Jump to content


Unused legislation? The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regs 1999


copperman05
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6278 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

Now forgive me if I am being niave but I have just been reading through the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. 1999

 

and here it mentions the condtions that may be regarded as unfair, and which we are now I would imagine all aware.

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation; (schedule 2, regulation 5.5)

 

The act also states: -

 

 

'The Regulations maintain the obligation on the Director General of Fair Trading (contained in the 1994 Regulations) to consider any complaint made to him about the fairness of any contract term drawn up for general use. He may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of that term or of a term having like effect (regulations 10 and 12).

 

The Regulations provide for the first time that a qualifying body named in Schedule 1 (statutory regulators, trading standards departments and Consumers' Association) may also apply for an injunction to prevent the continued use of an unfair contract term provided it has notified the Director General of its intention at least 14 days before the application is made (unless the Director General consents to a shorter period) (regulation 12). A qualifying body named in Part One of Schedule 1 (public bodies) shall be under a duty to consider a complaint if it has told the Director General that it will do so (regulation 11).

 

The Regulations provide a new power for the Director General and the public qualifying bodies to require traders to produce copies of their standard contracts, and give information about their use, in order to facilitate investigation of complaints and ensure compliance with undertakings or court orders (regulation 13).'

 

Now my question is (actually I have several:D) have any qualifying bodies (trading standards, consumer associations, etc) made any comlpaints to the director general of fair trading regarding the continued flouting of the above 'unfair condition' by our banks?

 

Or are any of the qualifying bodies in a possition to apply for an injunction to prevent the continued use of the unfair contract term as pointed out above.

 

Am I right in thinking that this legislation has enpowered certain individuals (the Director of Fair trading) and organisations (trading standards, consumer associations, etc) to use powers given in this act to stop the kind of unfair penalty charges, but that these 'qualifying bodys' have not as yet sought to even challenge these unfair charges?

Has an official complaint been made by our consumer organisations (whoever they may be) to the DFT?

 

It seems to me we have a very powerful piece of legilation here, however it does not seem to be being used, or enforced... or have I missed something??

 

 

 

Edd

Edd V Abbey

13/12/06 SAR sent

29/12/06 First 14 months statements received.

12/01/07 Microfiche received, charges of £1605 plus contractual interest at 28.7% gives total £2562.90.

15/01/07 LBA requesting £2562.90 sent.

 

Edd V Egg CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

 

Edd V Lloyds TSB CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been suggesting using it as a back up to strengthen the punitive v liquidated argument from the very beginning.

 

It was the legislation that the OFT used.

 

The case law argument has been set in stone for a very long time and is well established.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Now forgive me if I am being niave but I have just been reading through the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. 1999

 

and here it mentions the condtions that may be regarded as unfair, and which we are now I would imagine all aware.

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation; (schedule 2, regulation 5.5)

 

The act also states: -

 

 

'The Regulations maintain the obligation on the Director General of Fair Trading (contained in the 1994 Regulations) to consider any complaint made to him about the fairness of any contract term drawn up for general use. He may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of that term or of a term having like effect (regulations 10 and 12).

 

The Regulations provide for the first time that a qualifying body named in Schedule 1 (statutory regulators, trading standards departments and Consumers' Association) may also apply for an injunction to prevent the continued use of an unfair contract term provided it has notified the Director General of its intention at least 14 days before the application is made (unless the Director General consents to a shorter period) (regulation 12). A qualifying body named in Part One of Schedule 1 (public bodies) shall be under a duty to consider a complaint if it has told the Director General that it will do so (regulation 11).

 

The Regulations provide a new power for the Director General and the public qualifying bodies to require traders to produce copies of their standard contracts, and give information about their use, in order to facilitate investigation of complaints and ensure compliance with undertakings or court orders (regulation 13).'

 

Now my question is (actually I have several:D) have any qualifying bodies (trading standards, consumer orgs, etc) made any comlpaints to the director general of fair trading regarding the continued flouting of the above 'unfair condition' by our banks?

 

Or are any of the qualifying bodies in a possition to apply for an injunction to prevent the continued use of the unfair contract term as pointed out above.

 

Am I right in thinking that this legislation has enpowered certain individuals (the Director of Fair trading) and organisations (trading standards, consumer organisations, etc) to use powers given in this act to stop the kind of unfair penalty charges, but that these 'qualifying bodys' have not as yet sought to even challenge these unfair charges?

Has an official complaint been made by our consumer organisations (whoever they may be) to the DFT?

 

It seems to me we have a very powerful piece of legilation here, however it does not seem to be being used, or enforced... or have I missed something??

 

 

 

Edd

 

Good post and I for one use the unfair contract terms in many of my letters.Now these are regulations which are incorparated into law and like yourself it astounds me that the statutory bodies are not using this.What is the point of putting something into stature if it is not going to be used.A little scenario here:If you don't get your tax return in on time you are hit with a penalty,if you don't pay your council tax on time you are penilised through the courts and baliffs but the banks get away with murder and nothing is done about it in comman law.I personally think it's about time we all stood up and be counted.Why should we the consumers put up with this.I mentioned this a little while back, in 1343 you had the peasents revolt, in 1991 you had the poll tax revolt and in 2007 your getting the consumers revolt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
We have been suggesting using it as a back up to strengthen the punitive v liquidated argument from the very beginning.

 

It was the legislation that the OFT used.

 

The case law argument has been set in stone for a very long time and is well established.

