CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

[Nibbler]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

It looks like the hapless Mr Bean is beginning to regret upgrading to vbulletin 4.

CAG Site upgrade - thread 1

CAG Site upgrade - thread 2

Oops!

I really can't believe they went and upgraded the site without testing the new software properly. :crazy:

[EXC]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

It looks like the hapless Mr Bean is beginning to regret upgrading to vbulletin 4.

CAG Site upgrade - thread 1

CAG Site upgrade - thread 2

[Bill-K]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

Thanks all for your explanations - and your patience with lil' ol' me. Much praise to youse guys for still being able to handle this stuff after all this time. I'm afraid that trying to read the small print these days just gives me a headache - and I really shouldn't post when I've got a headache - or if I'm "Tired and Emotional" !!!

TBH, I thought that all contracts had to be fair, if they were subject to scrutiny by the law, or any other form of regulation, and that any unfair terms were therefore subject to the assessment for fairness which we're looking for.

I take it that it is easier to challenge 'non-core' terms than 'core' terms, though - in which case I can see why we want certain terms re-classified, in order to to make them more easily 'assailable' ?

[Amethyst]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

Yep sorry was a vain marketing attempt as this thread seems to be the most popular lol.

Consultations can feel like a waste of time, but when you get responses like we did with the PCA market study and how many of our thoughts were taken on board and quoted back in the OFT final report, you start to feel it is worth it and you can help to change things for the better.

This one basically is trying to change things so that even terms classed as coreterms and prices can be assessed for fairness if they are ancillary/contingent. So even though the Supreme Court says that bank charges are core terms, they also said they were contingent (only occured on an event), so its that class of charge which we are arguing for assessability.

The language and wording is the nature of the beast as EXC says, I think they do pretty well with the Plain Intelligible Language part, but like EXC I have kind of lived and breathed sodding bank charges and test cases for far too long to be entirely normal xx.

[EXC]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

Thanks for that enlightenment, EXC. But if the EU is genuinely seeking the feedback of us 'paysans' - then do they really need to couch their request in such terminology ?

I don't think they have any choice as the whole issue relates to the terminology of the existing legislation - which is itself gobbledegook - as is all legislation.

TBH I don't find it that difficult to understand myself but that's because I had the advantage of sitting in on every single day of all 3 test case hearings so I think I've got gist of at least some of it. Although I confess to probably not understanding most of what was said and I put that down to accepting that there are people who are far brighter than myself. It was a humbling experience.

[enaid]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

Bill we all know the French at least are much, much cleverer than any of us and that comment maybe a little more on topic, pmsl

[Bill-K]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

WOW - Thanks, Enaid, babes. I really will have to check that out tomoz - 'cos I have to admit that you are one mean laydee !!!

I need to get my brain cells back in gear - yet you seem to have kept in 'Cruise Control' all the way.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrespect..........!!!!!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Thanks for that enlightenment, EXC. But if the EU is genuinely seeking the feedback of us 'paysans' - then do they really need to couch their request in such terminology ?

OK - we have to address such questions to French farmers in terms of fire prevention techniques, and barbecue safety measures, for them to understand. I get that.

But why do such questions have to be asked of us in the UK in such a gobbledegook manner ? Is that what the EU considers as our level of comprehension ? Can't we also be similarly patronised by asking us 'what we did in the war' - or summat that we can get similarly incensed by ? Football-talk, perhaps.

I just don't get it. Even Greek would be easier to understand !!!!

[EXC]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

I'd go along with Enaid's explanation and example to sum it up but add that it was the fact that the test case was eventually lost in the Supreme Court (after being won in the High Court and Court of Appeal) on the issue of what should be deemed a free market price and what is in effect a penalty - and how that related to current consumer legislation.

The EU - who generally lean towards the side of the consumer - can see the proliferation of high sneaky charges and want to legislate for it. They are seeking the views of member states on how to deal with them and the consultation exercise is the government seeking the views of all to form a stance in those negotiations.

