Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations

[TedM]

Has anyone else seen the new Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations that come in to force on 13th June?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-additional-payments-regulations-guidance.pdf

and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made

Cancellation of a contract is allowed up to 14 days with no waiver with that period starting from the date goods are delivered to the customer.

"Construction and sale of immovable property including building of new properties" is an exempt category but it is not clear if this would cover a PV installation.

I am a builder and have agreed a contract with a local resident to build a large
extension at the back of their house and a summer house at the bottom of
their garden? Does the ‘creation of immovable property’ exemption mean that
the regulations won’t apply to the goods and services I am providing?

4. No, you will be subject to the regulations. The exemption refers to
‘standalone’ residential properties such as new builds and substantial
conversion work comparable to constructing a new building such as flat
conversions. Extensions, conservatories and the like do not create new rights
to the property but simply extend an existing property, so the regulations
apply.

These regulations replace the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 which had a 7 day cancellation term.

 

[Worcester]

Great !**! Thanks Ted

From our fav's HMRC:

[h=2]Degrees of movability or immovability[/h] [h=3]Example of 'immovable property'[/h] In the case of Rudolf Maierhofer C 315/00, the ECJ reached the conclusion that it is not necessary for a structure to be inseverably fixed to or in the ground in order for it to be 'immovable property'. It is sufficient for it to be fixed in such a way that it cannot be easily moved or easily dismantled. The Maierhofer case concerned single-storey and two-storey buildings constructed from prefabricated components, which stood on concrete bases erected on concrete foundations sunk into the ground. The wall panels were secured to the foundations by bolts and the roof was tiled. The buildings could be dismantled on expiry of the lease for subsequent re-use but by having recourse to eight persons over ten days. The ECJ found that the buildings were 'immovable'.

[h=3]Example of 'movable property'[/h] By contrast with Maierhofer, the Tribunal in the later case of University of Kent (VTD18625), found that the prefabricated 'sleep units' that were subject of that appeal were not immovable property. The Tribunal accepted that

“…. there is a scale of degrees of movability or immovability. Whether, in the light of Rudolf Maierhofer, the units are to be regarded as movable or immovable depends where on this scale they fall.”


The sleep units in question were delivered by lorry and placed in position on concrete blocks by the driver and his assistant using the lorry’s own crane. Other contractors connected the units to the university’s electricity and water supply and erected timber skirting round the units. They were also plumbed into the existing drains. Other than through the skirting, which was fixed to the unit and bolted to the ground, the units were free standing.

The Tribunal looked at the ease with which the units could be dismantled and removed. The electricity, water and drainage connections were removed in less than a day by contractors - each unit then taking up to an hour an a half to be lifted back onto the lorry by the driver and one other and removed from the site. Once the units were removed, minor repairs to the site were necessary. The Tribunal concluded that the units were not sufficiently attached to the ground to render them 'immovable' for the purposes of the exemption.

 

[Worcester]

Reading it all I think it is basically extending their rights from 7 to 14 days.

Also they cannot waive their rights, however looking at the Guidance para 21, so long as the consumer gives their CONSENT to work being carried out within that period you can charge them for the materials included / supplied and work done up to that point - to some extent the 'personalisation' clause would come into effect as well as the combined package of materials (well for us anyway as we don't buy 'kits' ) would be unique for them, bit of a grey area though as they may try the 'sofa' rule..

So just need to change the wording of the 'standard' RECC contract that we use.

p.s anyone heard anything from RECC on this?

 

[BruceB]

No, this one had passed me by. I normally expect Napit to pick up on this sort of thing as it applies to the work of all their members.

 

[Worcester]

I've emailed RECC, will post up their response.
"What Guidance do you have – we use the RECC standard model contract.
What changes do we need to make?"

 

[Worcester]

Well that was very helpful.....

Our current stance is that the legislation changes 14[SUP]th[/SUP] June.
The Code and model documents will be changing in June/ July and will reflect the new legislation. We have to go through a procedure first to be able to make changes to the Code.

While there is a cross over period the legislation with take precedence.
Obviously the legislation cannot be changed and must be complied with.

We do welcome feedback which I will feed back to our Chief Executive and to Trading Standards. And we will let everyone know once changes are made.

