Consumer Protection Law 2014...

prjohnsonnn10

I've been away for a few weeks so apologies if this has been covered before.............any one got any thoughts on this as regards PPC 's?

I have a particular interest in certain (admitted) ' mis ticketing practises' being engaged at some railway car parks and would be interested in anyone's thoughts on using this Act to pursue the PPC's .........basically get a group together / class action style.

The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 are effective from 1st October.

A useful summary is here:

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

"New rights of consumer redress
The CPRs essentially criminalise misleading and aggressive commercial practices by businesses towards consumers...
"Parliament has now passed the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014. This means that, from 1 October, consumers will be able to bring a claim in the civil courts for redress where misleading actions or aggressive practices by businesses are found to have occurred and to have caused them harm...

"The new regulations also extend the right to bring a claim beyond consumer contracts for the sale or supply of a product (the definition of which includes both goods and services) to demands for payment for the supply of a product...
"To succeed in a claim, consumers will need to show that the misleading action or aggressive practice in question was a significant factor in his or her decision to enter into the contract or make the payment. Assuming the claim is made out, the new remedies available to the affected consumer are:...

• an entitlement to seek damages: damages will be available for two types of loss:
(a) consequential financial loss; and/or (b) alarm, distress or physical inconvenience or discomfort as a result of the incident complained of. Traders do though have a due diligence defence in respect of the right to claim damages.

The new rights apply to business and consumer contracts entered into, or payments made on or after 1 October."

patman99

Can't see why not.The beauty of class actions is that the cost of the Court action (lawyers etc.) is divided equally by the number of people taking part as the group.
Thus, a £100000 legal bill may be beyond Joe Public, but if you had 1000 people taking the CA, then they would each only have to pay £100 which is more affordable.

I haven't got a PCN (yet), but I do have a mate who is currently fighting one. I know that he hopes his appeal will fail as he would like to see how far up the Court system he can take the PPC.

Coupon-mad

Discussed here in a thread bazster started last month, so yes, definitely worth using:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5051813

And don't forget these regs which took effect from 13th June:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5079146

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310044/bis-13-1368-consumer-contracts-information-cancellation-and-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf


Some interpretations:

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-contracts-regulations

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

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

A discussion has just been going on here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5090714

In my view a PPC contract is a distance contract (but that is arguable and hasn't been tested).

Things are different than they were, now that the Distance Selling Regs have been repealed & replaced with that new legislation I linked above, there is more scope for consumers to fight back. Distance selling is NOT just about internet and telephone and mail order contracts now - it's been given a more open definition and there is no list to define what constitutes a 'means of distance communication' any more (deliberately, according to a Which? discussion paper I read). The EU has made real moves towards improving Consumer Rights for Sales and Service contracts of almost any description. And there's also a regulation coming in next year making ADR available for up to a full year (not just a poxy 28 days arbitrarily decided by the BPA).

Umkomaas

And there's also a regulation coming in next year making ADR available for up to a full year (not just a poxy 28 days arbitrarily decided by the BPA).

Or an even poxier 21 days decided by the IPC.

bazster

Railway car parks are IMO very much a target for this law. Telling someone you will prosecute them unless they pay you not to is pretty darned aggressive IMO.

And telling them so even though (i) you've no idea whether it was they or someone else who allegedly broke the byelaws and (ii) you don't say which byelaw was allegedly broken, is pretty darned misleading.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Railway car parks are IMO very much a target for this law. Telling someone you will prosecute them unless they pay you not to is pretty darned aggressive IMO.

And telling them so even though (i) you've no idea whether it was they or someone else who allegedly broke the byelaws and (ii) you don't say which byelaw was allegedly broken, is pretty darned misleading.

Totally agree.

Does the aggressive practice date from when the aggressive misleading letter was sent, or does this only apply to contracts dating only from after the Regs were enacted?

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Totally agree.

Does the aggressive practice date from when the aggressive misleading letter was sent, or does this only apply to contracts dating only from after the Regs were enacted? I am at work so can't trawl through links!

The power to claim under this law dates from when a contract was entered into or payment made. So, AIUI, the fact that the aggressive/misleading letters may have been sent prior to October 1st is neither here nor there if payment was made after October 1st.

BenefitMaster

or even just a penny...

bazster

I think we need to be clear about which contract we're talking about.

The contract which falls under the regs is the contract whereby the consumer agrees to pay, and the TOC agrees not to prosecute. This contract obviously comes into existence when the payment is made and is unrelated to the original contract for parking.

That's if a contract exists at all given that the TOC's consideration (agreement not to prosecute) is something it had no lawful power to offer as consideration anyway. No matter, you don't need a contract, simply making a payment suffices.

I don't think you could engineer a court claim out of this. The regs require that the aggressive/misleading action(s) were a significant factor in the consumer's transactional decision. You couldn't truthfully say this was so if your only reason for paying was to engineer a claim against them!

Coupon-mad

Maybe it would take someone paying up then, after being threatened as keeper when they are not liable. Then sue the b0ll0cks off them!

gertysingh

Many have paid with the threat of bad credit. My OH wanted to pay immediately due to thinking it was a penalty (as it is made to look like one) and also when the threat-o-grams started arriving. So it would be interesting if someone or a group would sue the PPC based on the Consumer Protection Law.

However it should be noted it is about a 4-5 month process at MCOL and you will need someone who has time and is switched on to keep on top of the paper work that goes back and forth.

Patman - your buddy can take out an MCOL on the PPC especially if he wins at the IPC or Popla, and if he set it up from the start.

It's time the wabbits hunted the hunters