Consumer Protection Regulations 2008 Any civil cases on this?

[efpom]

I am trying to find anyone who has issued civil proceedings relying on the Regulations - or any published County Court judgments re this.

Part 4A inserted via The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 gives right to unwind the contract & claim damages.

[charitynjw]

I am trying to find anyone who has issued proceedings relying on the Regulations - or any published County Court judgments re this

Anything in particular?

You might also want to check http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/1326/made

[des8]

Here's a selection of sites which list or refer to court cases citing The Consumer Protection from unfair trading Regulations 2008.

https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-a...sco-get-wrong/
https://goughsq.co.uk/publication/un...ices-case-law/
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreute...mp=pluk&bhcp=1
https://www.propertyindustryeye.com/...bout-property/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...urnalCode=clja


If you can be more specific about your requirements and supply an outline of your problem we may be able to be of more assistance

[efpom]

I am running a case on the small claims track, as claimant. It is on two Bases – 1 Breach of contract and 2 under 4A, explained below.

The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 inserted a new section 4A into the Consumer Protection Regulations 2008.

The most significant right of redress available to a consumers, under 4A, is the right to`unwind’ the contract, whereby the consumer would be reinstated to their pre-contractual position, claim damages for any consequential losses the consumer has suffered as well as a right to claim for any distress or inconvenience suffered. The claimant has to satisfy the court that:

i. The trader carried out a misleading or aggressive practice;
ii. This practice would be likely to cause the average consumer to enter the contract or make the payment; and
iii. It was a significant factor in this consumer’s decision to enter the contract or make the payment.

The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant, and the only defence available to him is a due diligence defence under the Regulations
Due diligence is not advanced here as a defence.

It would seem that this is the first case under the 4A that has reached the trial stage – set down for 24^th May – time estimate 1 hour.

My purpose in posting is to find out, if I am right about this being the first case under 4A

[charitynjw]

https://goughsq.co.uk/high-court-hol...s-within-cput/

[des8]

Haven't been able to find any cases using these particular regulations, but "misleading" seems to echo the Misrepresentation Act 1967 which also allows for the rewinding of a contract.(recission)

[R0b]

I can say that I have brought only one claim under CPUTR though it was as an alternative claim to breach of contract likes yours. In the end the judge didn't consider since he found in favour for breach of contract and the breach was more beneficial to me than CPUTR

If you can explain some details of the claim it might help to narrow down your query

No authorities I can find in the UK but there is some on the European front, have you considered those? Some examples below which may be of use

Nemzeti Fogyasztovedelmi Hatosag v UPC Magyarorszag Kft
CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team4 Travel GmbH
Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen
Trento Sviluppo srl v Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

[efpom]

My thanks to the responders, so far - will look at the European cases.

A claimant cannot obtain damages under the Misrepresentation Act, if he has a remedy under the Regs. per 5 of The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014

In section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967(16) (damages for misrepresentation), after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) This section does not entitle a person to be paid damages in respect of a misrepresentation if the person has a right to redress under Part 4A of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) in respect of the conduct constituting the misrepresentation.

[R0b]

So reading between the lines you think there has been a misrepresentation?

Wouldn't it have been easier (and more arguments to rely on) to claim under the MA 1967 than CPUTR?

[charitynjw]

So reading between the lines you think there has been a misrepresentation?

Wouldn't it have been easier (and more arguments to rely on) to claim under the MA 1967 than CPUTR?

I believe the new section of CPUTRs was added specifically to replace the need for MA.

[des8]

Further to charitynjw https://assets.publishing.service.go...s-guidance.pdf

[charitynjw]

Further to charitynjw

https://assets.publishing.service.go...s-guidance.pdf

des8

IFYPFY!

[R0b]

Yes I knew the CPUTR intends to replace the rights under the MA, seems like I have posted hastily and answered my question already.. whoops.

Having said that, if you are claiming to unwind the contract I assume you are within the 90 day period, otherwise the MA can still apply for rescission, though since your claim is past that point it's just more of a passing comment now.