Baroness Jolly
Main Page: Baroness Jolly (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Consumer Rights Bill
Baroness Jolly Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that the government amendments are technical in nature, so I would like to take some time to explain what they do.
The Bill sets out key statutory remedies, such as the right to reject substandard goods, which entitle the consumer to reject goods, treat the contract as terminated and get a refund, but there is also court-developed common law regarding contracts for goods, and the Bill is intended to work alongside much of that. Amendments 14, 17 and 18 are to explain how the rights to reject goods under the Bill work, where contracts are severable under contract law. By severable, I mean contracts where parts are intended to be independent of each other, so different parts of the payment can be assigned to different parts of the trader’s performance. For example, it could be a contract for numerous goods where payment is due per item or for building work where payment is due pro rata for work done, regardless of whether all of the work has been done. That is distinct from obligations which are entire, when the consumer has to pay only when all the trader’s obligations have been fulfilled—for example, a building contract under which the trader must carry out all the work before the consumer has to pay a lump sum. It is that existing common-law distinction and principle to which the amendments refer.
Let me state from the outset what the amendments are not about. They are absolutely not about preventing consumers from rejecting faulty goods. Where goods are faulty, the consumer has the right to reject them under the amendments. The amendments clarify that where the contract is severable, the consumer has the right to reject the faulty goods and may also have the right to terminate the whole of the contract. Above all, the amendments provide clarity that the Bill would not override the distinction between severable and entire contract, which currently exists in common law.
The Bill, like the Sale of Goods Act, explains the position for contracts where the parties agree to deliver and pay for goods in instalments. A contract, including a mixed contract, such as one where goods are supplied alongside services, may be considered to be severable in other situations. For example, goods may be delivered in instalments but paid for monthly rather than per instalment. I gave some other examples earlier.
Under the Sale of Goods Act, much of the detail of how the right to reject operates is dealt with by common law, whereas in the Bill we have greater clarity about the right to reject. To provide that greater clarity without cutting across the existing concept of severability, we consider that it would be helpful to include some clarification about how the right to reject operates for severable contracts, other than those for delivery and payment in instalments.
Under current law, if a consumer and a trader make a contract which is severable and an item supplied under the contract is faulty, the consumer may be entitled to compensation in relation to the faulty item, or may be able to terminate the whole contract—it will depend on the nature of the goods, the fault, and the detail of the contract. The amendments are intended to set out the position in the Bill.
If the contract is not severable—for example, if the consumer is required to pay only once and the trader has carried out all of the work—the amendments do not bite. The consumer could terminate the whole of the contract if there is a fault in one of the goods.
I turn to the amendments. First, Amendments 14 and 17 are to clarify that the rights to reject goods take account of this common-law distinction between severable and entire contracts. The Bill provides that a consumer should be able to reject goods, including those supplied as part of a mixed contract, where the goods breach one of the statutory rights in the Bill. However, where the contract is severable, in some cases the faulty goods supplied might represent only a small part of the whole contract. These goods or the fault with them may have little impact on other things which the trader must do or supply under the contract. Of course, in other cases the faulty goods may represent most of what the consumer is paying for under the contract, or the fault in the goods may be representative of an inherent fault in other goods which are to be supplied. That is why the amendments provide that the consumer’s right to reject may apply to a severable part of the contract or that the consumer may also have a right to terminate the wider contract.
Whether the consumer can treat the whole contract “as at an end” may depend on the circumstances and the contract. Under common law, the main tests for deciding whether a consumer may treat the whole contract as being at an end in such cases are the extent of the breach compared to the whole contract and the likelihood of the breach being repeated in the other things that the trader is to supply. Imagine, for instance, that a trader has renovated a bathroom and billed the consumer separately for the different items. There is no issue with the trader’s work or most of the items but there is a fault with the sink. Amendment 17 is to make clear that the consumer’s right to reject would apply to the severable part of the contract and not to the whole contract, unless the circumstances justified this. In my example, therefore, a consumer could reject the part of the trader’s performance which did not meet the consumer’s rights—here, it is the sink—but not necessarily the whole bathroom.