 

Dave: The point is that the OFT have no backbone and looking at it lawfully the banks have not got a leg to stand on.I have case law going back to 1891 which you will find on the CCA thread which basically says that it is unlawful to issue a penalty that can't be justified.It again set precedent in 1905 with the Dunlop Ttre Company.I would really like to know what go's through the brains of the OFT,they are in a no lose situation here.If they were to take the banks to court they would win hands down.Not even the banks are above the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know who these consumer associations are, as they are one of the 'qualifying body's' that can take legal action... why arent they taking legal action?

Edd V Abbey

13/12/06 SAR sent

29/12/06 First 14 months statements received.

12/01/07 Microfiche received, charges of £1605 plus contractual interest at 28.7% gives total £2562.90.

15/01/07 LBA requesting £2562.90 sent.

 

Edd V Egg CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

 

Edd V Lloyds TSB CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
I would like to know who these consumer associations are, as they are one of the 'qualifying body's' that can take legal action... why arent they taken legal action?

 

Going back to the unfair terms in consumer contracts the reason I personally think why they won't do nothing is because the unfair term would render all T&C's/agreements unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its simpler than that...money...banks have lots of it and so it makes them powerful and this is why trading standards or other statutory body's are so unwilling to take action against them, maybe they are afraid or the banks tell them that a ruling such as a injunction for them to remove the unfair condition would create a crash in profits that have a larger effect on the economy as a whole.

 

I guess it seems large international finance organisations can be above the law, as no one it would seem (apart from the average person here) is willing to stand up the them and challenge these unfair conditions.

 

The banks have been flouting the law for too long, taking charges off those how aremost likely to need it most, filling their fat pockets, and here I was thinking they were meant to be providing a service when they are just using me as a money making scheme. Its disgusting that these bodies are doing nothing when they have the power to do something, and stop the banks making their fat profits off us.

Just my 2pence

 

Edd

Edd V Abbey

13/12/06 SAR sent

29/12/06 First 14 months statements received.

12/01/07 Microfiche received, charges of £1605 plus contractual interest at 28.7% gives total £2562.90.

15/01/07 LBA requesting £2562.90 sent.

 

Edd V Egg CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

 

Edd V Lloyds TSB CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its simpler than that...money...banks have lots of it and so it makes them powerful and this is why trading standards or other statutory body's are so unwilling to take action against them, maybe they are afraid or the banks tell them that a ruling such as a injunction for them to remove the unfair condition would create a crash in profits that have a larger effect on the economy as a whole.

 

I guess it seems large international finance organisations can be above the law, as no one it would seem (apart from the average person here) is willing to stand up the them and challenge these unfair conditions.

 

The banks have been flouting the law for too long, taking charges off those how aremost likely to need it most, filling their fat pockets, and here I was thinking they were meant to be providing a service when they are just using me as a money making scheme. Its disgusting that these bodies are doing nothing when they have the power to do something, and stop the banks making their fat profits off us.

Just my 2pence

 

Edd

 

Excelent first point.

 

Watching the debate the other day in Parliament, the minister who responded to the case put forward did, at the beginning spell out that basicaly the banks are the cornerstone of our economy. If the banks are doing well, the country does well.

 

That really should not make a blind bit of difference, they should operate within the law, but how much money do they make for the exchequer every year.

 

And this I fear will influence the OFT in their ruling.

GE Money S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 21/11/06. Responded 01/12/06. Prelim sent 05/12/06 £406. Response 12/12/06- **SETTLED IN FULL** (£396)

HSBC S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 05/12/06. NO charges in last 6 years.

Lowell CCA issued 21/11/06. Further reminder sent 8/12/06. Now commited criminal offence no response.

Capital One S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 08/12/06 Responded 03/01/07-Prelim Sent 16/01/07. LBA issued 06/02/07- N1 served 07/03/07- acknowledged 14/03/07.

Scotcall CCA issued 16/01/07. Criminal offence committed.

HFC Prelim sent 16/01/07. LBA sent- Final Correspondance issued with time limit of 29/03/07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes my fears exactly...

 

But I cant see how it can really effect the economy, if it is (the money from charges) not in the hands of the banks then it will be in the hands of its customers, who will then have more expendable funds to feed the economy with anyway...?

 

If it was any other industry that was flouting the law they probably would have been held to account long ago, but as it is our banks, it would seem we are left to fight this one on our own...one by one.

 

Well I for one am not going to let them keep their greedy hands on my money! Oh plus interest....

 

Edd

Edd V Abbey

13/12/06 SAR sent

29/12/06 First 14 months statements received.

12/01/07 Microfiche received, charges of £1605 plus contractual interest at 28.7% gives total £2562.90.

15/01/07 LBA requesting £2562.90 sent.

 

Edd V Egg CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

 

Edd V Lloyds TSB CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: Who, ahem, 'loans' the Labour party (and indeed all major parties) money?

 

Answer......?

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: Who, ahem, 'loans' the Labour party (and indeed all major parties) money?

 

Answer......?

 

 

And then they get a seat in the house of Lords....

 

Edd

Edd V Abbey

13/12/06 SAR sent

29/12/06 First 14 months statements received.

12/01/07 Microfiche received, charges of £1605 plus contractual interest at 28.7% gives total £2562.90.

15/01/07 LBA requesting £2562.90 sent.

 

Edd V Egg CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

 

Edd V Lloyds TSB CC

19/01/07 SAR sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: Who, ahem, 'loans' the Labour party (and indeed all major parties) money?

 

Answer......?

 

Dave, I suppose it depends a lot on what kind of 'loan' you're talking about!!!

Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.

 

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.

 

A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...