Wedding supplier issue
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
Consumer law is all very well, but even if it's on the OPs side it's not like he can call the police and have the bloke arrested.
If the supplier digs their heels in then his only recourse is to use the small claims court process and the outcome there is close to random.
The court process would be pretty simple. There is no legitimate defence. Judges do not regularly look kindly on businesses who flout the law, and despite being made fully aware of their basic legal obligations, forced the matter to expending court time. Even though it'd be in the small claims track, in this type of scenario, running with a hopeless defence might even get a costs award against them. If the supplier digs their heels in then his only recourse is to use the small claims court process and the outcome there is close to random.
In terms of enforcement, the OP can call Trading Standards, and the same law gives them a lot of power to not only investigate, but prosecute. Have a look at this below. For reference, regulation 19 that is referred to below is the one I copied before - so this is what can happen to a company who fails to provide written cancellation terms in line with the law:
Consumer Regs 2013 said:
Powers of investigation
24.—(1) If a duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed under regulation 19, the officer may require a person carrying on or employed in a business to produce any document relating to the business, and take copies of it or any entry in it for the purposes of ascertaining whether such an offence has been committed.
(2) If the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that any documents may be required as evidence in proceedings for such an offence, the officer may seize and detain them and shall, if the officer does so, inform the person from whom they are seized.
That's just the start of the section. Yes, Trading Standards won't directly get the OP his money back, but they could very well turn up at their office and investigate in order to gather evidence to the offence. I think that's enough motivation for them to not mess around with the OP.24.—(1) If a duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed under regulation 19, the officer may require a person carrying on or employed in a business to produce any document relating to the business, and take copies of it or any entry in it for the purposes of ascertaining whether such an offence has been committed.
(2) If the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that any documents may be required as evidence in proceedings for such an offence, the officer may seize and detain them and shall, if the officer does so, inform the person from whom they are seized.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 26th September 13:00
Sheepshanks said:
Red Devil said:
It would appear that this is a distance contract,
Nope - OP met them and handed over cash as the deposit.Sheepshanks said:
Consumer law is all very well, but even if it's on the OPs side it's not like he can call the police and have the bloke arrested.
Has anyone suggested that? If so I must have missed it. 
Sheepshanks said:
If the supplier digs their heels in then his only recourse is to use the small claims court process and the outcome there is close to random.
They would be daft to contest it. The Regulations have been breached: it should be a slam dunk win for the OP.There is a second stick that he can use as well: a complaint to Trading Standards via Citizens Advice.
If the supplier is that sloppy with its business practices it is possible that others have also had issues.
Red Devil said:
Sheepshanks said:
Consumer law is all very well, but even if it's on the OPs side it's not like he can call the police and have the bloke arrested.
Has anyone suggested that? If so I must have missed it. I think the Distance Selling thing is a complete red herring. Anyway it only applies if there's an organised system of distance selling.
The other thing is the OP has fundamentally changed what was originally agreed - he's changed both the date and the location. Who's to say a court wouldn't decide that it's the OP who has cancelled and he's lucky to get away with only losing his deposit?
Sheepshanks said:
Who's to say a court wouldn't decide that it's the OP who has cancelled and he's lucky to get away with only losing his deposit?
The regulations that say the business has a duty to minimise their non-existent losses, that's who.That isn't a matter of opinion. It's just a plain fact.
walm said:
Sheepshanks said:
Who's to say a court wouldn't decide that it's the OP who has cancelled and he's lucky to get away with only losing his deposit?
The regulations that say the business has a duty to minimise their non-existent losses, that's who.That isn't a matter of opinion. It's just a plain fact.
Sheepshanks said:
People come on here and quote the various laws as if they're black and white but law in general isn't like that and consumer law has always been far too vague.
I think the Distance Selling thing is a complete red herring. Anyway it only applies if there's an organised system of distance selling.
The other thing is the OP has fundamentally changed what was originally agreed - he's changed both the date and the location. Who's to say a court wouldn't decide that it's the OP who has cancelled and he's lucky to get away with only losing his deposit?
This is not a 'distance selling' issue.I think the Distance Selling thing is a complete red herring. Anyway it only applies if there's an organised system of distance selling.
The other thing is the OP has fundamentally changed what was originally agreed - he's changed both the date and the location. Who's to say a court wouldn't decide that it's the OP who has cancelled and he's lucky to get away with only losing his deposit?
Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 this is an 'off premises contract'.
A court will certainly decide that the OP has attempted to modify, or cancel the agreement. However, importantly he has the statutory right to cancel that contract, for any reason, if he wishes, and have his deposit back in full.
The law is very straightforward.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 26th September 19:04
k 'em.JustinP1 said:
This is not a 'distance selling' issue.
Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 this is an 'off premises contract'.
A court will certainly decide that the OP has attempted to modify, or cancel the agreement. However, importantly he has the statutory right to cancel that contract, for any reason, if he wishes, and have his deposit back in full.
The law is very straightforward.
I have not yet told them about the right to cancel. As far as I am aware if they do not inform me of a right to cancel this right is extended to 12 months. Is this correct? If so the 12 month period ends in a couple of weeks. Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 this is an 'off premises contract'.
A court will certainly decide that the OP has attempted to modify, or cancel the agreement. However, importantly he has the statutory right to cancel that contract, for any reason, if he wishes, and have his deposit back in full.
The law is very straightforward.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 26th September 19:04
The Mrs was temped to accept the 50% refund. I want to push this all the way for 100%. Especially as they have taken 2 weeks to reply to my last email
JustinP1 said:
This is not a 'distance selling' issue.
Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 this is an 'off premises contract'.
A court will certainly decide that the OP has attempted to modify, or cancel the agreement. However, importantly he has the statutory right to cancel that contract, for any reason, if he wishes, and have his deposit back in full.
The law is very straightforward.
The trader might be able to argue that it was not an 'off premises contract' using the Section 5(b) definition of business premises. Consideration (i.e. the deposit payment) was made when cash was exchanged at the original venue.Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 this is an 'off premises contract'.
A court will certainly decide that the OP has attempted to modify, or cancel the agreement. However, importantly he has the statutory right to cancel that contract, for any reason, if he wishes, and have his deposit back in full.
The law is very straightforward.
Even if that point is conceded, there are other ways that the trader is in breach, so I agree with you that the OP should win this battle.
Sheepshanks said:
It's odd that most PHer's would be at the forefront of any battle to reduce red tape for businesses but yet are determined to find any angle they can to trip up what sounds like a typical "mom & pop" small business.
My take is that most find the red tape ridiculous and unnecessary, but expect the mom & pops to adhere to the more important rules such as "PAY A REFUND YOU THIEVING SCUM".I don't need 4 pages of T&Cs, I do need a refund when you aren't out of pocket.
Sheepshanks said:
It's odd that most PHer's would be at the forefront of any battle to reduce red tape for businesses but yet are determined to find any angle they can to trip up what sounds like a typical "mom & pop" small business.
They're probably getting way less stick than a faceless corporation would for pulling the same thing.Sheepshanks said:
It's odd that most PHer's would be at the forefront of any battle to reduce red tape for businesses but yet are determined to find any angle they can to trip up what sounds like a typical "mom & pop" small business.
It's even more odd that you are sticking to this line, and odder still that you are using American expressions to do so.walm said:
My take is that most find the red tape ridiculous and unnecessary, but expect the mom & pops to adhere to the more important rules such as "PAY A REFUND YOU THIEVING SCUM".
I think that's a ridiculously over-the-top comment.How many threads have there been where someone has paid a deposit on a car and changed their mind? They get told to suck it up in no uncertain terms.
Sheepshanks said:
walm said:
My take is that most find the red tape ridiculous and unnecessary, but expect the mom & pops to adhere to the more important rules such as "PAY A REFUND YOU THIEVING SCUM".
I think that's a ridiculously over-the-top comment.How many threads have there been where someone has paid a deposit on a car and changed their mind? They get told to suck it up in no uncertain terms.
IIRC distance selling regs mean the dealer should return your deposit.
As explained here: http://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/bought-a-car-and-cha...
"If you are buying at a distance or off-premises, then you are entitled to your full deposit back, regardless of your reasons or any money the dealer has spent."
These muppets are bang to rights and have incurred no expenses.
They are simply trying it on.
I really don't think I am being OTT!!
Perhaps they aren't thieving scum but are genuinely ignorant of the consumer rules, either way they SHOULD KNOW!!
walm said:
either way they SHOULD KNOW!!
Absolutely right. Maybe they thought they could start a business and make their own rules. Maybe they still think that, but when the judge explains it to them they will find out. The moral of the story is having your own business means you have to learn the rules, and you don't get to make your own.
Red Devil said:
JustinP1 said:
This is not a 'distance selling' issue.
Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 this is an 'off premises contract'.
A court will certainly decide that the OP has attempted to modify, or cancel the agreement. However, importantly he has the statutory right to cancel that contract, for any reason, if he wishes, and have his deposit back in full.
The law is very straightforward.
The trader might be able to argue that it was not an 'off premises contract' using the Section 5(b) definition of business premises. Consideration (i.e. the deposit payment) was made when cash was exchanged at the original venue.Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 this is an 'off premises contract'.
A court will certainly decide that the OP has attempted to modify, or cancel the agreement. However, importantly he has the statutory right to cancel that contract, for any reason, if he wishes, and have his deposit back in full.
The law is very straightforward.
Even if that point is conceded, there are other ways that the trader is in breach, so I agree with you that the OP should win this battle.
Consumer Regs said:
“off-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is any of these—
(a)a contract concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;
(b)a contract for which an offer was made by the consumer in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;
The original venue was still not the trader's place of business, so it's an off-premises contract. (a)a contract concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;
(b)a contract for which an offer was made by the consumer in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader;
Devil's Advocate mode on/
Why could the trader not argue that each venue is where his business is conducted?
Similar to a chain of retail stores within which a separate franchise operates.
Whether that would fly is another matter.
Devil's Advocate mode off/
Why could the trader not argue that each venue is where his business is conducted?
Similar to a chain of retail stores within which a separate franchise operates.
Whether that would fly is another matter.
Devil's Advocate mode off/
Edited by Red Devil on Tuesday 4th October 23:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff