Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

New Cancellation Rights


BankFodder
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3669 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

2.1 This instrument implements most provisions of the EU Consumer Rights Directive (the remaining provisions are implemented

in the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 and the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 EU Infringements) Order 2013). It will ensure that consumers and traders are clear about the bargain they are making in three main areas: information which traders should provide to consumers; cancellation rightsand responsibilities; and measures to prevent hidden costs. Together with the draft ConsumerRights Bill, these reforms constitute a fundamental reform of UK consumer rights, which will contribute to markets working more effectively, thereby driving economic growth.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/pdfs/uksiem_20133134_en.pdf

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/4/paragraph/2/made

 

 

On the 13 June 2014 the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 SI 2013 No. 3134 will come into force. Go to Regulations (pdf 360 kb)

These regulations will apply to contracts concluded on or after 13 June 2014. On this date, the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 and the Off Premises (Doorstep) Regulations 2008 will be revoked.

Where goods received are faulty or not fit for purpose or as described, consumers have different rights which are covered by separate legislation. Go to our webpage Consumer Rights Bill

 

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/business/trading-standards/fair-trading/guidance-cancellation-rights-consumer-contracts

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266525/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf

 

The Consumer Contracts (Information

Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations

2013 (Regulations) cover on-premises, off-

premises and distance trader to consumer

contracts subject to certain exceptions. This

includes auctions (although there are no

cancellation rights in relation to public auctions)

and contracts for social services and healthcare

(which are not covered by the Consumer Rights

Directive (CRD)). They implement the bulk

of the CRD and will supersede the Consumer

Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations

2000 and the Cancellation of Contracts made

in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc.

Regulations 2008. The superseded legislation

will still be relevant in respect of any contracts

concluded prior to the Regulations coming into

force.

http://www.taylorwessing.com/fileadmin/files/docs/Consumer-Contracts-Regulations-2013.pdf

 

  • The Regulations replace the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (the "DSR") and the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008.

 

  • The Regulations extend the period from when a consumer can voluntarily withdraw from a contract (the "cooling-off period") from 7 working days to 14 calendar days. The Regulations also amend the point at which the cooling-off period commences for contracts for the sale of goods, and the maximum duration to which the cooling-off period may be extended in lieu of the trader meeting its obligation to notify the consumer of their cancellation right.

 

  • The Regulations amend the timeframes around the provision of refunds, and provide that consumers will generally be required to return goods (or otherwise evidence such return) in order to receive a refund.

 

  • For online services contracts, the Regulations require the consumer to make an express request before the trader can commence services during the cooling-off period, and amend the rules around the consumer waiving his or her withdrawal right during such period. There are also provisions allowing traders to be paid on a pro-rated basis if services are provided, and subsequently cancelled, during the cooling-off period.

https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2013/uk/new-consumer-protection-rules-adopted-in-the-uk

 

Cancellation Rights for distance and off-premises contracts

Length of cooling off period -

The cooling off period during which consumers can

cancel orders for digital content, goods or services will now be 14 calendar days.

Currently, the cancellation period is 7 working days for distance sale contracts and 7

calendar days for doorstep sales contracts.

For contracts for the sale of goods, the cooling off period ends 14 calendar days after

the day on which the goods are delivered. If the goods are delivered in several

instalments then it will be 14 days from receipt of the last instalment.

For contracts for the sale of digital content (which is not on disk or another tangible

medium), the cooling off period ends 14 calendar days after the day on which the

contract is entered into.

For contracts for the sale of services, the cooling off period ends 14 calendar days

after the day on which the contract is entered into unless the consumer has expressly

requested that the services commence before then and has waived his cancellation

right.

Standard cancellation form

– The Regulations contain a model cancellation form

which can be used to notify consumers of their right to cancel before they enter into

distance or off-premises contracts, but a trader can use its own wording if it chooses

provided such wording is clear.

 

http://www.stevens-bolton.com/uploads/changes-to-consumer-law-in-the-uk.pdf

 

Inertia selling

The Regulations protect consumers from unsolicited sales and additional charges

which have not been agreed in advance.

In such cases, the consumer is not required to pay for the unsolicited supply of

products. Similarly, the consumer is not required to pay additional charges unless he

gave express consent to such charges before the contract was concluded.

Helpline charges

Where a trader offers consumers a helpline for queries concerning goods, services

and/or digital content which the consumer has purchased, calls to such helpline by the

consumer must only be charged for at the basic rate.

http://www.stevens-bolton.com/uploads/changes-to-consumer-law-in-the-uk.pdf
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...