Wonga Fined fo using Fake Lawyer letters.

bazster

Indeed. Consumer law is continually refined and tweaked in an effort to persuade us that "something is being done", without ever reducing it to those very, very basic principles that C-M expounds so concisely.

Anyone would think the powers that be had a vested interest in keeping the law complex, obscure and inadequate.

Whatdoiknow

I agree with the points that some would like to see in consumer law, another would be making cold calling both at the door and on the telephone illegal.:mad:

Guys_Dad

Cornucopia wrote: »

Indeed.

And the more I think about it, the more frustrated I am that we are born into a consumer society that doesn't have such completely comprehensive ideals.

Remind me when in history such a Utopian society existed?

Don't get me wrong, but there will always be those who operate at the extremities of the law and, of course, those who operate outside it too.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Remind me when in history such a Utopian society existed?

Don't get me wrong, but there will always be those who operate at the extremities of the law and, of course, those who operate outside it too.

Aim low and that's where you will hit. Aim high and you might not hit the bullseye, but you'll get some way there!

Cornucopia

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Remind me when in history such a Utopian society existed?

I think the extent to which citizens are now tied up in the workings of commercial businesses is unprecedented. Such a position requires a new, common sense approach to this. We've seen what happens when these organisations are left to their own devices.

An invitation not to mislead, for example, covers a vast range of potential activities from unfair contracts to advertising. And I would add that I see these things as being honoured in spirit (where so much of the conduct we presently have on our "hit list" may be technically legal, but anyone can see the dishonest intent and the effect on some/all citizens.

Don't get me wrong, but there will always be those who operate at the extremities of the law and, of course, those who operate outside it too.

Agreed - the disadvantages of very complex guidelines and laws is that (a) organisations take extreme measures to follow just inside the "contours" of what is permitted, and (b) citizens are disadvantaged by their lack of knowledge of the guidelines.

Cornucopia

bazster wrote: »

Aim low and that's where you will hit. Aim high and you might not hit the bullseye, but you'll get some way there!

Totally agree.

I used to work for a large company with a big engineering division. At one stage, the company introduced a new policy that was aiming for zero Heath and Safety incidents. People objected that it was unrealistic and unachievable, but they were missing the point. You aspire to zero incidents because it is the right thing to do, and it leads you in the right direction.

Bantex_2

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

No, but it does make a difference, if the letter comes from a non-existent solicitor.

Tell me, what's the difference between sending letters from fake solicitors, and sending round a fake bailiff, carrying a fake Liability Order?

As long as they only sent the fake bailiffs, and fake Liability Orders, to people who had taken their money, and then were not repaying as they agreed to, that'd be OK, wouldn't it?

While you are at it, the fake bailiffs could take along a Doberman and a baseball bat.

After all, the people clearly deserve everything they get, for taking their money and then not repaying as they agreed to.

That I would agree with in the vast majority of cases.
Maybe I am old fashioned in believing that borrowing money and not paying it back is wrong.

Cornucopia

Whatdoiknow wrote: »

I agree with the points that some would like to see in consumer law, another would be making cold calling both at the door and on the telephone illegal.:mad:

I think there are quite a few other things that could be added - I was thinking of something on exploitative pricing, for example.

- citizens' locations or other characteristics they cannot change must not be subject to exploitative pricing.


I'm not sure whether cold-calling requires an outright ban, or whether it is a question of better respecting people's rights over their own homes.

- organisations must respect citizens' privacy and their home life

bazster

Bantex wrote: »

That I would agree with in the vast majority of cases.
Maybe I am old fashioned in believing that borrowing money and not paying it back is wrong.

I'm even more old-fashioned in believing that two wrongs don't make a right.

bod1467

Bantex wrote: »

That I would agree with in the vast majority of cases.
Maybe I am old fashioned in believing that borrowing money and not paying it back is wrong.

I take it you're oblivious to irony and sarcasm?