Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014

bazster

I've had a looksie at this, prompted by a post I saw on PePiPoo.

The main feature of the regs is that, in circumstances where a trader has been naughty with respect to the UTR 2008 (i.e. where the trader has engaged in a misleading or aggressive practice), the consumer has the right to sue. So, the consumer can take the law into his own hands over UTR 2008 breaches instead of trying (vainly) to get Trading Standards to do something about it.

This is aimed mainly at people getting their money back, which helps people who've been ripped off by PPC's because there is strict liability, unlike if you sue someone using the law of tort (e.g. deceit). In other words, you don't need to prove that the trader meant to act in a misleading or aggressive manner, the mere fact that they did so act suffices.

Even better, though, you can sue not only for your losses but also for damages resulting from distress and inconvenience. So, it seems to me that a PPC acting aggressively and being misleading (situation normal in other words) can be sued for damages, not just for any charge you might or might not have paid.

This might be the answer to getting one's own back. No need to try to show that the PPC entered into a contract to pay you for your time, no need to invoice them, no need to demonstrate a loss as the result of a tortious act: simply gather the evidence that their actions were aggressive and/or misleading, gather the evidence that you were distressed and/or inconvenienced, and MCOL here we come!

The guidance to the regs gives clamping (yes clamping, duh!) and "civil recovery" with respect to shoplifting allegations as examples of areas which are covered, so fake parking fines would certainly be covered. Debt collectors are also covered, with their principal being liable when they are not collecting on their own account.

Northlakes

This is particularly interesting as it appears to me that any PPC who has pursued a vehicle keeper on relevant land knowing full well that the keeper is not liable would fall easily into this category.


It would need someone with bottle as full weight of the not so lawful branch of the legal profession would be out in force to fight any action brought against a PPC. It would be far better if Trading Standards would bring a case in the criminal courts. Although the initial fine would be fairly insignificant the Proceeds of Crime Act would come into play. The amounts they could recover would frighten any financial director and would close down many a PPC including some of the biggest. I wouldn't like to be a PPC indemnity insurer if this happenned!

bazster

Northlakes wrote: »

This is particularly interesting as it appears to me that any PPC who has pursued a vehicle keeper on relevant land knowing full well that the keeper is not liable would fall easily into this category.

Yes indeed.

Northlakes wrote: »

It would need someone with bottle as full weight of the not so lawful branch of the legal profession would be out in force to fight any action brought against a PPC.

But all anyone would risk would be the MCOL fee. We're talking small claims, not the High Court!

Dee140157

Maybe a case for a bit of crowd funding?

bazster

Dee140157 wrote: »

Maybe a case for a bit of crowd funding?

For 20 quid?

peter_the_piper

I would suggest that, if someone takes this up, that it is kept off forum. The walls have ears you know.

Dee140157

I misread the previous post! Oops. Blame trying to post and listening to parking debate at same time.

Coupon-mad

Just bumping this so people can read about it over the weekend and also to provide a link discussing it:

http://www.freshfields.com/uploadedFiles/SiteWide/Knowledge/00805_BS_MBD_COM_Consumer_Law_V1.pdf

''These could prove to be a significant addition to the ‘consumer empowerment’ agenda* which the government is committed to introducing.''


* Tell that to HHJ Moloney or the ...errrrrrmmmmm....'learned' Judge who made this decision recently:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/an-expensive-shopping-trip-motorist.html

Better still, tell that bit (about the Government's ‘consumer empowerment’ agenda) to the Judges in the PE v Beavis case!

Dee140157

Just thought I would bump this thread as it comes into force today.

Coupon-mad

And another bump for reference.

Half_way

I haven't had time to read it yet, let alone time to digest it but hopefully it will give consumers some leverage not only against the PPCs but more importantly it will give consumers the chance to claim against those who allow PPCs to operate on their land as their agents/for or and on behalf of.
something like claiming against Morisons/Aldi/Welcome break/whoever for the antics of Parking eye, or ASDA for Smart parking for example.
Much as the PPCs should be despised some of the focus if not all should be against the landowners, or those who take these company's on and hide behind the nothing to do with us mate attitude/policy's.
It would be quite satisfying to see the supermarkets etc having to re-fund people who have fallen for the antics of their agents and paid these trumped up parking charge notices.