National Consumer Week 2- 6 November 2015: Forum & Twitter Q&A

unholyangel

Oh and the ADR

What assurances do consumers have that the ADR is not industry orientated? Are they going to uphold their rights or is it possibly a way that consumers will end up accepting below what they're entitled to or even being mislead about their rights if the ADR doesn't make decisions based on statute?

SuperHan

It's hard not to jump in here with the answers when CAB are being relatively slow at replying (surely an hour is long enough in what seems to be advertised as a live chat sort of event?!) I appreciate they're a charity, but the OP says that their resources "aren't finite" - this should be corrected as their resources are finite.

So, for the following scenario:

Our TV is 6 weeks old and now has a distorted picture. I'm confused as I'm expecting the telly to be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time, which 6 weeks isn't. But I've read that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 we are no longer entitled to a full refund after 30 days and have lost the short-term right to reject the goods. The company we have bought the TV from have offered to repair the television but I'm not happy as I don't think it was fit for purpose when we bought it. Am I being unreasonable in my expectations or should I continue to be patient, polite and persistent?!

If you bought your TV 6 weeks ago, you'll be covered by SoGA not CRA2015 (CRA only came in on 1 October).

However, the immediate impact is the same under both acts. After a 'reasonable period' (SoGA) or 30 days (CRA) you are no longer immediately entitled to a refund. The retailer has the option to repair, replace or refund - depending on which they deem to be most economical.

Under CRA, they only get 1 chance to repair and then they must replace/refund, under SoGA they have essentially unlimited repair opportunities provided there is no significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Unfortunately, that means you will likely only get a repair and not the refund you want, and that's perfectly in line with both acts.

Happy for CAB to jump in and correct me if and where I'm wrong, but I'm relatively certain that's a fair interpretation of the law.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Thanks for the questions so far.

Please remember Citizens Advice is a charity, its resources aren't finite, so if you can try to ask your questions as succinctly as possible, one per post, so that it can find and answer your question quickly and easily, we'd really appreciate it.

Thank you

lorenferr

This is about insurance companies taking advantage of 'non-fault claims' and 'notifications only' to penalise customers who have done nothing wrong and to increase the renewal premium.

If such law exists that allows insurance companies to commit this 'legalised scam', that law needs to be changed.

Background: I have just discovered by getting a quote with the AA that my current insurer, Sheila's Wheels, reported me without my knowledge to the Claims and Underwiting Exchange. I am now on their record as if I had made a claim. This has increased dramatically all the renewal quotes this year by over £100, despite the fact I have NOT made a claim ever, in fact I have 17 years no claim bonus.

In October 2014, I phoned Sheila's Wheels only to inform them that I had found a note on my car (parked in a car park) from someone who had inadvertently hit my bumper, leaving few scratches. I did not make a claim.

Sheila's Wheels make it mandatory to inform them of any incidents. They said I should always consult with them even if I decided not to make a claim and I would not be affected in any way or form. This is not true. They stab customers in the back by recording a 'notification only' to the National Claims Database as if it was a claim, which results in higher quotes at the renewal date.

This is an insidious and tracherous practice that should be banned, as it is nothing more than a legalised scam to trick unaware customers into paying more at renewal time.

So the last thing customers should do is to inform their insurance company, because it' a lose-lose situation for customers.

Even for a little scratch caused by someone else:

a) if we don't make a claim it means we pay the insurers for nothing and we are left with the damage.
b) if we do inform our insurers and we make a claim, we get treated like criminals, penalised for 5+ years, and our premium goes to the roof.
c) if we inform our insurers but decide not to make a claim, we still end up with a record in the national database, as if we had made a claim, and the insurance premium doubles anyway. It's just a SCAM. Insurance companies lose absiolutely NOTHING if we don't claim.

Why on earth are all the quote comparison websites allowed to ask clustomers to "disclose any claim or non-claim whether fault or non-fault, and any incident you've been involved in even if it didn't result in a claim".

The law needs to change, this should be illegal.
My details have ended up on the Claims and Underwiting Exchange database without my knowledge, which now flags up to all insurers and comparison website whenever I try to get another quote.

Sheila's Wheel's actions have been damaging, insidious and deceitful.

I want the perverse law that allows insurance companies and comparisons websites to prey like volutures on CUSTOMERS NOT AT FAULT to be changed.

CitizensAdvice

Helenbonbellon wrote: »

Our TV is 6 weeks old and now has a distorted picture. I'm confused as I'm expecting the telly to be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time, which 6 weeks isn't. But I've read that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 we are no longer entitled to a full refund after 30 days and have lost the short-term right to reject the goods. The company we have bought the TV from have offered to repair the television but I'm not happy as I don't think it was fit for purpose when we bought it. Am I being unreasonable in my expectations or should I continue to be patient, polite and persistent?!

Hi Helenbonbellon - 6 weeks ago means the TV was purchased before 1 October so the new short-term right to reject doesn’t apply. The offer to repair the TV is reasonable and means the trader is doing what the law says they have to.

CitizensAdvice

bod1467 wrote: »

I live in Scotland. A local retail park has its parking managed by a private company called UKPC. My vehicle had a PCN affixed to the window.

What should I do?

Edit: Like C-m below, I am aware of what the response should be, so this is a somewhat loaded question.

Hello bod1467,

UKPC are members of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme. Follow their appeal procedure and if that doesn’t resolve the matter, you can contact POPLA: http://popla.co.uk/

There's more information and advice on the Citizens Advice Scotland website: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/transport/driving-and-parking/parking-tickets-s/parking-tickets-on-private-land-s/

Hope that helps.

DCodd

citizensadvice wrote: »

hello bod1467,

ukpc are members of the british parking association’s approved operator scheme. Follow their appeal procedure and if that doesn’t resolve the matter, you can contact popla
there's more information and advice on the citizens advice scotland website: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/transport/driving-and-parking/parking-tickets-s/parking-tickets-on-private-land-s/

hope that helps.

oooops!!!!!

CitizensAdvice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I live in England.

What would Citizens' Advice say about a UKPC parking charge notice on the windscreen for a person if it was applied to a car this week?

And what would CAB say of it was a PCN from Premier Parking Logistics?

I must admit - to be open about this - I do post on the parking tickets board here on MSE but am keen to hear CAB advice please, for other newbies who may not have stumbled to the parking tickets sub-forum.

Again, we'd refer you to UKPC's appeal procedure and if that doesn’t resolve the matter, you can contact POPLA: http://popla.co.uk/

Premier Parking Logistics don’t appear to be registered with either British Parking Association or Independent Parking Committee. You’re still able to follow Premier Parking Logistics' appeals or complaints process but there isn’t access to an independent appeals procedure.

bod1467

And there we have the issue ... BOTH responses regarding UKPC are incorrect.

1/ In Scotland (and Northern Ireland) there is no registered keeper liability as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply. Thus a private parking company can only send a charge (invoice) to the driver. If the driver ignores the windscreen ticket then the parking company has no legitimate claim against the registered keeper. Therefore the correct answer to getting a windscreen ticket from ANY private parking company (not just UKPC) is use it as hamster bedding.

2/ UKPC are currently banned from DVLA database access, therefore they shouldn't even be able to send a postal notice to a registered keeper. Therefore with UKPC it is (currently) safe to ignore a windscreen ticket.

Caveat - we do not condone or encourage irresponsible parking. However we equally do not condone paying exorbitant "penalty" amounts to private companies (many of whom are ex clampers). Their charges are usually far in excess of what typical Council penalty charges are set at. (And Council charges have legal backing; private parking companies can only send speculative invoices [which is where the Consumer angle comes in, Quentin]).

Johno100

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Thanks for the questions so far.

Please remember Citizens Advice is a charity, its resources aren't finite, so if you can try to ask your questions as succinctly as possible, one per post, so that it can find and answer your question quickly and easily, we'd really appreciate it.

Wow! So the CAB have infinite resources, think they should forget about consumer advice and turn their hand to something like eliminating world hunger and poverty.