Consumer Contracts Regulations - right to cancel

Okell

MyRealNameToo said:

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...

My vote also goes for 1.

I can't believe that even somebody as thick as a member of the judiciary would not agree that the meaning of either of my suggestions - but especially the second - is  clearer than what appears in the legislation.

(Note my cunning use of a double negative there... )

Okell

s75(3)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act is similar.

It employs a weird hybrid mixture of a double negative qualification (s75 does not apply to transactions not exceeding £100) together with a single negative qualification (s75 does not apply to transactions more than £30,000).  I think that is needlessly confusing.*

To me "£100 or lower" is much clearer than "not exceeding £100" and has the benefit of getting rid of the double negative.

"[M]ore than £30,000" is, of course, perfectly clear.**

I'll get my coat now...



*  There has been confused and wrong advice given even on these boards that s75 protection starts at £100.


**  But not it would seem to the authors of the MSE s75 guide who refer both to LESS than £30,000  and to MORE than £30,000
Section 75 refunds: credit card protection’ - MSE