Amendment 18 ensures that the distinction between entire and severable contracts is also reflected in Clause 21, which enables a consumer who has the right to reject goods under a contract to choose to reject only some of the faulty goods. Where a contract is severable, the consumer might have the right to reject goods supplied under part of the contract but not all the goods under it. The amendment therefore makes it clear that in this situation, too, the consumer may choose to reject only some of the faulty goods which they are entitled to reject.
As I said at the start, I appreciate that these are technical amendments and if the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would like additional time to consider them more fully, the Government are willing to withdraw and not move them at this time and reintroduce them on Report.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to run before my horse by talking about an amendment which I shall bring up later but I was listening carefully to what my noble friend was saying about the ability to reject part of a contract. In the case that I shall come to in a minute, which will be about custom-made double-glazed units, will that mean that one window only could be rejected?
Baroness Jolly
My noble friend makes a very good point. I have extensive speaking notes on that part and we will come to it later in the afternoon.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. Perhaps it would be helpful if I put on the record what our questions are. I take very much the offer that she has made to withdraw and not move these amendments so that we can come back to them; with them being tabled at this stage, we obviously have not had all the time that we need. Neither have they been scrutinised by the BIS Select Committee or in the Public Bill Committee in the other place. That would give us a little more time and we are grateful for that.
The real question, which the Minister helpfully set out, is whether it is reasonable for a consumer to reject every part of what they think was bought under a single sales contract or only the faulty parts. With the example given, it may be that an entire bathroom suite has been ordered—all in the same pale blue or whatever one wants for a bathroom suite—but if the sink is faulty, that may have implications on the bundle and on whether the quality of the whole is affected by one part.
Though hearing and understanding the intention, we are worried that this proposal could have consequences for big, very expensive items, particularly whether the amendments would create an incentive for traders to supply related goods under separate orders or contracts to try to make the contract more severable. That could apply to a whole furniture suite, a music centre, a matching table, chairs and cupboards, and so on where the householder thinks that they are buying a complete look. Rather like the Minister, I have focused on kitchen equipment and those sorts of things. However, telecoms and media bundles, which can include phone, broadband and television, are increasingly purchased by consumers. Such purchases raise the same issues as to whether they are a single contract or severable.
I should like to lay two further issues on the table because we will, with the Minister’s generous offer, come back to this. Thinking of the whole area, it will at least be possible for the installer or the retailer to take out insurance against the whole or the parts, whereas an individual consumer cannot at the point of installation. The Minister has kindly offered further discussions on the point at which one pays and whether one simply pays at the end of a contract. If it is for something fairly small, that may be simple, but when I have had building work done, money quite rightly has been wanted up front to buy components. We have tended to pay in bits, which makes it sound as if each bit is separate, although it was really just to help a small trader. Again, we would like the time to look at that. If this amendment really is to clarify current law, we would have fewer worries. For the moment, we are grateful for the time and hope that we will be able to sort this out.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and appreciate that she needs more time to consider the amendments more fully in the light of remarks on this issue. I am happy therefore to withdraw the amendment with a view to revisiting it on Report.
Baroness Jolly
The noble Lord has eloquently described how unfair it would be for a consumer to have to pay the cost of returning substandard goods. I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiments that he conveys; to receive substandard goods is disappointing and frustrating in itself, but to have to pay the cost of returning them really would heap insult upon injury. Where I think we differ is that I am not convinced that further protection is required. This is because of the protections already in the Bill and in common law. Moreover, there seems to be little evidence of bad practice from traders insisting that consumers fund the return of shoddy goods. Some large online retailers already cover the cost of returning goods, either by arranging for a courier or by providing a freepost sticky label.
The Bill already provides protection by stating in Clause 27 that there is no need for the consumer to return the goods unless they have specifically agreed to do so. The consumer need only make the goods available to the trader—for example, to facilitate their collection. Furthermore, if the consumer rejects the goods and terminates the contract, he or she can also pursue a damages claim against the trader in order to recover further costs that they have incurred, and these damages could include the cost of returning the goods to the trader if they had been required so to do. So although I am with the noble Lord opposite on the spirit and intention behind the amendment, I question the need for it. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, that was not unexpected, although I noticed, as the Minister was framed by the TV behind her, that Christmas bells were ringing, and I thought my time had come and this was going to be the first crack in the edifice that has been erected between us in this debate, but sadly not.
