header-logo header-logo

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

Time to redress the balance

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll