MSE News: Consumer rights are changing: MSE asks Jo Swinson what's happening

Former_MSE_Helen

The new Consumer Rights Bill, which comes into force on 1 October, has been given Royal Assent by the Queen today...

Read the full story:

Consumer rights are changing: MSE asks Jo Swinson what's happening




Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

chocolady

Not sure I like this "you can have a refund less the use you have had from the item". Why should you have an item that is not fit for purpose but then get less money back if you've used it for say a year when it should have lasted for say five years. You are then getting less money back to have the hassle of then buying a new item that may well cost more with inflation. Wonder if this act clarifies who gets the cost of returning items etc. Preferred SOGA to be honest even if it was a bit more vague. This seems more in favour of businesses than consumers.

unholyangel

chocolady wrote: »

Not sure I like this "you can have a refund less the use you have had from the item". Why should you have an item that is not fit for purpose but then get less money back if you've used it for say a year when it should have lasted for say five years. You are then getting less money back to have the hassle of then buying a new item that may well cost more with inflation. Wonder if this act clarifies who gets the cost of returning items etc. Preferred SOGA to be honest even if it was a bit more vague. This seems more in favour of businesses than consumers.

I said the same when MSE asked us for questions to put to Jo Swinson.

There must have been a "and no asking me questions which make the new legislation (and us) look anything less than super awesome, mmmkay?" clause for the interview.

But that seems par for the course where government are concerned.

powerful_Rogue

chocolady wrote: »

Not sure I like this "you can have a refund less the use you have had from the item". Why should you have an item that is not fit for purpose but then get less money back if you've used it for say a year when it should have lasted for say five years. You are then getting less money back to have the hassle of then buying a new item that may well cost more with inflation. Wonder if this act clarifies who gets the cost of returning items etc. Preferred SOGA to be honest even if it was a bit more vague. This seems more in favour of businesses than consumers.

Or may cost less depending on what the item is. Most electrical items will depreciate in price over a year.

bod1467

chocolady wrote: »

Not sure I like this "you can have a refund less the use you have had from the item".

Current legislation is the same already (for distance sales). I presume this Bill simply brings face-to-face sales into parity?

Is the 6 months burden of proof clause still going to be in place?

grumbler

Jo_Swinson wrote:

Q. Does the one repair-and-then-refund rule apply only to a single fault (i.e. one attempt to repair it), or would this cover two different faults?
A. One repair can fix two (or more) faults. Once the retailer has given a repair, if the same fault (or one of the same faults) comes back or if a different fault appears, then the consumer can ask for a refund.

Is it just me?
Are that many words really needed instead of saying a simple NO?
I hope the new law is less verbos and more clear.

unholyangel

grumbler wrote: »

Is it just me?
Are that many words really needed instead of saying a simple NO?
I hope the new law is less verbos and more clear.

While I agree it could've been answered in a simpler manner, I dont think No is an appropriate response to an "or" question

wealdroam

chocolady wrote: »

Not sure I like this "you can have a refund less the use you have had from the item". Why should you have an item that is not fit for purpose but then get less money back if you've used it for say a year when it should have lasted for say five years. You are then getting less money back to have the hassle of then buying a new item that may well cost more with inflation. Wonder if this act clarifies who gets the cost of returning items etc. Preferred SOGA to be honest even if it was a bit more vague. This seems more in favour of businesses than consumers.

That is already in the current Sale of Goods Act.

SoGA Section 48C says (amongst other things):

(3) For the purposes of this Part, if the buyer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement to the buyer may be reduced to take account of the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him.

unholyangel

Doesnt new legislation only allow deductions for goods over 6 months?

In the first publications, they were looking at doing 12 months before a deduction could be made.

They were also looking to have 30 days minimum (with longer for special circumstances - like winter goods purchased in summer).

There were a few other sections as well, but it seems going through the house of commons and the house of lords has weakened it to such a degree, that the new legislation sometimes offers LESS protection than our current legislation.

But then given those in commons and lords likely have business interests in companies affected by it......is it any wonder?

6_6_6

Whats is all this "some money back" business. Why was the question not asked, who exactly decides when 'some' is 'enough'.

Still there is no proper non-vested non-industry supported retail ombudsman service being set up, only the suggestion of an optional and financially connected service, and not just one but potentially one for each shop in the UK - if they really wanted to take the pi$$.

30 days for a refund - no questions - is pretty much a joke.

The only good thing is the law says a retailer has one chance to put it right, even then however your only entitled to 'some' money back. Say 1 penny. Heyyy! Mr retailer has fulfilled the law, he gave 'some' money back. So goodbye sir, pi$$ off now.

6_6_6

unholyangel wrote: »

Doesnt new legislation only allow deductions for goods over 6 months?

In the first publications, they were looking at doing 12 months before a deduction could be made.

They were also looking to have 30 days minimum (with longer for special circumstances - like winter goods purchased in summer).

There were a few other sections as well, but it seems going through the house of commons and the house of lords has weakened it to such a degree, that the new legislation sometimes offers LESS protection than our current legislation.

But then given those in commons and lords likely have business interests in companies affected by it......is it any wonder?

See, its this sort of acquiescence that results in the world we live in today. Do we have to accept that a 'house of lords' such a pathetic system in its own right, can dictate hardships on the people without the right to vengeance. We the people need to start rising up and punishing those who pander to corporatism over the best interests of the public. That punishment needs to be so scary, so severe no other greed power obsessed human (house of lords, parliament etc) would dare ever do so again. What might that punishment be ? How do we 'correct' them ? A very willful bunch. A rather naughty parliament, if I may be so bold, sir. Perhaps they need a good talking to, if you don't mind my saying so. Perhaps a bit more.