Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

JJ_Egan

and or attract the trolls .

unholyangel

brianposter said:

unholyangel said:

The CPRs is criminal legislation - not civil. That is why it only talks about offences and penalties and doesn't mention breach or damages. 

 

The regulations apparently do mention damages. (Edited to add that the following provisions were added in the 2014 amendment to the regulations.)

Consumers' rights to redress

In addition to the criminal offences created by a breach of the provisions described above, the Regulations also provide consumers with rights to redress enforceable through the civil courts.

..................................................................................................................

Right to a discount

This right applies where the right to unwind has been lost. This may be because of a delay in complaining or because the goods have been fully consumed. For goods and services costing less than £5,000 there is a fixed-percentage discount ranging from 25% for more than minor issues to 100% for very serious cases.

Above £5,000, if the misleading or aggressive practice led the consumer to pay more than the market price for the product, the price is reduced to the market price. Otherwise, the fixed-percentage discounts will still apply. A consumer may also claim a discount instead of unwinding a contract where the right to unwind still exists but the consumer does not wish to end the contract. 

Damages

Consumers can claim damages if they have suffered reasonably foreseeable losses that exceed the price paid for goods, digital content and services. These damages can cover alarm, distress, physical inconvenience or discomfort as well as economic losses suffered as a result of the prohibited practice. Damages may be claimed in addition to unwinding the contract or claiming a discount. Damages are not payable if the trader can establish that the prohibited practice occurred due to a mistake, reliance on information supplied to the trader by another person, the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond the trader's control and the trader had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the prohibited practice occurring.

Yes, but only after the trader has been found to have committed an offence/engaged in an unfair practice under regulations 5 or 7  (so either a positive misleading action or an aggressive practice....not omissions) and that unfair practice was a major factor in the customers decision.

There are many other conditions under the CPRs. The CRA is by far the superior legislation when it comes to consumer damages. Simply because they offer better options & don't require a standard of beyond all reaasonable doubt, only on the balance of probability. 

brianposter

unholyangel said:

Yes, but only after the trader has been found to have committed an offence/engaged in an unfair practice under regulations 5 or 7  (so either a positive misleading action or an aggressive practice....not omissions) and that unfair practice was a major factor in the customers decision.

I am a bit puzzled as to what you mean by this. My understanding is that the consumer simply files a MCOL claim citing these regulations and the court will decide whether a breach of the regulations has occured and award compensation as appropriate.

Manxman_in_exile

I think unholyangel is trying to point out that your hire company would first have to be convicted of one of those offences.  You haven't yet told us that they have been convicted, or are even being prosecuted.

brianposter

I am hoping that unholyangel will be back to clarify matters.

shaun_from_Africa

brianposter said:

unholyangel said:

Yes, but only after the trader has been found to have committed an offence/engaged in an unfair practice under regulations 5 or 7  (so either a positive misleading action or an aggressive practice....not omissions) and that unfair practice was a major factor in the customers decision.

I am a bit puzzled as to what you mean by this. My understanding is that the consumer simply files a MCOL claim citing these regulations and the court will decide whether a breach of the regulations has occured and award compensation as appropriate.

A civil court couldn't simply make an arbitrary decision as to whether or not a company or person has committed  a criminal offence and award compensation based on that decision until the person or company has actually been convicted of the offence in a criminal trial.

If it was that easy, picture the following:
You damage your neighbours garden gate with your car so the neighbour takes out a MCOL claim for damages.
The judge decides that you must have been driving dangerously (as defined by the Road Traffic act 1988) so awards damages based on his opinion.
This would mean that the law has decided that you're guilty of the criminal offence of dangerous driving despite never actually having been prosecuted nor given the opportunity to defend yourself in court.

brianposter

As far as I am aware it is not unusual to use a civil court libel case to overturn a criminal court verdict ie what you regard as not practical does occur in reality.

It would appear that courts treat cases on their own merit.

Manxman_in_exile

brianposter said:

As far as I am aware it is not unusual to use a civil court libel case to overturn a criminal court verdict ie what you regard as not practical does occur in reality.

It would appear that courts treat cases on their own merit.

You are talking utter tosh.  A civil court CANNOT affect or overturn the verdict in a criminal case. 

What you may be attempting to refer to is the sort of situation where somebody is acquitted of a criminal offence by a criminal court, but is then sued by the "victim" in the civil courts*, and loses.   This has absolutely nothing to do with the civil court "overturning" the decision in the criminal court, it's because criminal courts work to a standard of reasonable doubt whereas civil courts work to the much less strict standard of balance of probability.  Just because a defendant loses a civil case does not make them criminally guilty.

A civil court can't make somebody guilty of a criminal offence.  Has your hire company been convicted in a criminal court?

*Some jurists believe that in this sort of case, the civil court ought to work to a reasonable doubt standard too.

brianposter

Manxman_in_exile said:

brianposter said:

As far as I am aware it is not unusual to use a civil court libel case to overturn a criminal court verdict ie what you regard as not practical does occur in reality.

It would appear that courts treat cases on their own merit.

You are talking utter tosh.  A civil court CANNOT affect or overturn the verdict in a criminal case. 

What you may be attempting to refer to is the sort of situation where somebody is acquitted of a criminal offence by a criminal court, but is then sued by the "victim" in the civil courts*, and loses.   This has absolutely nothing to do with the civil court "overturning" the decision in the criminal court, it's because criminal courts work to a standard of reasonable doubt whereas civil courts work to the much less strict standard of balance of probability.  Just because a defendant loses a civil case does not make them criminally guilty.

A civil court can't make somebody guilty of a criminal offence.  Has your hire company been convicted in a criminal court?

*Some jurists believe that in this sort of case, the civil court ought to work to a reasonable doubt standard too.

The point I am making is that a civil court can make decisions on matters that have already been decided by a criminal court, and therefore it is unlikely that they are  precluded from making decisions on matters that have never been decided in a criminal court.

I was actually thinking of cases where somebody is convicted in a criminal court and then sues for libel in the civil court with a result that the civil court decides that the criminal court conviction is erroneous. Per se, it does not overturn the conviction but in practice the result is normally exactly that.

waamo

brianposter said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

brianposter said:

As far as I am aware it is not unusual to use a civil court libel case to overturn a criminal court verdict ie what you regard as not practical does occur in reality.

It would appear that courts treat cases on their own merit.

You are talking utter tosh.  A civil court CANNOT affect or overturn the verdict in a criminal case. 

What you may be attempting to refer to is the sort of situation where somebody is acquitted of a criminal offence by a criminal court, but is then sued by the "victim" in the civil courts*, and loses.   This has absolutely nothing to do with the civil court "overturning" the decision in the criminal court, it's because criminal courts work to a standard of reasonable doubt whereas civil courts work to the much less strict standard of balance of probability.  Just because a defendant loses a civil case does not make them criminally guilty.

A civil court can't make somebody guilty of a criminal offence.  Has your hire company been convicted in a criminal court?

*Some jurists believe that in this sort of case, the civil court ought to work to a reasonable doubt standard too.

The point I am making is that a civil court can make decisions on matters that have already been decided by a criminal court, and therefore it is unlikely they are  precluded from making decisions on matters that have never been decided in a criminal court.

Unfortunately you are completely and utterly wrong. A civil case brought following a criminal case is on different issues. Whilst they may be related the issues are separate and distinct.