them squeezing the consumer blood. can anybody help me.

[business_diamond007]

they have billing problems and they manipulates the bill. i want to get rid of this poor manipulator with no ethics.

[gyzmo]

I suggest that you start your own thread to get a better response.

[davethorp]

Originally Posted by gyzmo

I suggest that you start your own thread to get a better response.

In the right section too

[antz99]

can someone please explain how the repeling of s78(6)(b) CCA 1974 in the unfair trading regulations works?

is this to do with the 30 days they have to repsond is this now not the case

thanks

ANTZ

[gyzmo]

answered (sort of) on the other thread you posted in