Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Main Page: Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour - Life peer)Consumer Rights Bill
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
“( ) A consumer shall not be obliged to incur any costs when returning rejected goods except those incurred in returning the goods to the place where they acquired physical possession of those goods.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 15 would ensure that a consumer would not have pay to return faulty goods other than any costs incurred in returning them to the place where they originally acquired physical possession of them. It is intended to stop traders charging additional costs, such as large postage costs or costs for delivery of large items. I understand the Government’s view and I expect the response to be along the lines of that raised in the other place when this issue was raised; namely, that the present arrangements under the Sales of Goods Act 1979 should be continued. Basically, what is being said here is that when a consumer exercises a right to reject faulty goods, they are not obliged to return the goods unless they have agreed to. All the consumer needs to do is to make the goods available to the trader. The consumer and trader can arrange for the consumer to return the goods but it would be the consumer’s choice.
Of course, it does not exactly make it the trader’s responsibility in that circumstance to do that. The whole of this appears to be on an edifice of good will and sound trading, which often does occur but, in reality, sometimes does not. Good traders are not the ones we have to worry about: it is the unhelpful, nitpicking, take-it-or-leave-it traders who we have all come across and who may say, “Oh yes, we will give you a refund on your sofa but you have to bring it back to the depot”. You then work out how on earth you are going to do that and probably give up in despair.
It has already come up in our Committee that there is clearly an invisible but rather firm line on the part of the Government regarding where they want to go on some of these issues where they feel that the evidence that comes from the earlier legislation is sufficient. However, times are changing, and the sharp practices and issues that have been raised with us as we have approached the Bill need to be addressed. This very simple amendment would put into the Bill something that we think would be good practice. It would help consumers, particularly vulnerable ones, to deal with poor traders, and would level the playing field between the good and the bad retailers. I beg to move.
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.
“Secondary ticketing platforms: ticket information
(1) Where a ticket is sold through a secondary ticketing platform—
(a) the seller must provide all relevant information about the ticket, and(b) the secondary ticketing platform must publish all the information about a ticket provided by the seller in a prominent and clear way.(2) Information to be requested by the secondary ticketing platform and provided by the seller for the purposes of subsection (1) should include, but is not limited to—
(a) the name of the seller of the ticket;(b) the face value of the ticket;(c) any age or other restrictions on the user of the ticket; and(d) the designated block and row and the seat or ticket number, where applicable. (3) Where tickets are being resold in contravention of the terms and conditions agreed to by the original purchaser, this must be stated prominently by the secondary ticketing platform at every stage of the purchasing process.
(4) Information provided by virtue of this section must be—
(a) accurate; and(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete their purchase.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I shall speak also to Amendments 26 to 31, which I am glad have been grouped, because they deal variously with one or two aspects relating to ticketing, and I think that there is a great deal to be taken from the fact that an all-party alliance is putting forward the various points. I hope that the Government are in listening mode, at least on these matters.
What is a ticket? That is definitely not a rhetorical question. We have a real problem about what we understand by the word “ticket”. What does purchasing a ticket confer on the purchaser in terms of rights and responsibilities? I would be very grateful if the Minister, when she replies, would spend some time explaining what the Government think a ticket is, because I would be illuminated by that.
There are two strands of thought. The promoters of many of our larger sporting and entertainment events feel that a ticket is an intangible right to attend an event or performance, a personal licence for the person who bought the ticket—and, presumably, those for whom he or she has bought the ticket—to attend a specific event, occupying a designated seat. That is not what is believed by the secondary ticket companies, who take the view that a ticket is real property and, once bought, is available to the original purchaser to sell and resell to any third party willing to pay a market price for it.
The problem is that there is no real accommodation between those two approaches. On the one hand, the promoters of events feel that tickets which have not been released are being advertised and sold, which means that the seller cannot guarantee that they will ever be able to honour that transaction. Tickets are being sold at prices well above their face value and the purchasers have no idea that that has taken place. Fans can end up buying tickets which do not guarantee them entry even to the event to which they think that they have bought a ticket, because there may be terms and conditions for the sale that have not been disclosed to them, which prevent them being transferred. I was at an event last weekend where I had a ticket issued by a reputable national theatre company which said clearly on its face that it was not valid if sold at a premium price. Of course, I knew that, because I could read it; but others may not have spotted that. In general, the view taken by many promoters is that consumers are being priced out, mis-sold or even defrauded when tickets are resold on the secondary market.