 

[BruceB]

It really does make you wonder what is the point of these organisations. How is the average elctrician, plumber, heating technician or mcs installer meant to have picked up on the change?

 

[TedM]

Not a surprising response. This legislation was passed last December, but with a six month delay before coming in to force which should have given bodies plenty of time to update their codes.

 

[Worcester]

With my usual dog with a bone approach, went back to them and just got this back:

"We have only recently found out about these changes and do not have anything in place yet. I will see if we can get something together and let all our members know."

My response is unprintable, they stamp over us when we try to do thing right, they don;t help the poor consumers that are oversold / mis-sold / uninsured / shat upon, and when they could actually have dones something worthwhile they are fast asleep

My belief is that until I emailed them Ted's links this morning they actually didn;t know anything about it at all.

Scores:
TedM 10 :clap:
RECC 0 :joker: (I'd give them -10 if I thought it would do any good )

 

[Gavin A]

for the creation of immovable property or of rights in immovable property;

Until there is specific case law that says otherwise, I'm going to work on the basis that a solar PV system classes as immovable property.

If we take a PV system back off a customer's house who's changed their mind, then this PV system can not be resold under MCS rules, it requires full scaffolding, replacement of 30+ tiles with new,unbolting, rewiring and making good to remove.

It's pretty obvious to me that the intent behind this clause was to exclude items where there was a significant level of work involved in the fitting / removal and making good, and they're supposed to be aimed at stuff like white goods.

This section of the explanation means it'd be very unlikely a customer would actually want to return a solar system that had been installed, as it shows that they would be responsible for the costs of returning the goods - ie the costs of removal, and delivery.

Part 3 of the Regulations contains provisions concerning a consumer’s right to cancel a distance or off-premises contract without giving any reason or incurring any costs other than those specified. Regulation 29 establishes the right to cancel. Regulation 30 provides for a cancellation period of 14 days calculated from the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of delivery, according to the type of contract. Regulation 31 provides that the cancellation period may be extended by up to 12 months if the trader does not provide the consumer with the information on cancellation rights specified in Schedule 2. Regulation 34 requires the trader to pay a refund to the consumer within 14 days of being informed of the cancellation or within 14 days of the goods being returned or evidence of return being provided; the trader may deduct from the refund an amount reflecting the diminished value of the goods caused by unnecessary handling by the consumer. Regulation 35 requires the consumer to return any goods to the trader and bear the cost of doing so, unless the trader has agreed to collect the goods or bear the costs of the consumer returning them. Regulations 36 and 37 provide that the consumer loses the right to cancel where a service or digital content is supplied during the cancellation period, if the consumer acknowledged that the right would be lost in those circumstances. Regulation 38 provides that an ancillary contract is automatically terminated on cancellation of the main contract. ;

I hope the RECC take legal advice on this before issuing some sort of knee jerk reaction update to the code.

 

[Gavin A]

and my reading of the 2 sets of case law worcester gives would back that up.

 

[Worcester]

I hope the RECC take legal advice on this before issuing some sort of knee jerk reaction update to the code.

That would be nice, though with TedM doing an excellent job of letting us all know about this, I reckon my email to RECC caught them with their "pants down" ( or "skirts up" depending upon what gender you reckon the person that is in charge at RECC is :lol: )

 

[BruceB]

Just received NICEIC May e-newsletter and there is nothing in that on the subject, so looks like they missed it as well.

 

[BruceB]

Napit have said this morning there will be articles in the next newsletter and magazine.

 

[SRE]

I keep forgetting how idiotic these rules are.

As I write this today the government who claim to understand small business owe me over 20k that should have been paid on 60 days, we're now at 94 days and counting. I've got enough credit with my wholesaler for my solar job next week, but not the second order I've got.

All my EV jobs are on hold because OLEV can't count. I always keep my CT and Vat money in a 40 day notice account so I get a bit of interest on it - going to have to close it so I can keep trading or cash in an ISA - all because of central government. Where we didn't need to pester our private customers if they were a bit late with payment we're now having to push them, which I hate doing.

New roof rules is leaving us with a bit of a challenge with in-roof systems crossing the application dates and now the new consumer criteria leaves us vulnerable when installing quickly.

Which part of government claims to understand small business cos I'd like to punch them on the nose!