188体育

These examples show how different types of unfair business practices might break consumer protection law in real situations. They demonstrate how one action can break several different rules at the same time.

Each example shows multiple rule violations to help explain different issues.

Remember, just one unfair practice is enough to break the rules.

While courts and the CMA ultimately decide if a practice is unfair based on the specific details of each case, these examples show business behaviours that would likely be considered unfair to consumers.

Example: selling cars

A trader is selling a second hand car. The car is on display on their forecourt, alongside other second hand cars for sale. However, it has been adjusted (this is sometimes called 鈥榗locked鈥�) to show a reduced mileage of 25,000 miles. The car has actually travelled 95,000 miles.

How could this be unfair?

In this situation, false information 鈥� the mileage that the car has travelled 鈥� is given to consumers.

Reason 1: The trader鈥檚 actions mislead the consumer into buying something they otherwise might not (misleading actions)

The misleading statement is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision 鈥� for example to decide to buy the car at the indicated price, when they might have paid less, or not bought the car at all, had they known the car had really travelled further.

False information that is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision is a misleading action, which is in breach of the DMCC Act.

Reason 2: The trader has left out important information (misleading omission)

The genuine mileage of the car is information that the average consumer needs to take an informed decision. This is called 鈥榤aterial information鈥�.

Failure to provide material information that is likely to result in the average consumer taking a different decision is a misleading omission in breach of the DMCC Act.

Reason 3: The trader has behaved dishonestly (professional diligence)

Tampering with the mileage is conduct that falls short of the standard of care and skill reasonably to be expected of a trader in the second-hand car sector. Doing this is not consistent with honest market practice.

Equipping a car with a false odometer reading is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision. Therefore, the clocking of the car itself is likely to contravene the requirements of professional diligence.

The trader does not need to complete the sale of the car to breach any of these rules. Just stating the false information is enough to be a breach of the DMCC Act.

Example: home improvements

A trader whose business is carrying out home improvement work 鈥榗old calls鈥� potential customers and attempts to sell the trader鈥檚 services to them on their doorstep. During the sales pitch, the trader refuses to leave when consumers ask them to. In addition, the trader starts work without the explicit permission from the consumers as a means of pressuring them to accept, and pay for, the trader鈥檚 services. They do not provide the consumer with any information about their cancellation rights. The trader also tells consumers that their roofs need repairing when this is not true.

How could this be unfair?

Reason 1: The trader refuses to leave (banned practice)

The trader鈥檚 refusal to leave when requested to would be a breach of paragraph 27 of Schedule 20 to the DMCC Act.聽

Reason 2: The trader has made false statements (misleading action)

False statements about the need for a repair may cause the average consumer to take a different decision. These decisions could be one or several of these:

• to decide to have the work carried out

• to engage that trader to carry out the work

• to pay that price

• to agree to have the work done by that trader straightaway

Where false information is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision, this is a misleading action in breach of the DMCC Act.

Where the trader cold calls and starts work without an express request to do so in writing from the consumer, this infringes regulation 36 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Under that regulation, the consumer has no liability to pay for the work done. If the trader makes any demand for payment, this is likely to amount to a misleading action.

Reason 3: The trader has not provided information about cancellation rights (misleading omission)

In these circumstances, the consumer has a right to cancel the contract under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and specific documentation about this right must be provided under regulation 10 of those regulations. A failure to provide this information is an offence under the 2013 regulations.

It is also an omission of information within section 227(1)(b) of the DMCC Act (information which the trader is required under any other enactment to give to a consumer).

Where it is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision, this would amount to a misleading omission in breach of the DMCC Act.

Reason 4: The trader鈥檚 behaviour is aggressive (aggressive practice)

Starting work without consent may constitute harassment, coercion or undue influence. If it is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision, it would amount to an aggressive practice in breach of the DMCC Act.

When the trader starts the work, they use their advantage over the customer to pressure them, which limits the customer鈥檚 ability to make a good decision (this is undue influence). Because leaving work half-finished could damage the customer鈥檚 home, the average customer may feel forced to let the trader complete the job.

Starting the work also prevents the consumer from assessing, independently, the actual need for the work, because the trader has already altered the roof, thus removing the evidence of the original state of the building.

The combined impact on the consumer

The combination of these practices, taken together, may also be found by the court or the CMA to be likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision, even if any one of these on their own might not otherwise have had that effect.

