RAC False Endorsement of Product by TV Personality

DoaM

DCFC79 wrote: »

OP why on earth did you post 7 times in the space of 18 minutes.

Probably because he doesn't know how to use the QUOTE function?

George_Michael

DoaM wrote: »

Probably because he doesn't know how to use the QUOTE function?

But he's previously posted on a number of occasions on this thread using the quote function so that can't be the reason.

Cornucopia

Anonfromuk wrote: »

Using a celebrity to endorse a product when the celebrity hasn't authorized any endorsement is a criminal offence. Martin Lewis has had the same problem .... ""The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) is a statutory instrument in the United Kingdom made under the European Communities Act 1972. ... It is designed to implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as part of a common set of European minimum standards for consumer protection."" ................ lots of armchair experts on this forum with wrong or unhelpful advice .......... https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading-regulations-2008

Did you read your linked article though? It tells you all of the various criteria that your case must meet in order to be in-scope of the regulations, and it tells you what remedies are provided. One major exemption is omission. In other words, if the issue is that the RAC omitted to disclose the exact nature of QW's involvement, then that may not be in-scope of those regulations (and they are regulations, not primary legislation, and therefore not a crime, as such). Another exemption is "significant factor" - you will need to show that the "endorsement" was a significant factor in your decision to buy, and I suspect in the context that that argument will need to be demonstrably plausible (which I think will be difficult).

Other than the option to seek damages from the RAC (which you already [probably] have under contract law), there is no remedy there which will help you. In particular, you may find the option of having your HPI fee refunded something of an insult.

DoaM

George_Michael wrote: »

But he's previously posted on a number of occasions on this thread using the quote function so that can't be the reason.

In that case (I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread to check) ... your guess is as good as mine.