The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015

bazster

This is the UK's first (but not last) set of regulations aimed at implementing the EU Directive on ADR:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

It's quite short, but nonetheless there is much in there to trouble the IAS. The following stick out like a sore thumb (13(e) is a problem for PoPLA too):

Access to the ADR entity
2. The body—
....
(d) permits the consumer to file an initial complaint submission by post, if the consumer
wishes;
(e) enables the exchange of information between the parties via electronic means or, if a
party wishes, by post;
....

Expertise, Independence and Impartiality
3. The body—
....
(c) ensures that no ADR official discharges his or her duties in a way that is biased as regards
a party to a dispute, or the representative of a party;
....

Transparency
5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and
easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a
durable medium—
....
(c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;
....

Fairness
7. The body—
....
(b) provides a party to a dispute within a reasonable period of time, upon request, with the
arguments, evidence, documents and facts put forward by the other party to the dispute,
including a statement made, or opinion given, by an expert;
(c) ensures that the parties may, within a reasonable period of time, comment on the
information and documents provided under paragraph (b);
....
(e) notifies the parties of the outcome of the alternative dispute resolution procedure on a
durable medium and gives the parties a statement of the grounds on which the outcome is
based.
....

Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute
13. The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it
is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds—
....
(e) the consumer has not submitted the complaint to the body within the time period
specified by the body, provided that such time period is not less than 12 months from the
date upon which the trader has given notice to the consumer that the trader is unable to
resolve the complaint with the consumer;
....

TDA

12 months it is.

bazster

TDA wrote: »

12 months it is.

Indeed so. No differentiation between sectors. A big problem for the PPC "industry"!

TDA

How do you read 13(c) given PE's proclivity toward issuing court papers?

I am not sure what precisely constitutes 'being considered' by a court. Still, provided a response is made requesting ADR after any letter before claim is received, there should be no issue.

enfield_freddy

read most of those papers , they keep mentioning "secretary of state" , normally the words "secretary of state for England and wales" are used would you think they are just shortening the title , or has "scootland" opted out/not bothered?

bazster

Obviously how it pans out in practice remains to be seen, but I think it means that, so long as the punter has disputed the charge with PE, PE can't even think about court proceedings until the punter has had 12 months to go to ADR. I can't see 13(c) being interpreted as meaning that PE or any other trader can brush aside the ADR requirements by the simple ploy of filing a court case, it would render the regulations pointless and I would hope the courts would give such cases short shrift.

I think what 13(c) is getting at is if the consumer brings proceedings against the trader then he forfeits his right to ADR (or perhaps if the consumer never bothers to even dispute the matter then the trader can dispense with ADR and go to court, although AFAICS the regs specify no timescale under which the consumer must start a dispute with the trader).

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

read most of those papers , they keep mentioning "secretary of state" , normally the words "secretary of state for England and wales" are used would you think they are just shortening the title , or has "scootland" opted out/not bothered?

As part of the UK Scotland is part of the EU, so I don't see how it could opt out.

The SoS referred to is the "Minister designated for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(a), in relation to matters relating to consumer protection(b)"

I don't know who/which department that is!

enfield_freddy

yup , misleading , a lot of laws are different in Scotland (speed limits , drink drive limits etc) , and in some cases not even added to there stature , , I was lead to believe (maybe wrongly) that there was a secretary of state for England and wales , and the "skirty's" had there own,


the reason for the query was regarding lack of POPLa in scootland

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

yup , misleading , a lot of laws are different in Scotland (speed limits , drink drive limits etc) , and in some cases not even added to there stature , , I was lead to believe (maybe wrongly) that there was a secretary of state for England and wales , and the "skirty's" had there own,


the reason for the query was regarding lack of POPLa in scootland

Most government ministers in charge of a department are a SoS, so there's lots of them. There is an SoS for Scotland, but he's a member of the UK cabinet.

The extent to which an SoS' powers cover Scotland will depend on the extent to which those powers have been devolved to the Scottish Assembly, but I'm not aware that the Scottish Assembly has any standing in its own right with respect to the EU i.e. EU directives cover the whole of the UK, not just England and Wales.

These regulations cover the whole breadth of consumer affairs, not specifically private parking. I very much doubt PoPLA and its applicability was even considered in drafting them.

enfield_freddy

ok , question answered , thanks

bod1467

It was still a valid question though.

5(c) will be an issue for IAS.