Tweet
This looks promising.
The article relates to the forthcoming EU Consumer Rights Directive that will re-write UTCCR.
Legal Beagles participated in the consultation to formulate the Government's negotiating position on the scope of the Directive and although the Government decided not to push for ancillary charges to be subject to the test of fairness, it looks like the European Union might do it anyway.
EU move on ‘unfair’ bank charges
By Nikki Tait in Brussels
Published: January 20 2011 16:05 | Last updated: January 20 2011 16:28
European bank customers could get protection against “unfair” or onerous bank charges after European lawmakers backed key amendments to a proposed consumer rights law that would apply across the European Union.
The amendments, which were suggested by Arlene McCarthy, a British Labour MEP, would in effect make fees and other additional charges, including bank overdraft charges, subject to a “fairness” test.
They would also mean more protection against efforts by retailers or service providers to include potentially expensive “hidden extras” in their deals with customers. Contracts that required a consumer to purchase ancillary goods or services, which had not been advertised in the price of the main contract, would normally be considered unfair.
“We’ve all experienced those hidden extras in a contract that we didn’t anticipate ... I’ve had a number of constituents write to me directly about such charges, particularly related to car hire,” said Ms McCarthy.
There have been some active campaigns against excessive bank charges recently, notably in the UK. However, more than a year ago, a ruling in England’s highest court stymied action on overdraft fees by the Office of Fair Trading.
The amendments were accepted on Thursday when the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee voted on the proposed legislation in Strasbourg. Beuc, the European consumer associations’ umbrella group, said it believed extending the “fairness” test was “very positive”. But the fate of the underlying consumer rights legislation, which has been the subject of intense wrangling for two years, remains unclear.
Much of the dispute centres on whether the new rules – which deal with guarantees, contract terms, the rights of consumers to return goods, and so on – should be imposed equally in all 27 EU countries, even if some already have higher levels of consumer protection.
This idea, known as “maximum harmonisation”, is opposed by consumer groups, which fear that some hard-won rights in specific countries, including the UK, could be eroded. One possibility, being considered by EU member states is to reduce the scope of the new rules sharply, so that they apply to only certain types of contracts, notably those concluded remotely. Member states could make a final decision on their stance in the coming days.
European lawmakers, who must also approve the proposed rules before they can become law, are still considering a broader package. But on Thursday, in addition to Ms McCarthy’s amendments, they accepted other changes that would increase the amount of “maximum harmonisation”, angering consumer groups.
A second parliamentary committee will now review matters on February 1. “I really hope they will do better,” said Ursula Pachl, Beuc’s deputy-director.
FT.com / Brussels - EU move on ‘unfair’ bank charges
The article relates to the forthcoming EU Consumer Rights Directive that will re-write UTCCR.
Legal Beagles participated in the consultation to formulate the Government's negotiating position on the scope of the Directive and although the Government decided not to push for ancillary charges to be subject to the test of fairness, it looks like the European Union might do it anyway.
By Nikki Tait in Brussels
Published: January 20 2011 16:05 | Last updated: January 20 2011 16:28
European bank customers could get protection against “unfair” or onerous bank charges after European lawmakers backed key amendments to a proposed consumer rights law that would apply across the European Union.
The amendments, which were suggested by Arlene McCarthy, a British Labour MEP, would in effect make fees and other additional charges, including bank overdraft charges, subject to a “fairness” test.
They would also mean more protection against efforts by retailers or service providers to include potentially expensive “hidden extras” in their deals with customers. Contracts that required a consumer to purchase ancillary goods or services, which had not been advertised in the price of the main contract, would normally be considered unfair.
“We’ve all experienced those hidden extras in a contract that we didn’t anticipate ... I’ve had a number of constituents write to me directly about such charges, particularly related to car hire,” said Ms McCarthy.
There have been some active campaigns against excessive bank charges recently, notably in the UK. However, more than a year ago, a ruling in England’s highest court stymied action on overdraft fees by the Office of Fair Trading.
The amendments were accepted on Thursday when the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee voted on the proposed legislation in Strasbourg. Beuc, the European consumer associations’ umbrella group, said it believed extending the “fairness” test was “very positive”. But the fate of the underlying consumer rights legislation, which has been the subject of intense wrangling for two years, remains unclear.
Much of the dispute centres on whether the new rules – which deal with guarantees, contract terms, the rights of consumers to return goods, and so on – should be imposed equally in all 27 EU countries, even if some already have higher levels of consumer protection.
This idea, known as “maximum harmonisation”, is opposed by consumer groups, which fear that some hard-won rights in specific countries, including the UK, could be eroded. One possibility, being considered by EU member states is to reduce the scope of the new rules sharply, so that they apply to only certain types of contracts, notably those concluded remotely. Member states could make a final decision on their stance in the coming days.
European lawmakers, who must also approve the proposed rules before they can become law, are still considering a broader package. But on Thursday, in addition to Ms McCarthy’s amendments, they accepted other changes that would increase the amount of “maximum harmonisation”, angering consumer groups.
A second parliamentary committee will now review matters on February 1. “I really hope they will do better,” said Ursula Pachl, Beuc’s deputy-director.
FT.com / Brussels - EU move on ‘unfair’ bank charges
Comment