Thread: UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008 and BRIGHTHOUSE

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

Similar Threads:

• Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
• Contracts signed pre July 1995 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
• FSA Undertakings under "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999"

Oo, I like schedule 1

and s7

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by gyzmo

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

In the right section too

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

first of all calm down , they cant send balliffs , only a member of there staff, you can tell them to leave and if they dont call the police

have asked one of the members that know a lot about them to come on the thread for you "Clemma"

Originally Posted by louise1980

I took out a tv with bright house last year I make all my payments on time yet they start hounding me five days proir to the payment date and they dont just call me they have rung my mum hundredsof times even though I told them not to ,my mum has severe ms which I told them and they still rung sometimes as early as 7 oclock in the morning they pester me constantly and are aggressive in manner and tone ,I had aphone call today as i answerd it someone was screaming down the phone at me saying that they had been calling me 24/7 and that i was ignoring there calls which i wasnt he told me that i constantly have excuses which is untrue and that if i didnt pay by tomorrow at 12 they were sending round the baliffs in the afternoon even more so he was ringing from his own mobile phone so my number would have been on his phone as he left the store i feel betrayed by brighthouse and need help i want all of the money i have paid till know back as i dont trust the company.

You really need to start you own thread about this - but for now, let me reassure you that Brighthouse have NO rights to enter your home without a court order. I am going to need a little more information - how long have you had your goods etc., etc.

As for the phone calls, send them the following letter, by recorded delivery ASAP. You can also include the one about home visits as well. As soon as you start your own thread, send me a PM and I WILL come onto it and give you all the advice you need.

Letters:

-HARASSMENT WARNING-

WARNING;PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997;

WARNING; COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003, S127.

TELEPHONE NUMBER

Re: Harassment by telephone


ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls.

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded.

Yours faithfully,

AND

Dear Sir/Madam

Account Ref xxxx

Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing.

Should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

Yours faithfully

Your local paperboy has more rights to be on your property than the goons from Brighthouse. If they turn up, keep a copy of this letter by the door, give it to them, then slam the door on them (using whatever words you feel appropriate). If they still will not leave, then call the police (not 999) and ask them to attend as you are being threatened and intimidated. They will take you seriously.

Ok, as for bailiffs - as kiptower stated, they are just store staff. Only a court can send bailiffs. Before that can happen Brighthouse have to obtain a CCJ against you, which you then fail to pay. HOWEVER, Brighthouse NEVER take anyone to court - I know of no cases. If they phone, hang up - if they persist, then you continue to hang up. DO NOT SPEAK TO THEM - as you can tell, the bully, intimidate and threaten you. Everything they say is rubbish - you must now do EVERYTHING in writing!

As for why you are making no payments - put this to them in writing too (also to Head Office) explaining the situation.

Hope some of this helps - if you need more advice, then like I said, start a new thread - HERE and send me a private message. Please, please remain calm.

Oh, and as for getting your money back - this won't happen. You have entered a Hire Purchase agreement, and the money you have paid so far has been for the hire of the goods.