Two principles underlie that. The first is that promoters should make tickets available to people at affordable prices and that that should be protected; but also that consumers should be provided with more information about what they are buying when purchasing tickets through secondary outlets.
The secondary ticket market takes the view that people should have the right to buy surplus or unwanted tickets, and argues that by providing a platform for buyers and sellers, it offers an excellent service. In many cases, that is true. It also thinks that the traditional model means that only a very small number of tickets are made available, with the balance being sold at premium prices to sponsors and corporate hospitality organisations.
It is fair to say that this issue has a long history, with both this Government and the previous one trying to respond to public pressure, which is clearly pulling in two directions. On the one hand, people want access to tickets when they go on sale, but they are also against thousands of tickets being bought by people seeking to make a profit rather than attending the event. Equally—people will say this within a few seconds—they feel that they ought to be able to buy tickets if they decide, perhaps late in the day, that they would like to see the event after all and get very annoyed if they find that there are no tickets available or the price is extraordinary.
Recent technological changes have had an effect on this. We often find computerised botnets—as I think they are called—hoovering up tickets on sale online. What chance have ordinary punters to get tickets in the first place? Most people will either have been or will know of people who were trying desperately to buy tickets for the Olympic Games when they first went on sale, and spent many hours on the phone waiting for someone to respond or online waiting for something to respond. Sometimes you won; sometimes you did not. Obviously, with very popular events there will be a problem however you do it, but computerisation is both an advantage and a disadvantage.
We are beginning to worry about money-laundering and criminal gangs active in this area. If that is the case, where should the public interest now lie?
There is already a huge amount of legislation. I will not go through it in detail but there is the Civic Government (Scotland) Act, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, and in addition to specific legislation on touting there are legal remedies under existing criminal law relating to theft, deception, obstruction or threatening behaviour. In addition to primary legislation, there is a substantial amount of secondary legislation coming through from the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Price Indications (Resale of Tickets) Regulations 1994, some of which have a direct impact on the way in which people are going to be treated if they are caught transacting secondary sales.
Lord Clement-Jones
Before the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, responds, I want to make just a couple of comments. I, of course, also will read Hansard carefully. I am somewhat disappointed because I am not sure that the voices in the debate have been heard clearly. I feel that somewhat of the straw man or Aunt Sally is being erected here as if the proponents of these amendments are trying to restrict the secondary market and prevent resale. My noble friend Lord Stoneham talked about restraint of trade. I thought that that was quite extraordinary and that we were almost in the realms of the EU or something. That is not the intention; nor is it the intention to drive people away from the event organisers to the secondary market. I do not believe that that would be the impact of what we are talking about here; that is, to get the benefit of a guarantee delivered by a secondary market in the possible event that a ticket is invalid or fraudulent. Surely, when you buy it from the event organiser, you know that it jolly well is not fraudulent or invalid. I am not really sure about that argument.
I could say many other things. As to the whole notion of the secondary market being entrepreneurial, if you know that a major sporting event is coming down the track, I do not know how entrepreneurial you have to be to reckon that a ticket for the World Cup is worth money and will be worth a great deal more money the nearer the time. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is a great friend of entrepreneurs but there is entrepreneurialism and entrepreneurialism, in my view, in all of this. I think that a little bit of a splendid smokescreen is being erected around this issue. However, I take it from what my noble friend has said that there is an issue about the information given about an ordinary seller who is an ordinary consumer who has bought a ticket and wants to resell it, and the whole of their history is revealed for all to see on the secondary market. That is a perfectly valid objection and it may be a bridge too far. But there are many other aspects of these amendments which are extremely important.