We are so close on this that I do not understand why the Minister cannot accept the argument. I find it very strange that the Government would be happy to rest on a situation where a poor, vulnerable consumer, with a sofa that is bulky, difficult and unfit for purpose, has to rely on the good will of the trader to send a courier van, as she has described it, or even to send a sticky label—though I do not think that that would be much use—in order to send the sofa back to the warehouse. What happens if the trader does not do that? Are we really saying that everyone in the country has to become expert in raising small claims charges in small claims courts to try to persuade recalcitrant traders to do what is obviously the expected thing? I do not think so. I hear what the Minister says and I understand where she is coming from, but we might wish to return to this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
For readers of Hansard, you would love my crimson chiffon, off-the-shoulder, diamante-encrusted gown. However, at that level, yes, I have made-to-measure clothes, but my grandchildren, called Poppy and Isaac, have “Poppy” and “Isaac” embroidered all over their swimming towels and things like that. I had a very nice hand-painted plate made for my godchild’s wedding. What I would not like to see is that, as a consumer of those made-to-measure or personalised goods, I would lose my rights to reject if they were faulty. If they are for a wedding I am afraid that a replacement probably would not arrive in time. I am not convinced that personalised, made-to-measure things should lose their rights. If it is bespoke it is probably something that has been made fairly specifically.
I understand that the wording used has probably been carried across from the distance contracts rules, where if one orders a personalised product then one obviously cannot reject it simply because one has changed one’s mind, because there is nothing else the supplier can do. We understand that completely, but that is obviously not the same as where a personalised product is faulty. Our worry is that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as worded would undermine the rights that a personalised order should have.
If we have read this correctly, the amendment would be not a clarification, but a change in the current law. Our understanding is that the current law has not produced any problems in the past. We have certainly heard no catalogue of complaints, although the Minister might know more than we do about that. Our worry therefore is, whether it is simply my dress or a tailor-made kitchen, that we would want consumers to retain their rights if such a kitchen was full of faults or badly installed. It is a bit like what my noble friend Lord Stevenson said on the previous amendment: I do not think good traders have anything to worry about, but it is the others that we are worried about, who would be the ones most likely to misuse something such as this. Many personalised goods are expensive and very much thought about. If they are in one’s own house it is not that easy to keep having them changed: one has to take more days off work to have that done. This is one’s home we are talking about.
We hope that the Government are not going to accept this amendment, which I am sure is well intentioned but perhaps unnecessary.
Baroness Jolly
I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for the reasoning behind his amendment. I also welcome his general support for the principle of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is absolutely correct in pointing out that the amendment’s application would be wider than double-glazing: spectacles are another really good example of something that is personalised. I am grateful to have the support of the noble Baroness opposite.
The Government disagree with the approach that the amendment takes. The rights to reject in the Bill—both the short-term and final right to reject—represent fundamental protections for consumers where goods do not meet the consumer’s rights under the Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am grateful to the Minister and particularly to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his support. This is a probing amendment and, quite rightly, some of its defects have been pointed out. However, my noble friend did not answer on whether partial rejection could take place. If I may use the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, let us suppose that she bought not just an aquamarine off-the-peg but a crushed raspberry and a shocking pink as well, and let us say it turned out that the garment in crushed raspberry was poorly manufactured. Was she entitled to return them all? Is that part of the same contract? The issue for my noble friend is this: if in the example that I have given there are 12 windows and one is faulty, does the right to reject extend to all 12 windows, or is it limited to the specific article about which problems have been found? In the example given by the noble Baroness, of course she can return the one dress, but can she return all the dresses that formed part of a single order? That is what I am not clear about. I do not know whether my noble friend can illuminate me any further now.
Baroness Jolly
Indeed, my Lords. I will try to keep out of people’s wardrobes. Of course we are keen to ensure that rejection is a proportionate remedy. Amendments 14, 17 and 18 on severable contracts, which we have already discussed, were intended to give clarity here. As was explained in that debate, if the contract is severable, the consumer would have the right to reject the affected part, and the circumstances of the case would determine if they could reject the other parts of the contract.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, we seem to be getting some good clarity there. I will read carefully, take some further advice, thank my noble friend and all noble Lords who have taken part, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am intervening rather unfairly on this amendment to say that I do not support it and that, as the Bill’s passage carries on, a number of sectors will have their voices represented. I want to raise issues that have been raised with me by the motor sector, particularly the Finance and Leasing Association, which represents a wide range of those who finance the purchase of motor cars by consumers.
