header-logo header-logo

Time to redress the balance

19 May 2011 / David Hertzell
Issue: 7466 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Victims of scams deserve a clear & easy route to redress, says David Hertzell

When a consumer buys faulty goods, they know they can get their money back. By contrast, their position when they have been duped or pressured into making a purchase is much less clear. The remedies consumers can rely on when rogue traders lie about the products they sell, or use aggressive tactics, lie at the heart of our current consultation, launched last month in collaboration with the Scottish Law Commission (Consumer Redress for Misleading and Aggressive Practices).

Key areas of the proposals

  • Misleading practices such as fake “wins”; “free” goods which are not; falsely claiming to be members of a trade association; or selling “miracle products” which falsely claim to cure illness or restore youth.
  • Aggressive sellers using persistent sales calls; salespersons who ignore requests to leave; threats to damage the consumer’s credit rating unless they pay a disputed debt; aggressive wheel-clamping; or “presentations” where intimidating doormen made it difficult for consumers to leave.
  • New remedies. The
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll