Following the consultation on Codes of Practice described here a year ago (No. 184) the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued another consultation document which will be followed up at a conference later in the year at which NfCG expects to be represented.
The OFT suggests that Codes are little known by the public. Instead the idea is to promote a "core standard" to be drawn up by traders and consumers under the guidance of the British Standards Institution, to be open to traders who do not belong to a trade association. A new approval body would be set up to be responsible for registration.
Funding, perhaps its weakest point, would be by an annual subscription from those traders who take part. There would be an independent scheme for redress with the sanction of removal from a register, published annually. Full details of the basis on which discussion will feature at the conference is contained in the OFT report Raising Standards of Consumer Care.
A consultation document has been issued by the Department of Trade and Industry which covers low start mortgages, wealth warnings (i.e., share prices can go down as well as up) on advertisements and warnings on equity release schemes for elderly people where they exchange the value of part of their homes for a regular income or lump sum. It is suggested that the APR for low-start mortgages should reflect the total charge over the full period of the loan.
Caveat Emptor, or Buyer Beware, is a well known principle. Nevertheless, we are still taken in by counterfeit goods. In order to increase awareness of the prevalence of fakes the Holborn, London, law firm of Collyer Bristow has mounted an exhibition in which all the goods on show are not what they seem. They include cigarettes, Nike shoes, Chanel No 5, Johnny Walker Whisky, Pepsi Cola and even finger lickin’ false Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The exhibition runs all through April at the firm’s gallery in Bedford Row, Holborn. If you are in London then you might be surprised and educated by paying a visit. For more details ‘phone 0171 242 7363.
A recent radio programme illustrated that even if a complainant is awarded judgement in the Small Claims Court the likelihood of obtaining satisfaction is not great. In the case discussed, the complainant arranged for bailiffs to collect the judgement but they reported that, even though they called several times, there was never any reply to their attempts to obtain entry.
Another case was reported in "The Times" of March 17th in which a solicitor, no less, but acting in a private capacity, had obtained judgement by default from a holiday company, as the defendant had failed to turn up at the hearing in the Small Claims Court. Then the defendant sprang into action and petitioned to have the judgement set aside and, what is more, arranged for the case to be heard at its home Small Claims Court, 200 miles away. At this point, many plaintiffs, faced with such tactics, may well give up. 200 miles is a long way to go to collect £200 when it is by no means certain that it would be collected anyway. Because she understood the court system she wrote a persuasive letter to the judge and obtained the transfer of the case back to her local court.
Again the defendant failed to turn up and the judgement was confirmed, but, surprise, surprise, still no payment. This is not uncommon, says the Consumers Association. Bailiffs failed to enforce the judgement and it was not until she sent the company a copy of the article for the newspaper that payment, plus costs, was made.
She makes an important point here. Until January 1996 small claims were limited to £1000 for all cases. Then they were increased to £3000 for non personal injury cases. Now the Lord Chancellor has announced plans to increase the amount for non personal injury claims to £5000, saying that the procedure is a major success of our civil justice system.
The theory of the Small Claims Court is that no legal costs can be recovered from the losing party and that the cases are so straight forward no legal representation should be necessary. However, the amounts soon to be at stake will surely persuade defendants to take legal advice and be represented and to carry out the sort of manipulation of the system already described - and this was for just £200. This will force plaintiffs to do the same, thus completely undermining the whole principle of the system.
Click arrow for
Contents Table
Click Logo to Return to
Main Magazine Index