As we heard, Clause 22 introduces this 30-day right to reject goods if they are of unsatisfactory quality, however minor the defect. Sellers are unable to deduct the costs incurred—for example, depreciations—while the goods have been used by the consumer. As a result, the right to reject could have a particular cost implication in the world of motor finance, where 75% of private new car sales are bought on finance. New cars, as my noble friend may know, typically lose 15% to 20% of their value in the first 30 days, and in the event of a defect the car dealer will have to offer to repair the car, although the customer is not obliged to accept that and can simply opt to hand back the vehicle. In a worst-case scenario, as the FLA says, the customer might have had the car for a month and driven it extensively, clocking up thousands of miles, only to hand it back because of a very minor defect—for example, the windscreen wipers failing to work properly. That is the case that the FLA makes.
I am very happy for my noble friend to write, since this is a rather unexpected intervention. There is clearly a balance to be struck between ensuring that customers are able to return faulty goods and preventing potential abuse. I therefore ask my noble friend whether the department will clarify, in the accompanying guidance to the Bill and in any associated publicity, that this new short-term right to reject should be invoked only if the quality of the goods is genuinely unsatisfactory—that is, the defects are not simply minor mechanical or cosmetic ones—and ideally it should be done as soon as possible within the 30-day period.
Secondly, could my noble friend confirm how this new short-term right to reject fits with Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, which already allows the customer to make a claim against a supplier or lender for breach of contract? This Consumer Rights Bill gives the consumer a right to challenge the supplier, whereas Section 75 of the CCA establishes an additional right to pursue the creditor for breach by the supplier. Will the Government be making clear in the guidance that the customer must obtain recourse from the supplier first, and that the supplier must not renounce responsibility on the grounds of Section 75?
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, this amendment reflects a recommendation by the Law Commission in its 2009 report, Consumer Remedies for Faulty Goods. Many of the recommendations in that report are implemented in the goods chapter of the Bill. Indeed, a normal period of 30 days was recommended by the Law Commission as giving a reasonable opportunity for a consumer to inspect goods, as well as meeting the expectation of consumers. However, I am concerned that the amendment would undermine the benefits of certainty provided by the 30-day time limit for the short-term right to reject.
Here I am staying with the example of the pregnant lady buying a pram. Let us look at the example of a pregnant woman who buys baby equipment in preparation for the birth of her child. The amendment would allow her to exercise the short-term right to reject potentially months after purchasing the goods, should it transpire that they were faulty. On the face of it, that may seem fair, but I see many issues that could arise to make this impractical. If a friend who was not pregnant bought the same goods for the same unborn baby, it is not clear whether it would be reasonably foreseeable that there might be a delay before they were used. Should all baby-related goods be subject to a longer period for rejection because it is not unreasonable to think that they may be for a baby who has not yet been born? Or would this only be reasonably foreseeable if the consumer said something to indicate it, or had a sign, such as being pregnant?
If it was reasonably foreseeable that there may be a delay before the consumer would use the goods fully, it seems difficult to know what the reasonable period would be. Take the example of a consumer buying skis in the summer. What is the reasonable period for the consumer to be able to test them? A week into the European ski season, or a month? Not until the end of the season? How would the trader know when the consumer came to return the goods whether a delay was reasonably foreseeable when the consumer bought them? Would the trader have to keep a record of who bought what and any relevant circumstances, such as when they said they would start to use it? This would be extremely burdensome on businesses.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Amendment 20, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, aims to provide greater clarity on how long a repair should take and, therefore, how long a consumer must wait before they may be entitled to a refund or a price reduction. At Second Reading, the whole House was very supportive of the aim of the Bill to increase clarity. Under current law, and under the Bill, where a consumer asks for a faulty good to be repaired, the trader has to do so within a “reasonable time”. However, “reasonable” is not specified, which causes uncertainty for the consumer but probably for businesses as well.
