Wedding supplier issue
Discussion
No, it's 'business premises'. So the point I'm interested in is whether or not the various venues can count as separate 'business premises' at which the wedding company plys its trade.
The legislation also defines an "off premises contract". The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 state
“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;
(c)a contract concluded on the business premises of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately after the consumer was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer;
(d)a contract concluded during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim or effect of promoting and selling goods or services to the consumer;
I cannot find anything anywhere in the legislation which refers to the status of the premises (owned, leased, rented, or whatever). I could, if I owned a number of premises and I was feeling generous or daft enough, let you run yours for free from any one or more of them. No lease, no rent, zilch.
So if the OP rocks up to the venue and makes an offer and/or concludes the contract there by payment of the deposit, there is a possibility (I put it no higher than that) of it not being an "off premises contract".
At the end of the day I don't think it will matter that much as the OP has other sticks he can use.
The legislation also defines an "off premises contract". The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 state
“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;
(c)a contract concluded on the business premises of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately after the consumer was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer;
(d)a contract concluded during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim or effect of promoting and selling goods or services to the consumer;
I cannot find anything anywhere in the legislation which refers to the status of the premises (owned, leased, rented, or whatever). I could, if I owned a number of premises and I was feeling generous or daft enough, let you run yours for free from any one or more of them. No lease, no rent, zilch.
So if the OP rocks up to the venue and makes an offer and/or concludes the contract there by payment of the deposit, there is a possibility (I put it no higher than that) of it not being an "off premises contract".
At the end of the day I don't think it will matter that much as the OP has other sticks he can use.
Red Devil:
The trader clearly does not trade at the venue permanently, neither does he bring with him 'movable premises' on a usual basis, for example a market stall to a market.
The trader should have provided written terms, the failure to provide written cancellation terms means that on the facts presented the OP has the legal right to cancel now.
I'm not sure which other angles you are referring to, but as the above is the most black and white, offers an unconditional 100% refund, and could get the trader prosecuted, I wouldn't muddy the waters with anything less clear cut IMHO.
Consumer Regs said:
“business premises” in relation to a trader means—
(a)any immovable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a permanent basis, or
(b)any movable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a usual basis;
The offer to the OP was made away from 'business premises' as defined in the law, as such it's an 'off-premises' contract in the same law. (a)any immovable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a permanent basis, or
(b)any movable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a usual basis;
The trader clearly does not trade at the venue permanently, neither does he bring with him 'movable premises' on a usual basis, for example a market stall to a market.
The trader should have provided written terms, the failure to provide written cancellation terms means that on the facts presented the OP has the legal right to cancel now.
I'm not sure which other angles you are referring to, but as the above is the most black and white, offers an unconditional 100% refund, and could get the trader prosecuted, I wouldn't muddy the waters with anything less clear cut IMHO.
Thank you to everybody that posted on this subject. I went back to them last night with the relevant sections of the consumer contracts 2013 that they have broken and that I am now entitled to cancel the contract for whatever reason and receive a full refund as it is within12 months of the contract inception. They emailed straight back to say they will not be offering a full refund unless instructed to do by a court.
They then must have sought advice elsewhere as whilst I was typing my reply to them I received another email from them to say they will issue a refund within 7 days and thanking me for bringing the relevant sections of the consumer contracts 2013 to their attention and they will be looking to address their contracts asap to make sure they comply. I think it pained them to amit defeat!
Thank you for everybody's help
They then must have sought advice elsewhere as whilst I was typing my reply to them I received another email from them to say they will issue a refund within 7 days and thanking me for bringing the relevant sections of the consumer contracts 2013 to their attention and they will be looking to address their contracts asap to make sure they comply. I think it pained them to amit defeat!
Thank you for everybody's help
JustinP1 said:
The offer to the OP was made away from 'business premises' as defined in the law, as such it's an 'off-premises' contract in the same law.
The trader clearly does not trade at the venue permanently, neither does he bring with him 'movable premises' on a usual basis, for example a market stall to a market.
The trader should have provided written terms, the failure to provide written cancellation terms means that on the facts presented the OP has the legal right to cancel now.
I'm not sure which other angles you are referring to, but as the above is the most black and white, offers an unconditional 100% refund, and could get the trader prosecuted, I wouldn't muddy the waters with anything less clear cut IMHO.
Thanks for your response. I was playing Devil's Advocate: what else would you expect given my username? The trader clearly does not trade at the venue permanently, neither does he bring with him 'movable premises' on a usual basis, for example a market stall to a market.
The trader should have provided written terms, the failure to provide written cancellation terms means that on the facts presented the OP has the legal right to cancel now.
I'm not sure which other angles you are referring to, but as the above is the most black and white, offers an unconditional 100% refund, and could get the trader prosecuted, I wouldn't muddy the waters with anything less clear cut IMHO.
The bit in bold was always going to sink their ship.simoncrowe said:
Thank you to everybody that posted on this subject. I went back to them last night with the relevant sections of the consumer contracts 2013 that they have broken and that I am now entitled to cancel the contract for whatever reason and receive a full refund as it is within12 months of the contract inception. They emailed straight back to say they will not be offering a full refund unless instructed to do by a court.
They then must have sought advice elsewhere as whilst I was typing my reply to them I received another email from them to say they will issue a refund within 7 days and thanking me for bringing the relevant sections of the consumer contracts 2013 to their attention and they will be looking to address their contracts asap to make sure they comply. I think it pained them to amit defeat!
Thank you for everybody's help
Well done for getting the right result.They then must have sought advice elsewhere as whilst I was typing my reply to them I received another email from them to say they will issue a refund within 7 days and thanking me for bringing the relevant sections of the consumer contracts 2013 to their attention and they will be looking to address their contracts asap to make sure they comply. I think it pained them to amit defeat!
Thank you for everybody's help
The relevant regulations came into force on 13th June 2014 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made - Despite the considerable advance publicity at the time and the number of current websites devoted to providing advice to businesses, the extent to which many still don't get it beggars belief. Small ones seem to be particularly ignorant in that respect. The large ones know it full well but some still try it on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff