Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, remembered!

legal updates

As of the 1st October 2014 amendments were made to the 2008 Regulations, which gave consumers new rights of redress.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Rightly, there has been much talk of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 during recent months, but dealers should remember that they must also comply with the requirements of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008), which prohibit engaging in unfair business practices across five main categories:

1.    Giving false information either verbally, visually or in writing, for example misrepresenting the vehicle’s specification or history at any time before, during or after the transaction.

2.    Giving insufficient information omitting or hiding important information, for example failing to disclose the existence and results of all checks carried out on the vehicle’s mechanical condition, history and mileage, or failing to draw the consumers attention to the key elements of any warranty e.g. what’s covered, claim limits and conditions of use.

3.    Acting aggressively for example using high pressure selling techniques to sell a vehicle or associated finance or warranty.

4.    Failing to act in accordance with reasonable expectations of what’s acceptable

5.    Ban of 31 specific practices to include, amongst others: falsely claiming to be a signatory to a Code of Practice; falsely claiming to be approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body; falsely stating that a vehicle will only be available for a very limited time in order to elicit an immediate decision to buy.

As of the 1st October 2014 amendments were made to the 2008 Regulations, which gave consumers new rights of redress.

Specifically, if a consumer has been the victim of a misleading action, for example a false statement or aggressive selling, then they will have the right to (A) undo the contract, (B) a discount on the price paid, (C) an entitlement to seek damages.

Should you have any doubt as to the nature and effect of the 2008 Regulations or any other Consumer Law matter that might affect your business, then do not hesitate to contact Lawgistics.

ECSC Group plcMore Secure

On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.

What can I do?

Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?

If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

Indemnities – Handle with Care!

Indemnity clauses are usually onerous by design and drafted in broad terms so dealers should not make the mistake of overlooking them.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.