We are very keen that the Government’s new remedies should work but they will do so only if customers feel confident about their rights, particularly about when they can exercise those rights. As we have just been discussing, elsewhere in the Bill there is a significant change that we welcome, where the 30 days replaces the reasonable period to reject. The Minister has just emphasised the clarity of that. Our concern is that in this area the word “reasonable” remains as regards how long it takes to complete a repair. Clearly, the range of goods covered goes from yo-yos to the double glazing referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. It would apply to an enormous range of goods and therefore it is difficult to have a precise time for all repairs.
Amendment 20 therefore proposes a longstop, coupled with an obligation for traders to effect the repair sooner if possible. For most repairs, 14 days would be absolutely adequate, even if spare parts had to be sourced from overseas. But the amendment also would provide flexibility where the consumer could agree to a longer period where they are happy to do so. This may be in cases such as those raised by the Glass and Glazing Federation where on-site visits will have to take place before any repair could be ordered, let alone fitted. That flexibility obviously would be possible. For other goods, there is no reason why they should not be repaired in less than 14 days. In a Which? survey, more than half of the respondents said that traders should not have more than 14 days to effect a repair. After all, that would leave a customer without the goods for quite a long time.
The clarity that this amendment seeks is to empower consumers to exercise their rights. In other words, they will know that they can ask for a repair to be done in that time. We think that it will reduce unnecessary disputes as to what is reasonable because both sides will know what to expect. It will also deter poor practice. The problem that the consumer has is that, while they are awaiting a repair, they are caught: they do not have the good; they do not have the money, so they cannot replace it at another shop; and they cannot have it repaired by another trader because they would have to pay for it. At that time, they would be very vulnerable. We hope that this amendment will facilitate the clarity that the Government seek in this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, first, I acknowledge that a minority of consumers may be frustrated by lengthy waiting times when they have asked for a repair or a replacement. We have found little evidence that the time taken for repairs is a common problem. The Consumer Engagement And Detriment Survey 2014 found that of those consumers who had experienced a problem with goods and services, only 5% had a problem with a failed or delayed repair and, of this group, delayed repair is likely to be a smaller problem.
BIS has considered a time limit with regard to repairs and replacements. There was a consultation in 2012 and we discussed the issue further with stakeholders, consumer organisations and traders. On the basis of that consultation and those discussions, we concluded that the best approach is a simple limit of one repair or replacement of goods that must be provided within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer. I am concerned that setting a longstop date for repairs or replacements lacks the necessary flexibility to deal with all types of goods in all circumstances. Attempting to apply such a broad rule would at the least be burdensome to some businesses, but may also lead to unwanted consequences.
The Bill provides flexibility because the time needed to carry out a repair will depend on the goods and the circumstances. In most cases of repairs there are a number of factors beyond the control of the trader, so a backstop period may impose a burden. If goods are faulty and the consumer wishes to reject them under the short-term right to reject, this is a simple process. The consumer need only notify the trader that they wish to do so. On the other hand, repair or replacement of goods is a more involved process which will vary according to the goods in question and the type of fault. The application of a specific time period for repair work cannot effectively take account of all the relevant factors that affect the trader’s ability to provide a repair or replacement.
Repairs are often not carried out by the trader themselves, so the goods may need to be transported to and from the repairer. Further time is added if parts need to be ordered. For complex goods, time-consuming processes of diagnosing the fault and testing the repair may also be needed. The amount of control that the trader has over those factors is proportionate to the size of the trader. Small businesses have relatively little or no control over their suppliers and so would bear a larger burden. The British Retail Consortium gave the following evidence when this issue was discussed in the other place. It said that for small and medium businesses, setting a deadline for repairs is,
“more difficult … because they cannot have control over third parties that are perhaps coming in to do the repair … If that was regulated, clearly that would be one-size-fits-all, and would, I fear, penalise small, medium-sized and micro-businesses”.—[Official Report, Commons, Consumer Rights Bill Committee, 11/2/14; col. 33.]
The amendment would enable the consumer to agree to an alternative timescale. While this goes some way to providing flexibility we do not believe that it does enough, for two reasons. First, it opens up the possibility of the consumer simply refusing to agree an alternative timescale where it is impossible for the trader to provide a repair or replacement within 14 days. This creates an opportunity for the consumer to circumvent the first-tier remedies altogether, to the cost of the trader. Secondly, the amendment suggests that the alternative timescale should be agreed in advance. In many cases it will only become clear in the course of carrying out the repair that a longer period is necessary. If a repair takes a long time, of course, the consumer may well suffer inconvenience from being without the goods. The Bill already allows the consumer to move to the second-tier remedy if that happens. That protects the consumer, while still allowing the flexibility needed for the rules to work for different goods and circumstances.
The second main concern we have about this amendment is the risk of unwanted consequences. I underline the fact that we believe that repair is a vital remedy; it provides the trader with the opportunity to put right what has gone wrong, while enabling the consumer to have the goods they wanted. If done properly, it meets the needs of the consumer while reducing the burden on the trader and is more environmentally friendly as it is less wasteful than rejection. We are therefore concerned about any amendment, such as this one, that could shift the balance and lead to more rejections over repairs.
Imposing a backstop date may lead to a reduction in the quality of repairs. The trader may feel pressured to do a “rush job” to get it back in time rather than having the time needed to get it right. If consumers begin to lose faith in repairs, this could lead to an increase in rejected goods, which would be wasteful and costly. This is not just limited to repairs. Flexibility is also needed where a trader is to provide a replacement, as the necessary time will depend on factors such as stock, their source, and whether the goods were bespoke. Bespoke goods are a good example of where the amendment could be problematic. Many bespoke goods will take longer than 14 days to make, in the case of a replacement, or to repair.
Creating a backstop 14-day period, and requiring the consumer’s agreement for a longer period, means that the consumer would always have an automatic right to veto the repair or replacement and move directly to rejection or money off for these types of goods. This would be hugely detrimental to the whole industry, which is especially concerning when you consider that many of the businesses offering bespoke goods are small, specialist traders that would be hit hard by these costs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, Clauses 23 and 24 as they stand seem to state that a consumer can have their money back if one repair does not fix the problem. That is reasonable for a product such as a television but it may cause problems where the fault is less obvious. Some products are incredibly complex; just as complex as consumers.
While we are telling personal histories, from my time in the London taxi industry I know that the clause would cause huge problems for car repairs. We had a customer bring in a taxi for repairs to his rear axle. My mechanics could not find anything wrong with it, and they therefore stupidly said that they had mended any problem that existed. However, the customer brought the car back, insisting that he was hearing dreadful noises from the back of the car. It turned out that the customer had spanners stored in the boot of his taxi that were slipping around. He removed them to bring the car to the garage, which is why no fault could be found. He then put the items back into the boot and so began hearing strange noises again as things slipped around, so he brought the taxi back in. Would the clause as drafted mean that we would have had to refund him because we did not fix the problem the first time around? You can have two problems—one masking the other—and you may need a process, as suggested in the amendment, to resolve some problems.
Baroness Jolly
I thank my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his clear explanation of the purpose of these amendments, and other Peers who have added their thoughts. The amendments reflect concerns that the motor industry in particular has about a single repair or replacement. Officials have engaged with the industry on this throughout the Bill process—I do not think that spanners came into the conversation. If it will help to allay the noble Lord’s fears, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe or I will be happy to meet with representatives of the motor industry to discuss their concerns.
I am concerned, however, that these amendments would undermine the clarity of the Bill and the consumer protection that it provides. When the Law Commission consulted in 2008 on clarifying when consumers can move to a second-tier remedy, it concluded that the best and simplest way to make the law on repairs and replacements an effective protection for consumers was to create a cut-off so that after one failed repair or replacement the consumer was entitled to a second-tier remedy. In 2012 BIS consulted again on this matter and reached the same conclusion.
In both consultations, evidence was given by Which? and Citizens Advice of consumers becoming trapped in a cycle of repairs or replacements that failed to fix the problem but where it was not clear whether the existing triggers for the second-tier remedies were met. In fact, one of the examples given was that of a car. The limit of one mandatory repair or replacement before the consumer is entitled to money back mitigates this risk. The consumer should never find themselves without a clear route to a satisfactory outcome for them.