[enaid]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

I did my best to understand it, and failed miserably. I have absolutely no idea what all that is about - nor what connection it has to this thread entitled "CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade.'

I guess I better stick to spreadies, melodrama and porn.

Can anybody here actually translate this into terms that us jerks on the shop floor can understand ? If that can be done, then the rest of us jerks on the Clapham Omnibus might be able to give the feedback that appears to have been requested !!!

Hold very tight now....ding, ding !!!

He he yes it's off topic , think Ame is just posting a little hint so people can get to read and maybe comment on it.
far as I can make out and this may not be totally accurate lol, there are 'core terms' in an agreement, these are the ones upfornt that we know about before we sign up so you know that it will cost.
Then there are the ancillary and contingent charges and here is an example.


Non-direct debit charges: these are capable of being "core terms", but only where they are presented in such a way that the typical consumer would regard them as part of the price paid for the service as opposed to an additional charge;COMMENT: under the directive we are arguing for these being assessible for fairness despite the fact they are designated as core terms if presented in a specific way thus removing this bit >. '' where they are non core terms '' and forcing them into this bit >>> they should be limited to causally related costs, i.e. the cost of dealing with the payment, not other costs (e.g. bad debts.)
Itemised/paper billing: these may be "core terms", but only where a number of conditions are met; it may be fair for a supplier to include reasonable charges directly attributable to the level of billing provided, and charges should not usually be more than £1.50 per bill.COMMENT: same as above

Late payment/failed payment/reconnection: these are "non-core" terms, and charges should reflect only direct costs, e.g. the identifiable extra cost of collecting the money.
Minimum contract periods: initial contract periods are likely to be "core terms", and must be prominent and transparent (if not they will be non core terms and subject to the fairness test), while subsequent minimum periods are likely to be non core terms and must meet several conditions in order to be fair. COMMENT: same as above

Early termination charges: these are "non-core" terms and must meet various conditions in order to be fair, e.g. they should never exceed the payments left under the contract and should reflect any savings by the supplier (including reduced costs, ability to resell to a new customer and accelerated receipt of payment) or they should reflect no more than a supplier's unrecouped expenditure on the terminated contract.

So basically all ancillary and contingent charges exampled above will have to be fair or subject to assessment for fairness, regardless of how they are presented and whether they are considered part of the CORE price or not.


So I think they are trying to sort out re bank charges if the OD ones can be classed as non core and then assessed for fairness in that case they can't rip us off as much as they have in the past.
Now that is how I see it lol may be totally off track but it is enaid posting xxx

[Bill-K]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

I did my best to understand it, and failed miserably. I have absolutely no idea what all that is about - nor what connection it has to this thread entitled "CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade.'

I guess I better stick to spreadies, melodrama and porn.

Can anybody here actually translate this into terms that us jerks on the shop floor can understand ? If that can be done, then the rest of us jerks on the Clapham Omnibus might be able to give the feedback that appears to have been requested !!!

Hold very tight now....ding, ding !!!

[Amethyst]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

Please all read this thread Consumer Rights Directive consultation - unfair charges - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum and give us your views/thoughts

[nelliewops]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

Now THAT was worth me returning from pornsurfing for, Tools !!!! Set me up a treat, it did.

And...erm....nice pussy, Nellie.

Well - someone had to say it. It might as well be me, I guess !!!

oooooooooh cheeky

[Bill-K]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

Now THAT was worth me returning from pornsurfing for, Tools !!!! Set me up a treat, it did.

And...erm....nice pussy, Nellie.

Well - someone had to say it. It might as well be me, I guess !!!

[Tools]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'

And here are some bigger lips for Bill

:billk:

[pompeyfaith]

Re: CAG has had an almighty 'upgrade'



Oh there is the cat Nellie I wondered where he/she had gone.

PF