Example: debt collection packages

A trader employs various practices to recover debts owed by consumers. The trader sends letters to consumers containing demands that state: 鈥榩ay now or we鈥檒l take criminal proceedings against you in court鈥�, when such action cannot legally be taken. Some of the demands that the trader sends to consumers are made to look as if they are court papers, although they do not have such a status. The trader offers consumers an opportunity to 鈥榬educe鈥� their debts, and delay the requirement to repay, by signing up to a debt consolidation loan product with a 鈥榲ery advantageous鈥� interest rate. The trader tells consumers who say that they cannot pay their debts that they have no choice but to sign up to the product offered by the trader, and states that it has the lowest interest rate on the market for such a product. In fact, the interest rate on the offered product is unusually high.

How could this be unfair?

Reason 1: The trader鈥檚 letters contain false or misleading information (misleading action)

The letters sent to consumers contain false or misleading information or are likely to deceive due to the look and feel of them. This includes the:

• references to criminal proceedings

• claims about how advantageous the interest rate is

• statement about the range of choices open to consumers

The letters may also be likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision, for example to:

• pay the debt sooner than they might otherwise have done

• sign up to the offered debt consolidation loan product

• sign up to the loan product without first shopping around for different or better ways of consolidating their debt

If so, this would amount to a misleading action in breach of the DMCC Act.

Reason 2: The trader鈥檚 behaviour could make the consumer feel frightened (aggressive practice)

Several elements of the trader鈥檚 practices, such as threatening court action or the manner in which the trader offers a debt consolidation loan product, may cause the average consumer to be frightened or to feel unduly pressured. Such practices may constitute harassment, coercion or undue influence and be likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision as a result, in which case they would amount to aggressive practices. The practices include threats to take action which cannot legally be taken, as well as the use of threatening language generally.

Example: advertising a prize draw

A trader selling household products to consumers includes a prize draw advertisement with their mail order catalogue of goods. The advertisement creates the impression that the recipient has won a major prize when they have not. In fact, along with most of the recipients of the mailing, they will only receive a low value give-away item which is being distributed by the trader described as a prize. To discover what they have in fact won, the consumer must either phone a premium rate number, place an order from the catalogue or send a stamped addressed envelope to the trader.

How could this be unfair?

Reason 1: The advert is not accurate: the consumer would need to pay money to claim the prize (banned practice)

The low value give-away item which is in fact being distributed by the trader would amount to a breach of paragraph 22 of Schedule 20 to the DMCC Act which prohibits the trader from creating the false impression the consumer has won a prize. In fact taking any action in relation to claiming the prize requires the consumer to pay money or incur a cost.

Reason 2: The advert is not accurate: it gives a false impression (misleading action)

The advertisement gives the impression that the recipient has won a major prize when this is not the case. This overall presentation of the advertisement may deceive the average consumer as a result of a mixture of false or misleading statements made.

Where the practices involved are likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision (for example, by placing an order that they would not have done were it not for the prize on offer), this would amount to a misleading action in breach of the DMCC Act.

Reason 3: The advert does not provide all the important information (misleading omission)

The advertisement omits certain important bits of information, such as:

• the value of the prize

• the terms and conditions attached to the competition or to individual prizes

• an indication of the number of prizes of each description that will be awarded

Where the practices involved are likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision (for example, by placing an order that they would not have done were it not for the prize on offer), this would amount to a misleading omission in breach of the DMCC Act.

Example: reselling tickets for gigs or events

A trader鈥檚 business is the sale, or secondary re-sale, of tickets admitting entry to entertainment and other similar events (other legislation will also be relevant to secondary ticketing, including Chapter 5 of Part 3 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015). They sell tickets for 鈥榬estricted view鈥� seats without telling consumers that the seats in question are subject to a restricted view.

How could this be unfair?

Reason 1: The business does not tell the consumer about the restricted view (misleading omission)

The average consumer needs to know about the restricted view before selecting the ticket, in order to make a properly informed decision.

Where the trader鈥檚 failure to provide consumers with the information that the tickets they are selling are for seats with a restricted view is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision, this would amount to a misleading omission.

Reason 2: The business has left out information that the consumer relies on to make their choice (omission of material information from an invitation to purchase)

Where the ticket listing indicates the price of the ticket, this practice is likely also to be an 鈥榠nvitation to purchase鈥�. The fact that the tickets are restricted view is likely to be a feature of the 鈥榤ain characteristics鈥� of the product (the view is important to the consumer, as they need to see the event happening on stage).

The information about the restricted view must be presented in a clear and timely fashion and in a way that the consumer is likely to see it.聽