Don't be scammed!
Worried about being scammed? Find out your rights on how to fight back!
It's been one year since I wrote about some powerful new consumer law, so I'd like to re-visit it and tell you how effective it's been.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations contain a general prohibition against unfair commercial practices, banning misleading actions, misleading omissions and aggressive sales and marketing. A trader is probably in breach of the regulations if it misleads, behaves aggressively, or otherwise acts unfairly towards consumers.
(Note: these regulations are not related to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations upon which bank charges cases are being fought.)
In addition to a general prohibition against bad behaviour, it explicitly bans 31 trading practices, such as pyramid schemes, falsely claiming that a product can cure illnesses, and making persistent and unwanted sales solicitations. Many of the techniques are common marketing ploys used by banks, retailers, and virtually every type of business.
Read more about exactly which type of scams are banned.
The new laws are gaining momentum
Considering the effect on business, it was introduced surprisingly quietly and is just slowly building momentum. Last year I tested the new rules. I wrote to one company, a broadband-comparison site, asking if it was aware that it was now committing an offence by pretending it was offering better terms on a product for just 30 days. I sent them a copy of the regulations. It didn't respond, but it ended the false promotion.
The local authorities and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) have started testing the legislation too. About six months ago the OFT began its first court case and since then it's snowballed. The Local Authority Trading Standards Services have now taken enforcement action 171 times.
Rogue traders from at least 22 types of business have been targeted. Here are the six types of business that have received the majority of attention so far:
Top six types of businesses that have been targeted
|
Type of business |
Number of cases |
|
Home maintenance and improvements |
29 |
|
House construction |
27 |
|
Second-hand motor vehicles |
11 |
|
Clothing |
10 |
|
Gardening products and services |
8 |
|
Mobile-phone products and services |
5 |
The top one, home maintenance and improvement (e.g. home paving and tarmacking), includes action against both aggressive sales, and misleading actions and omissions. Homeowners have been helped some more with an attack on rogue traders operating house construction or gardening services.
With the attention on these businesses, other similar companies should soon begin to notice and check their trading practices. I have no details yet about what enforcement action has been taken or how effective it's been, but the regulations give huge powers to local authorities to investigate possible rogue businesses, and offences are punishable by up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
Fairer treatment is at hand
However, I believe there are thousands of businesses still breaching the new regulations without even realising it, and I've seen many examples in shop windows, on the Internet and in email marketing. The types of businesses and the overall number of them that are targeted should rise dramatically as the authorities get to grips with the rules.
If you come across any of the outlawed practices, you can contact Consumer Direct, who will forward cases onto Trading Standards.
My hope is that everyone will read up on the 31 banned scams, because they are seriously packed with weapons for customers - but you won't be able to fight for your rights if you don't know what they are!
> Compare savings accounts through lovemoney.com
> Read more about this consumer law in:
Most Recent
Comments
-
Hi. I assume the regulations apply to high street traders as well. However, although the regulations are in place this doesn't stop it happening and Consumer Direct seem apathetic towards it at the same time. An example: B and Q recently had a 15% discount sale on "thousands of items". I bought over £ 50 but there was no discount. When I asked why I was told it only applied to selected items. I said your adverts don't state this, nor do your adverts outside the store. They said, it's in our leaflet (which I was given after asking at the checkout). Even on their leaflet the only reference was in tiny print where it said "terms and conditions apply". Notice this was after I'd presented my goods at the checkout. I contacted my local trading standards office, outlined my grievance, and they directed me to Consumer Direct. Their response was that B and Q were acting within the law by putting the "terms and conditions..." statement in tiny print at the bottom a a leaflet presented to me after I'd queried it. They said it's "offer and acceptance" and that I could, at that time, reject the goods. I'm well aware of that but what a load of twoddle to suggest that B and Q were acting fairly. BUT, they said they would refer it to my Trading Standards. I said, but I've already talked to them. They said, that's the way they work. Trading Standards refer it to Concumer Direct, Consumer Direct refers it back to Trading Standards. And guess what? I've heard nothing. Is there any wonder why the country's in the state it's in? Allan
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
to ruthless investor and samatsea; first thank you both for replying secondly; I run a small B&B and received a booking over the internet. Son paying for his parents to have a trip of a lifetime but ( as he's too busy doing great deeds in Africa for the UN) would I mind taking Travellers cheques (american Express) keeping what I need and sending cash onto an agent who's looking after the rest of his parents arrangements! I know please don't say, I think I'm a highly intelligent person. The rest is as above.
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
Looks like Ruthless Investor beat me to it! I agree with all that's been said. Also, there are many ways to check whether a TC is conterfeit and the bank should know them. I agree that the question on where you got them in the first place is quite important although I still believe that the bank is at fault for not spotting them as counterfeit in the first place.
REPORT This comment has been reported.
Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature
09 June 2009