ASK AN EXPERT: TRAVEL & HOLIDAYS. You've got a few more days to add your travel & holiday questions for deals expert MSE Oli
MSE News: Consumer rights are changing: MSE asks Jo Swinson what's happening

2.4K Posts
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.
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
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.
Or may cost less depending on what the item is. Most electrical items will depreciate in price over a year.
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?
Are that many words really needed instead of saying a simple NO?
I hope the new law is less verbos and more clear.
.withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
.definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
should have, NOT should of .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
While I agree it could've been answered in a simpler manner, I dont think No is an appropriate response to an "or" question
SoGA Section 48C says (amongst other things):
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?
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.
V0xOT09PV1RFR0FFTUNFQkUyRURFVU5VQU9JQUNSTU9JMFIxTE9ZUllSWUJOSEtQRURTWCU=
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.
V0xOT09PV1RFR0FFTUNFQkUyRURFVU5VQU9JQUNSTU9JMFIxTE9ZUllSWUJOSEtQRURTWCU=