Car dealer ordered to pay £1,500 after duping 'naive' customer - Car Dealer Magazine

Car Dealer Magazine reports that a dealer from Reading who sold a Ford Ka without telling the buyer that it had been previously damaged was given a 12-month conditional discharge as well as being ordered to pay £500 compensation and £1,000 costs (which seems to attach  more importance to legal fees than to the damage done to the consumer, but perhaps we should not be surprised at that).

At first, the magistrates were not convinced that the offender, an individual, should be treated as a trader  for the purposes of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - notwithstanding that he had sold 19 cars in the two years leading up to the offence (in 2011). On appeal, Deputy District Judge Khan said that there was 'compelling evidence' that he was a car trader because of the regularity of the deals. In addition, his account with Auto Trader had a trade discount and he used a trade name in advertisements and on the receipt (which incidentally also bore the legend 'sold as seen', which wouldn't get him very far - indeed, could possibly even have got him prosecuted for another offence if it was seen as an attempt to exclude statutory warranties).

'via Blog this'

Trading Standards sting leaves Halfords Autocentre site with £32,000 fine

Fleet News reports (15 June) that a sting operation by South Gloucestershire Trading Standards has resulted in a £32,000 fine for offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Practices Regulations, and nearly £15,000 costs for Halfords Autocentres (I'm not sure precisely which company was the defendant). Of 20 deliberate faults in the Astra they submitted for a £235 service, the technician missed 11.

Nothing new there: in fact, even the story is rather old because the sting took place in March last year and has taken this long to get to court - where Halfords unsurprisingly pleaded guilty. They also argued (though it doesn't help, except in the media I suppose) that their technician picked up a couple of faults (unspecified in the report) that Trading Standards hadn't been aware of, and that the faults that the technician missed were not "overtly dangerous". (Surely it's the "covertly dangerous" ones that are worst anyway?) The court was told that the missed faults (brake fluid level, missing or broken bulbs, faulty windscreen wipers, oil leaks, irregular tyre pressures) should all have been picked up during the "major service": and of course understanding what is and what is not included, and the garage's duty to go beyond what might be on the menu, is key to getting it right.

It does seem to me that there ought to be better ways to go about putting these things right. The defendant here was not a railway arch operation, although by the same token one might say that the consumer should be able to expect more of Halfords than the guy under the arch. Perhaps the most important lesson is the damage that one unreliable employee can cause to a respectable business.

Postscript: Auto Express adds to the story that two other garages hit in the same operation did significantly better, though quite properly we are not told their identities as they seem to have done well enough to avoid prosecution. The trading standards department identified three garages which seemed from their data and that of the old OFT to be disproportionately complained about.



'via Blog this'

OFT issues principles to traders using Continuous Payment Authorities

On 12 December, the OFT issued a set of principles for businesses using continuous payment authorities (CPAs) amid concerns that customers are not always being made aware of what they are signing up to and may be misled about their rights to cancel. Here is a link to the full press release, according to which:

Once agreed by a customer, a CPA allows a business to take a series of payments using a customer's debit card or credit card without having to seek express authorisation for every payment. CPAs are often used to collect renewal payments for things like vehicle breakdown services, insurance policies, gym memberships, online dating, mobile and broadband services or magazine subscriptions.

CPAs can provide an efficient and convenient payment method for customers. It is important, however, that where they are used customers are fully aware of the commitment they are entering into and can cancel them without difficulty should they choose. The principles make clear to all businesses what they need to do to ensure that they fully meet their legal responsibilities when using CPAs, including that they:

• are fully transparent about terms before a consumer signs up to a CPA arrangement
• ensure the consumer has given informed consent to the use of a CPA, and do not use 'opt out' provisions or other means to automatically assume the consumer has given consent
• provide adequate notice of any changes to the scope of the agreed authority, such as the amount or timing of payments
• provide clear and prominent information on how to cancel a CPA.

The principles have been developed after a sweep of websites using CPAs checking for compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) and other consumer protection laws. The sweep found signs that traders are not making it clear to customers that they are being signed up to a CPA, or about their rights to cancel.

CPAs are often confused with direct debits, but they do not offer the same guarantees. Customers can cancel a CPA with either the company taking the payment, or with the bank or card provider. Customers should tell the bank or card issuer that they have stopped permission for the payments. The bank or card provider has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments, although it is good practice to also notify the company. Following the sweep, the OFT will contact 24 businesses to help ensure their websites comply with the principles. The OFT will continue to monitor the way CPAs are used, with businesses breaching CPRs and other consumer laws risking enforcement action.