Terms and Conditions: What would good t&cs look like?

hollydays

Some disreputable companies try to hide their terms in different parts of their site.
Sometimes , the returns policy isn't in the terms and conditions , its hidden , for example , amongst pages and pages of text to make it deliberately hard to find.
Also some sites that get people to sign up for a free trial do this too, using the " continuous service" model.
Therefore it seems that where there are charges , they should be near the start of the t& cs to avoid any claims of being less than transparent.

robin58

chrisjgregory wrote: »

I'm sick of T&Cs being in such small print, I think they must be using 6pt or less. T&Cs should be DDA (Disability Discrimination Act)-compliant which means at least 12pt. If firms had to use a proper font size the T&Cs would take up such an absurdly large number of pages they would have to shorten them, which would make them more readable. An enterprising website could also track firms with the longest T&Cs to ridicule them.

That's why firm love the internet.

The cost is transferred to you as you are they one who pays to print them out.

Former_MSE_Will

Thanks for your comments so far, folks.

This is your chance to tell the Government what your ideas are for good T&Cs - so please keep them coming! :T

AJXX

1. Which of these applies to you?
I usually at least glance at T&Cs

2. If you always read or normally read the T&Cs, what type of good or service will they typically be for?
Expensive products (£50+) or something (usually services) long term (3+ months).

3. What kinds of information do you look for in T&Cs?
Depends on what it is that I'm buying but usually returns, payments and cancellations.

I also like to check for company numbers, head office address and VAT numbers if I can as I like to know this information is available to ensure the website is trustworthy.

4. Does the length of T&Cs affect your willingness to look at them?
Not particularly - I skim read to the sections that I need (above).

5. If you knew T&Cs would be “succinct, bold and upfront” would it encourage you to read them? What would this look like in practice? Key facts sheets - a simplified breakdown of the T's and C's without having to read a huge document.

Sort of like a https://tosdr.org/# style breakdown being mandatory for all T's and C's.

6. Would you check the T&Cs if the key facts all fit onto two smartphone screens?

Yes
7. Do you typically find Terms and Conditions easy to understand and free of jargon?

Most of the time, yes.

8. Should ticking a tick box always mean “I want/agree to this”?

Depends what the box says? If the box says "I understand and agree" then yes.

bod1467

Ref point 8 ... the key thing is that you should always have to opt IN to anything, even agreeing to T&Cs. So having to tick a box would be logical.

Wasn't this made law a couple of years ago?

Former_MSE_Will

Thanks AJXX and bod1467.

Just to add a bit more info, the tick box question is because sometimes companies say things like "If you want to opt out of marketing, tick this box" but others say "If you want marketing, tick this box".

bod1467

That's exactly what I was meaning ... I thought the law had been changed (or it was at least discussed as a guideline best practice) that you always had to opt IN to such things; having to tick to opt OUT was no longer allowed.

[Deleted User]

I often wonder why the ice cream van doesn't have T&Cs to read when you buy a raspberry ripple......

unholyangel

Point 8 is about different retailers using different wording.

So while some say "tick if you want to receive xyz" others use "tick if you do not want to receive xyz" and some even use a mixture of the two! What they're suggesting (if memory serves) is that there is a default blank = no and tick = yes to make things more streamlined for customers and make it harder for retailers to manipulate/confuse them into agreeing to something they might not want.

unholyangel

bod1467 wrote: »

That's exactly what I was meaning ... I thought the law had been changed (or it was at least discussed as a guideline best practice) that you always had to opt IN to such things; having to tick to opt OUT was no longer allowed.

Hmmm nothing exactly like that is coming to mind. Roughly like it though is the additional charges section in consumer contract regulations (that additional charges can only be made with the consumers express consent and that consent cannot be inferred from the consumer failing to change a default option - such as a pre-ticked box).

The other is that they must have prior consent for marketing. And while an opt-in might show prior consent, an opt out does not because the customer has taken no positive action to give their consent.