These amendments would entirely undermine that certainty. For complex goods, they would allow a single repair to be extended indefinitely over a number of attempts. The intention in the Bill is that after a single repair attempt, the consumer is entitled to a second-tier remedy if the goods are still faulty. Under the amendments, while the consumer would not be trapped in a series of failed repairs, they could easily become trapped in one ongoing repair without an end in sight. Just to be clear, the effect on the consumer would be the same, and I am sure that noble Lords can see that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about one repair and there have been some comments about what “one repair” means. The Bill is clear that a repair is an attempt to bring the goods into compliance with the Bill’s requirements. One repair is complete once the trader returns the goods to the consumer in response to the consumer’s request for a repair.
Of course, it is also important to remember that the Bill does not prevent the consumer from agreeing to further repairs. If goods do not conform to the contract after a single repair attempt and the consumer would prefer the trader to carry out a further repair rather than rejecting the goods, they are entitled to choose that.
I know that the motor industry has an excellent track record in providing good service to consumers, and that rejection is rarely resorted to by consumers because of the warranties supplied for motor vehicles and the repairs that they provide. There is no reason to believe that consumers will change this behaviour under the Bill; they already have the right to reject under the current legislation but choose not to do so in many cases.
If noble Lords consider the consumer’s position when a fault occurs with a vehicle, they will see that a repair, rather than rejection, is often in the consumer’s interest. It makes sense that consumers take time to choose expensive items. It also makes sense that it is not very appealing to give up on something that one has spent a lot of time and money considering and selecting. Presumably, the consumer has the car for practical reasons such as going to work, the school run, or doing the shopping. If the consumer rejects the vehicle, they will have the inconvenience of getting another one to carry out these normal day-to-day activities. However, the industry says that repairs are generally completed quickly, and where there could be a delay a courtesy car is often provided to mitigate any inconvenience to the consumer.
I believe that repair will remain a crucial remedy that consumers want so long as business, such as the motor industry, continues to provide effective, convenient repair. Crucially, the consumer is protected in the Bill in the worst-case scenario of a series of repairs failing to bring the vehicle up to standard. These amendments would remove that protection.
Where the faith of the consumer in the trader is eroded following a repair, the consumer should have the right to exit the contract or get some money back. They should not be trapped without further recourse. On the basis that the amendments undermine a key consumer protection that the Bill establishes, I must ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we now move to a tricky and, from our point of view, rather serious amendment. The other amendments have been serious, but this is a significant amendment that we wish now to move. Amendment 21 stands in my name and that of my noble friend. I shall speak also to Amendment 22.
Clause 24 deals with the right of the consumer to receive a refund for faulty goods. It allows the seller to make a deduction from that refund to reflect the use that the consumer has had of the goods if it has been over some time. For example, if a sofa falls apart after a year—and, no, I do not have such a sofa—the seller can deduct a proportion of the price which reflects the use that has been made of it at that time. However, if the refund is sought within six months, there should be a full refund with no deduction for use.
However, the Bill creates an exception to that full refund within six months for items that it describes as having an “active second-hand market”. Our fear is that this could undermine the otherwise clear and final right to reject. Our amendment would remove that exception and retain the principle of a full refund in the first six months for all goods.
Our understanding of the background to the introduction of the “active second-hand market” let-out is that it addresses the particular issues of new cars, which it is estimated lose 40% of their value in their first year, about 10% in their first couple of yards as they are driven off the forecourt and up to 20% in the first 30 days. The argument is that a car dealer should not be required to provide a full refund in the first six months when, simply because of the way the car market works, the car has lost a significant amount of its value.
However, it seems to us that if the consumer, wanting a new car, has bought a faulty one, they should get a full refund. Otherwise they cannot replace what they thought they were buying—a new car—with another new car, because there will have been this deduction in value. They will not be put back in the position where they can buy a car and be the first registered owner, which is what makes it especially expensive to be the first owner of a car. The sums involved are quite considerable. I have it on good advice—since I have not bought a new car but, rather, have a newly bought car—that a new car could cost £35,000 but, if it was faulty, the dealer could reduce what they got back by £5,000. That leaves the consumer without a new car but with only £30,000 instead of £35,000 in their bank, and perhaps only 500 miles on the clock.
