BERR FOI Unfair Contract Terms - Law Commission

[Amethyst]

I asked

Dear Sirs

I would like to request information and copies of documentation relating to all discussions between BERR and the Law Commission / Scottish Law Commission with regards to the Unfair Contracts Bill, and the Law Commissions' Report on Unfair Terms in Contracts (published 24 February 2005) for the period since July 2006 to include, but not be restricted to, memorandum, letters, emails, minutes of meetings, relating to any regulatory impact assessment.

Thank you for your assistance.

yours sincerely

REGARDING - > http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc292bill.pdf
Unfair Terms in Contracts
and letter from DTI http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file34128.PDF


Acknowledgement (so should get reply around 31st)

Freedom of Information Request No 09/0627
Thank you for your request for information regarding the Law Commissions’ Report on Unfair Terms in Contracts (published 24 February 2005). Your request was received on 11 May 2009 and I am dealing with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

David Evans

DAVID EVANS
Policy Adviser

Why ?

Because in July 06 as seen by the letter http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file34128.PDF it was all GO GO GO - then it ground to a halt...as far as I can see before any regulatory impact assessment was undertaken.

The bill brings 'micro-enterprises' (those will under 9 employees so most sole traders and small businesses) into being protected by the unfair contract terms acts (UTCA and UTCCR ) so for things such as the bank charges claims - if this had gone through they would have been able to claim under UTCCR, but as it was halted, just as the bank charges issues blew up, they are stuck with Common Law penalty charges protection - which has been chucked out by J Andrew Smith.....not, of course, insinuating anything and a bit of a conspiracy theory, but this should get it clear it wasn't contrived in any way.

[Amethyst]

Re: BERR FOI (Ame) Unfair Contract Terms - Law Commission

hmmmmmm need to refine the request....any ideas welcome.

basically trying to find out why no regulatory impact assessment was ever undertaken after such positive feedback.

FOI 09/0627

Thank you for your email of 9 May 2009 and your request for the following information:

I would like to request information and copies of documentation relating to all discussions between BERR (now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and the Law Commission/Scottish Law Commission with regards to the Unfair Contracts Bill, and the Law Commissions' Report on Unfair Terms in Contracts (published 24 February 2005) for the period since July 2006, to include, but not be restricted to, memorandum, letters, emails, minutes of meetings, relating to any regulatory impact assessment.

I am sorry but we are unable to comply with this request as the effort to administer your request would exceed the limit prescribed by Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. This is £600, which represents the estimates the estimated cost of spending 24 hours in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. Above this, we are not obliged to comply with a request.

The scope of your request is wide and to comply we would have to carry out searches over an approximate three year period with any official, including ministers, who may hold documentation, such as emails, correspondence etc, relating to discussions with either the Law Commission, or the Scottish Law Commission, with regards to the Unfair Contracts Bill, and the Law Commissions' Report on Unfair Terms in Contracts. This I am satisfied would exceed the cost threshold.

However, if you were able to revise your request it will be reconsidered. When attempting to revise your request you should take into consideration timeframes and types of documents, or be specific to one group. This may help you revise your request within the cost threshold. Although we are happy to consider any request further, there is no guarantee that we will be able to comply. If you have any queries about this email, please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

David

David Evans
Policy Adviser
Consumer and Competition Directorate
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Bay 421
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET

phone: 020 7215 0335
fax:020 7215 0357

Appeals procedure

If you are unhappy with the result of your request for information, you may request an internal review within two calendar months of the date of this email. If you wish to request an internal review please contact me.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

[Amethyst]

Re: BERR FOI (Ame) Unfair Contract Terms - Law Commission

Page 133 onwards on this http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp166.pdf

is why really I want to know why it was all halted at the start of the test case.

Just need to refine the request somehow.


here it is very interesting and worth reading

48 We noted earlier that in R & B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd
[1988] 1 WLR 321 it was held that a business which buys goods which are not integral to
its business, and for which the transaction is not regular, is not buying “in the course of a
business” and is therefore “dealing as consumer”. As a result the exclusion clause in the
contract was of no effect at all. We argue that this decision gives the business buyer an
unnecessary degree of protection: para 4.153 above.

and would have had a massive impact had it come in prior to the test case for business customers of banks.