Consumer Contracts Regulations - right to cancel

Ergates

I was just reading through section 3 of the CCR (as one does from time to time) and spotted this in the first part of it (p27) - I've never noticed it before:

27.—(1) This Part applies to distance and off-premises contracts between a trader and a consumer, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and regulations 6 and 28.
...
...
(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42.

Does this mean that the 14 day right to cancel doesn't apply at all to a purchase that is less than £42? 

eskbanker

See https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6420103/have-we-lost-the-right-to-returns-for-values-under-42-since-brexit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Ergates said:

(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42.

Does this mean that the 14 day right to cancel doesn't apply at all to a purchase that is less than £42? 

It doesn't apply if it's off premises, does apply if it's distance  

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42.

Does this mean that the 14 day right to cancel doesn't apply at all to a purchase that is less than £42? 

It doesn't apply if it's off premises, does apply if it's distance  

Yes - as Manxman in exile pointed out in the quoted thread, it doesn't apply to distance contracts, it applies to off-premises contracts.

(Although why £42 is significant I don't know.  Maybe the parliamentary draftsman was a Douglas Adams' fan...)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

(Although why £42 is significant I don't know.  Maybe the parliamentary draftsman was a Douglas Adams' fan...)

Not to dampen an interesting observation but it's 50 EUR or less from the EU directive, appears to be optional for member states to choose whether or not it applies. 

I guess there aren't may situations where something of low value is going to be significant enough to warrant the right of cancellation when balanced against it's potential harm/burden to/for the trader. 

Okell

Ergates said:

... (3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42...

Going slightly off-topic, something that drives me absolutley bonkers is the use of double negatives in legislation.

ie "This part does not apply if x is not y"

I'm sure many people need to stop and think "What does not more than £42 mean?  Is £42 not more than £42?"

Why doesn't it just say "(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is £42 or lower"

Or even "(3) In respect of off-premises contracts this Part only applies where the payment under the contract is more than £42"

A_Geordie

Okell said:

Ergates said:

... (3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42...

Going slightly off-topic, something that drives me absolutley bonkers is the use of double negatives in legislation.

ie "This part does not apply if x is not y"

I'm sure many people need to stop and think "What does not more than £42 mean?  Is £42 not more than £42?"

Why doesn't it just say "(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is £42 or lower"

Or even "(3) In respect of off-premises contracts this Part only applies where the payment under the contract is more than £42"

1. Keeps the drafts person in a job and warrants their salary. 

2. Tried and test phrases. A lot of the legislative language will use similar language to others that are known to have been interpreted in a certain way. As much as everyone would like plain english all around, it is easier said than done. New words or phrases or the style in which they are written (like a misplaced comma) can introduce ambiguity and are open to challenge. Judges both past and present have used these phrases, understood what they mean and how they are applied, so therefore retains the level of consistency needed to avoid loopholes or introducing unanticipated levels of complexity. 

MyRealNameToo

A_Geordie said:

Okell said:

Ergates said:

... (3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42...

Going slightly off-topic, something that drives me absolutley bonkers is the use of double negatives in legislation.

ie "This part does not apply if x is not y"

I'm sure many people need to stop and think "What does not more than £42 mean?  Is £42 not more than £42?"

Why doesn't it just say "(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is £42 or lower"

Or even "(3) In respect of off-premises contracts this Part only applies where the payment under the contract is more than £42"

1. Keeps the drafts person in a job and warrants their salary. 

2. Tried and test phrases. A lot of the legislative language will use similar language to others that are known to have been interpreted in a certain way. As much as everyone would like plain english all around, it is easier said than done. New words or phrases or the style in which they are written (like a misplaced comma) can introduce ambiguity and are open to challenge. Judges both past and present have used these phrases, understood what they mean and how they are applied, so therefore retains the level of consistency needed to avoid loopholes or introducing unanticipated levels of complexity. 

My vote goes for number 1

Doing an intra group contract which was a fairly complex insurance matter but the basics of it were that rather than paying us the premium they'd put the premium into an account over which we had a charge. They could then withdraw monies from the account to pay claims. This therefore reduced the counter party credit risk for them.

Big numbers involved so big contract covering lots of eventualities. On version 120 or so the transaction counsel added 3 new clauses saying they'd asked one of their senior associates in banking to review and they thought the below was absolutely necessary:

32.1) A will pay B £x on execution of the contract
32.2) B will pay A £x on receipt of the funds in 32.1
32.3) 32.1 and 32.2 will be considered to have happened simultaneously (so no actually payments are needed)

Our GC who was reviewing thought it was a stroke of genius and was extraordinarily excited by it. Everyone in the business that was reviewing it thought it was utterly pointless and why were they having to do a 120th review for that. 

Ergates

Okell said:

Ergates said:

... (3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42...

Going slightly off-topic, something that drives me absolutley bonkers is the use of double negatives in legislation.

ie "This part does not apply if x is not y"

I'm sure many people need to stop and think "What does not more than £42 mean?  Is £42 not more than £42?"

Why doesn't it just say "(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is £42 or lower"

Or even "(3) In respect of off-premises contracts this Part only applies where the payment under the contract is more than £42"

This part does not not apply if the payment made by the customer is not not more than £42

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Ergates said:

(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42.

Does this mean that the 14 day right to cancel doesn't apply at all to a purchase that is less than £42? 

It doesn't apply if it's off premises, does apply if it's distance  

That's the bit I'd missed - I was thinking that surely this would have come up before otherwise!!

Okell

Ergates said:

Okell said:

Ergates said:

... (3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42...

Going slightly off-topic, something that drives me absolutley bonkers is the use of double negatives in legislation.

ie "This part does not apply if x is not y"

I'm sure many people need to stop and think "What does not more than £42 mean?  Is £42 not more than £42?"

Why doesn't it just say "(3) This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is £42 or lower"

Or even "(3) In respect of off-premises contracts this Part only applies where the payment under th e contract is more than £42"

This part does not not apply if the payment made by the customer is not not more than £42