My noble friend prayed in aid the regulations. The fact is that they are there but they are not adequate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for using the word “forensic”. If you look at the impact of these consumer regulations, you see that they are not sufficient to drive good behaviour, which is all that we are talking about in these circumstances. The main four resellers in the secondary market may well do what they can. They do not always publicise exactly what the tickets relate to. There may be merit in considering some sort of regulation where consumers do not have to pay for their tickets until the identity is known. It may be that you need a condition precedent: for example, having made the reservation, the consumer perhaps should not have to pay until the seat number can be stated. It is perfectly possible to think of a situation where that would be a valid way of behaving.
I will chew over what my noble friend has said but we have quite a bit more discussion to take place. Clearly, she recognises the strength of feeling in Committee. I think that this is a matter that we will take further during the course of the Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I share the disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed at the response to the debate. It was a very high-quality debate with some very important and influential speakers with track records and experience. It is not so much that their points were rebutted—that is what Governments do—but to have them rebutted in such an inventive way seems to me to trivialise what is an important point. We need to think very hard about what the next steps in this should be. For example, the Government do not seem to have a view on my genuine question of what a ticket is, yet they are regulating out of their ears—or that is what they say they are doing. To do so on the basis of not knowing what the central point is seems to be specious in the extreme. If they do not know what a ticket is, is it any wonder that the regulations do not do the trick?
It is absolutely clear from what has been said today and from the evidence that we have received that the current regulatory structure is a bit of a joke. It does not do what it is required to do: to make an efficient market for those who are trying to sell tickets for events they are running and for those who wish to attend them in a genuine capacity. It is not catching all the activity that is going through. The Government say that it is designed for traders, but somehow consumers are in a different category. I do not think that distinction stands up in what we are doing.
The guidance that has been issued has been tried and tested already and is clearly failing. It does not work. We need to do something about that. Under the regulations that have been in force since June 2014, I have been told by several sports bodies that no tickets that they can find on sale have the seat numbers or seller details provided. Are we to believe that no tickets at all are being sold by these traders? I do not think so.
Also, what exactly is a trader? During her response the Minister seemed to imply that there would be a case for arguing that people who bought tickets in excess of their personal demand could be treated as traders. If that is the situation, why do we not say that in regulatory form so that it is clear? It is currently up to the seller to define whether they are a trader or a consumer. In the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, the BA pilot who was caught selling several hundred Ashes tickets would definitely have been a trader by any definition yet was not prosecuted in that way. This is largely about consumer protection. Consumers are not going to be concerned about whether their ticket is coming from a trader or a consumer. They should have the right to know what they are buying. That is the basis of all the consumer discussions we have had on the Bill so far. It seems odd to carve this out in a different way.
I take the view that, if the Government are not going to outlaw secondary ticketing—I do not think they should—they must regulate properly for what they want: the desirable things, the things that will help the sports and help consumers. That will help to create a proper and open arrangement that is not susceptible to criminal activity of the type that we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, but which seemed to be rebutted by the Minister when she responded. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that there were about 1,000 people involved in criminal activity from known facts as a result of the Government’s investigations into the Olympic and Paralympic Games. What exactly is she saying if she says that some economists say that there is not any criminal activity because it was consumers who were buying the tickets? Of course it was consumers who were buying them, but if they were arriving through some form of criminal gang activity, that is not a very satisfactory situation.
As was made very clear in the debates, the amendments taken together give a range of options for the Government to look at. That is a rich opportunity for the Government to come back with something sensible at later stages in the Bill. We are not saying that there is a particular solution to this; there is a range of things that the Government could do. We are tending not to be draconian. We are not insisting on banning secondary ticketing; we are trying to say that there is a gap here in expectation. The genuine fan, the keen person who wishes to go to an activity but cannot access tickets at the beginning of the process and has to pay over the odds for them, is not well served by the information requirements. This simply is not working well. It could be changed through very minor regulatory change. It should be in the Bill because it is clear that the secondary legislation is not working. I really cannot understand why the Government are happy to be accused of standing by while consumers are being exploited.
We will undoubtedly return to this. I hope that between now and when this matter comes back on Report there may be an opportunity to have a further, more in-depth discussion with the Minister where we might get further down the line on this. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.