Tweet
Looking for Legal Views on Long-Term Buy Back Arrangements
I would appreciate some independent legal opinions regarding a long-running dispute involving Buy Back agreements with a UK pawnbroker / second-hand retailer. I have deliberately anonymised the facts because the complaint is ongoing.
Over a period of approximately 2–3 years, I repeatedly entered into Buy Back agreements involving the same mobile phones and laptops. At various times I had up to five Buy Back agreements running simultaneously.
The pattern remained largely the same throughout:
The retailer therefore had complete visibility of a prolonged pattern of:
My complaint is not that one individual Buy Back agreement was unfair.
My concern is whether the overall relationship should be assessed as a continuing course of dealing rather than dozens of isolated 28-day contracts. Although each agreement had a separate contract number, the practical reality was a continuous cycle involving the same customer, the same items, repeated extensions and increasing dependence upon the product.
The main issues are: 1. Repeated extension fees
I paid significant extension fees over a prolonged period simply to avoid forfeiting my property. Despite years of obvious financial difficulty, the arrangements continued without any apparent review of whether this long-term pattern remained appropriate. 2. Repeated double extension charges
On numerous occasions I was only around 5–10 days late, yet I was required to pay what amounted to two extension fees before the agreement could continue. This happened repeatedly rather than as an isolated incident. 3. Replacement agreements
Following late payments, I was sometimes issued with agreements carrying new contract numbers. However, as far as I can recall:
This raises the question of whether these were genuinely new Buy Back agreements or simply a mechanism for continuing an existing arrangement. 4. LayBuy
The retailer also offered a product called LayBuy, which, as I understood it, allowed customers to repay the balance over a longer period by instalments instead of repeatedly paying 28-day extension fees to keep their goods.
On one occasion, a member of staff suggested that LayBuy would be a more suitable option for my circumstances. However, when I later tried to use LayBuy for other items, I was told it was not available and that my only option was to continue extending the Buy Back agreements. As a result, I continued paying extension fees instead.
I am interested in whether a business should be expected to apply suitable alternatives consistently where it has already recognised that another product may be more appropriate for a customer's circumstances. 5. Published policies
The retailer's published policy states that customers must provide valid proof of identity and proof of address when entering into Buy Back agreements, and that these documents should be refreshed periodically where appropriate.
However, my relationship with the retailer lasted around 2–3 years and involved numerous Buy Back and replacement agreements. I do not recall being asked to provide updated identification during that time.
I am interested in whether this has any legal significance if the retailer's position is that each replacement agreement was a completely new contract. My Questions
I would be grateful for views on the following:
I would appreciate any thoughts, particularly or those with experience of consumer law, pawnbroking or Buy Back arrangements.
I would appreciate some independent legal opinions regarding a long-running dispute involving Buy Back agreements with a UK pawnbroker / second-hand retailer. I have deliberately anonymised the facts because the complaint is ongoing.
Over a period of approximately 2–3 years, I repeatedly entered into Buy Back agreements involving the same mobile phones and laptops. At various times I had up to five Buy Back agreements running simultaneously.
The pattern remained largely the same throughout:
- The same items repeatedly entered Buy Back agreements.
- I regularly paid extension fees to avoid losing the goods.
- I frequently made late payments and repeatedly asked for additional time because I was struggling financially.
- Eventually, despite paying substantial extension fees over several years, I lost most of the items because I could no longer afford to continue.
The retailer therefore had complete visibility of a prolonged pattern of:
- repeated extensions;
- repeated late payments;
- repeated requests for additional time;
- multiple concurrent Buy Back agreements;
- repeated use of the same assets; and
- increasing financial difficulty.
My complaint is not that one individual Buy Back agreement was unfair.
My concern is whether the overall relationship should be assessed as a continuing course of dealing rather than dozens of isolated 28-day contracts. Although each agreement had a separate contract number, the practical reality was a continuous cycle involving the same customer, the same items, repeated extensions and increasing dependence upon the product.
The main issues are: 1. Repeated extension fees
I paid significant extension fees over a prolonged period simply to avoid forfeiting my property. Despite years of obvious financial difficulty, the arrangements continued without any apparent review of whether this long-term pattern remained appropriate. 2. Repeated double extension charges
On numerous occasions I was only around 5–10 days late, yet I was required to pay what amounted to two extension fees before the agreement could continue. This happened repeatedly rather than as an isolated incident. 3. Replacement agreements
Following late payments, I was sometimes issued with agreements carrying new contract numbers. However, as far as I can recall:
- the same item remained in the retailer's possession;
- the same customer remained involved;
- no fresh cash advance was paid; and
- no fresh exchange of goods took place.
This raises the question of whether these were genuinely new Buy Back agreements or simply a mechanism for continuing an existing arrangement. 4. LayBuy
The retailer also offered a product called LayBuy, which, as I understood it, allowed customers to repay the balance over a longer period by instalments instead of repeatedly paying 28-day extension fees to keep their goods.
On one occasion, a member of staff suggested that LayBuy would be a more suitable option for my circumstances. However, when I later tried to use LayBuy for other items, I was told it was not available and that my only option was to continue extending the Buy Back agreements. As a result, I continued paying extension fees instead.
I am interested in whether a business should be expected to apply suitable alternatives consistently where it has already recognised that another product may be more appropriate for a customer's circumstances. 5. Published policies
The retailer's published policy states that customers must provide valid proof of identity and proof of address when entering into Buy Back agreements, and that these documents should be refreshed periodically where appropriate.
However, my relationship with the retailer lasted around 2–3 years and involved numerous Buy Back and replacement agreements. I do not recall being asked to provide updated identification during that time.
I am interested in whether this has any legal significance if the retailer's position is that each replacement agreement was a completely new contract. My Questions
I would be grateful for views on the following:
- Should a court assess this as numerous separate contracts, or could it consider the practical reality of a continuous commercial relationship?
- Could repeated extension fees and repeated double charges over several years potentially be challenged under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or any other consumer protection legislation?
- Does the overall pattern of repeated extensions, multiple concurrent agreements and obvious financial difficulty raise any wider legal issues regarding fairness or customer detriment?
- If a court found aspects of the arrangements unfair, what remedies might realistically be available?
I would appreciate any thoughts, particularly or those with experience of consumer law, pawnbroking or Buy Back arrangements.