The other issue about the drafting of this clause is that it does not restrict the exemption from the deduction for use only to cars but covers every other sale of goods where the trader can demonstrate that there is an active second-hand market. The Government have argued that they have carefully drafted to cover only second-hand markets for sale “by traders to consumers”, to exclude the general eBay type of second-hand markets of individuals selling to individuals. There are a lot of other second-hand markets of traders to consumers, both online and on the high street, of furniture, second-hand clothing, vintage jewellery and—as I know better—bicycles, and so on, but if you buy a new one and that turns out to be faulty, you want the money back to buy another new product.
We are therefore worried that consumers will be denied a full refund for new furniture that collapses, clothing that is so damaged that you cannot even wear it, or broken jewellery, simply because there is an “active second-hand market” for these and the trader says, “I’ll deduct it for use because you had some use of it”, even if they could not wear it or carry it, or whatever the case may be. Another problem is that, as the clause currently stands, the seller determines how much should be deducted for use; it is not a negotiable price. That creates quite an escape clause for dodgy traders, who have the freedom to set that reduction-for-use amount without it being reviewable as an unfair term because it would count as priced.
The then Office of Fair Trading and the Law Commission have both opposed this exception. The OFT thought that the drafting on “trader to consumer” did not exclude eBay-type comparisons, as many traders operate on eBay. The Law Commission opposed the deduction for use for the first six months and has urged us in Parliament to consider removing it, citing how much ill-feeling was caused by such deductions. As it said:
“Consumers felt that where they had paid for new goods, they wanted new goods. If the first goods were faulty, they wanted to be able to start again, with enough money to buy other new goods, not second hand ones”.
Which? worries that the let-out,
“could leave consumers out of pocket”,
and,
“does not give consumers the certainty and protection they need”.
I understand that the Government have been focused on this let-out being for these very high-value goods, which lose their value very rapidly. The Minister in the other House said that the drafting had followed the recommendations of the BIS Select Committee. However, the Select Committee was critical of the drafting, pointing out that the lack of a definition of an “active second hand market” had been criticised in many submissions that it received. It also said that it would apply to most goods, which rather contradicts what the Government said about there “normally” being no deduction for use. The committee felt that the drafting would cover a lot of goods, and pointed again to the advice of the Law Commission that the deduction for use was “inflammatory” for consumers. According to the Select Committee, the Law Commission also said that it was rarely employed, so it may be an unnecessary complication.
The Select Committee concluded that,
“neither the policy … nor the drafting … on deduction for use is clear”.
It did not believe that the exemption from the six-month refund rule was workable, and recommended the deduction-for-use clause. It said that, should the provision be retained, the reference to a second-hand market comparison should be removed, with any deduction for use being based on the lifespan of the goods. In the case of the car I assume that this means that, if you had it for five months, the deduction would be based on five months’ use rather than on whether you could actually buy a five month-old car.
The clause may again be well intentioned and aimed at a particular problem with a particular product, but the catch-all is so wide now that it is probably misguided. It certainly seems unworkable, could be unfair and could undermine consumers’ rights on a much wider range of goods.
The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association supports our amendment. It pointed out that in certain industries, particularly electric cars, there has not yet been enough time to develop a second-hand market, which might make it less likely that people would buy a new type of car. They would know that if anything went wrong with it they might lose their rights and be less likely to get their money back, the second-hand market not being a deep one.
I urge the Government to rethink the clause. If it really is simply cars that they have in mind, it might be better to deal with them in a different way rather than risk a much wider range of goods being caught by this provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Baroness for outlining the reasoning behind her amendments, and will look first at Amendment 21. The principle of deduction for use is fair. Where the consumer has enjoyed uninterrupted use of the goods, the consumer should be accountable for that use. For example, if a consumer has been driving a car around for three years of normal use and then a fault manifests, the trader should be able to reduce the refund to take account of those three years of unaffected use. Of course it is right that consumers should be able to exit the contract at that point, but it is unfair to require the trader to bear the costs of that use.
When the Government consulted on the issue, only a very small minority of respondents to BIS’s consultation favoured scrapping the deduction for use, and two-thirds of online respondents agreed that it was right to allow a deduction to be applied in some instances. However, it is frustrating for consumers to get a partial refund even though they have had little use of the goods. The irritation of having to deal with a fault often eclipses what little enjoyment the consumer may have had from the goods, so the Bill includes a new protection that prevents, in most cases, a deduction from being applied within the first six months. There is a limited exception to this rule and it is this exception that Amendment 21 would remove.