Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
It's set to be a huge reform of what businesses are allowed to do when dealing with consumers. As well as 31 practices that are always banned, there will be general offences of behaving in a misleading or unfair way.
One of the main things that is new is these will be strict liability offences so no deliberate fraud or intent will have to be proved in most cases.
From a general consumer point of view, this could make it an offence to mislead customers about statutory rights, it will extend laws on misleading/hidden prices to people like letting agents who were not previously covered. It will become an offence to run cashback [problem]s, or to put 'non-contractual obstacles' in the way of a customer trying to exercise cancellation rights. Bait-and-switch is specifically banned.
In short, a lot of unfair practices that were in need of reform and were not caught by existing laws are likely to become illegal.
It's set to be a huge reform of what businesses are allowed to do when dealing with consumers. As well as 31 practices that are always banned, there will be general offences of behaving in a misleading or unfair way.
One of the main things that is new is these will be strict liability offences so no deliberate fraud or intent will have to be proved in most cases.
From a general consumer point of view, this could make it an offence to mislead customers about statutory rights, it will extend laws on misleading/hidden prices to people like letting agents who were not previously covered. It will become an offence to run cashback [problem]s, or to put 'non-contractual obstacles' in the way of a customer trying to exercise cancellation rights. Bait-and-switch is specifically banned.
In short, a lot of unfair practices that were in need of reform and were not caught by existing laws are likely to become illegal.
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
[reply to spam removed]
Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
If you are referring to the usage of the CPUT regs, they are not retrospective and are really for enforcement purposes. Your complaint will come under the pre-existing legislation.
It's set to be a huge reform of what businesses are allowed to do when dealing with consumers. As well as 31 practices that are always banned, there will be general offences of behaving in a misleading or unfair way.
One of the main things that is new is these will be strict liability offences so no deliberate fraud or intent will have to be proved in most cases.
From a general consumer point of view, this could make it an offence to mislead customers about statutory rights, it will extend laws on misleading/hidden prices to people like letting agents who were not previously covered. It will become an offence to run cashback [problem]s, or to put 'non-contractual obstacles' in the way of a customer trying to exercise cancellation rights. Bait-and-switch is specifically banned.
In short, a lot of unfair practices that were in need of reform and were not caught by existing laws are likely to become illegal.
Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click! Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06) The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Originally Posted by joskydive
Hi, This is my first post and I'm not sure where to look for answers to my daughter's rather disgusting and stressing situation.
To date - She lost her husband in the Irag war nearly two years ago now, leaving her and her 3 year old son as the sole beneficiaries to his estate. Her husband was insured with AIG.
Up until a few months ago AIG has been sending her a monthly cheque from USA to UK and she has then had to wait a long time for the cheque to clear. As this was not an ideal situation, I advised her to contact them and ask that they simply transfer her funds directly to her Bank. Lloyds Bank.
Since this request was made there have been all sorts of difficulties where the Bank will not accept and acknowledge AIG and allow them to transfer the money even though my daughter has informed them that this is her requirement and because it is now 4 months since she her last payment from them they sent a cheque instead to tide her over financially. Since she has paid in this cheque to her account, however, the Bank has informed her that it will now take between 4 - 6 weeks to clear the cheque for some reason and they are being as ackward as possible. In the meantime, she account is well overdrawn and being charged for it and she now has to worry over AIG going bust too and will she get any of her money anyway. Is there anyone here who can tell me what is the best move for her to make right now?
There is a lot more to the story, however, this is the main jist at the moment. Any replies would be a help. Thanks
It maybe worth looking around for an alternative bank that could help in this situation.
Do AIG have an English office to speak to?
or The Insurance Ombudsman? They might be able to help?
She doesn't need this stress I'm sure. Good luck!
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Joskydive I am sorry to hear the problems your daughter is having.
I would imagien that the main reason for the delay is that AIG are sending the money in dollars. Before it can be credited to your daughters account the amount has to be converted into £ sterling and that is what takes the time as the cheque has to go back to the USA and when it is paid only then can it be converted into sterling. It is a source of considerable irritation to many that the banks still take so long to complete these transactions-sheer greed on their part.
It may be best to explain the problem to AIG over here in England to see if the American branch can make the payments in £s rather than $s from the start, or to allow the British section of AIG to make the payments in sterling.
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
PAX, the policy many UK service personnel have, is underwritten by AIG, though I've never heard of payments coming from USA.
It would be helpful to know whether the insured person was UK military, US military or a PSD. If the former, I have good contacts at PAX and may be able to help.
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Hi all,
I've just been reading the info about debts over six years old.
I'm just wondering when the 6 years would start from? I assume it wouldn't be the date that the agreement started? Is it from the date of default and how do I find out if 6 years have passed?
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
It is usually 6 years from the last acknowledgement of the debt. This includes any payments made as well as responses to communication. The debt forums will contain more information
Am I right in saying that any CCA request does not have to follow the 30 days timescale that was set.
would really appreciate if you could clear this up for me, or explain how these regulations might affect CCA'S
Also I have heard that something has been introduced by Jack straw or what ever title he is known by now. which also affects CCA'S AND HOW CREDIT CARD COMPANIES HAVE TO SUPPLY THEM
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Like with so many things, the CPUTR has replaced what was very prescriptive legislation with rather wooly subjective criteria - usually resulting in a "its a matter for the court to decide" result, making legislation all the more harder to enforce.
I cannot answer about the particular legislation as I do not have it in front of me (or any amending legislation) sorry. As far as I am aware, the 30 days is still there but I cannot say for definite.
Contained in Schedule 2, Amendments, Part 1, Amendments to Acts, Regulation 30 (1)
Consumer Credit Act 1974
17. The Consumer Credit Act 1974(a) is amended as follows.
18. Section 46 (false or misleading advertisements) shall cease to have effect.
19. In section 77 (duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement), in subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
20. In section 78 (duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement), in subsection (6), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
21. In section 79 (duty to give hirer information), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
22. In section 85 (duty on issue of new credit tokens), in subsection (2), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
23. In section 97 (duty to give information), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
24. In section 103 (termination statements)—
(a) omit subsection (5), and
(b) at the end insert—
“(6) A breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.”.
25. In section 107 (duty to give information to surety under fixed-sum credit agreement), in subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
26. In section 108 (duty to give information to surety under running-account credit agreement),in subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
27. In section 109 (duty to give information to surety under consumer hire agreement), insubsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.
28. In section 110 (duty to give information to debtor or hirer), in subsection (3), omit paragraph(b) and the “and” preceding it.
Also s40.3 of the Administration of Justice Act has been amended.
Administration of Justice Act 1970
13. In section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970(a) (punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.”.
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Reply With Quote
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Originally Posted by Zamzara
Re: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
