CMC Terms Discussion

[Awareness]

Ametheyst, you will find most CMCs have built in a term which says the consumer agrees to them starting work immediately.

CMCs may be on temp permissions, but the FCA doesn't hand those out freely. Allay were also authorised by the CMR before the FCA who will have looked at their terms, and objected to anything which was 'unfair'.

[pt2537]

"(2) In the case of a service other than supply of water, gas, electricity or district heating, the consumer ceases to have the right to cancel a service contract under regulation 29(1) if the service has been fully performed, and performance of the service began—

(a)after a request by the consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), and

(b)with the acknowledgement that the consumer would lose that right once the contract had been fully performed by the trader."


No, they're not. That's not an uncommon term and all CMCs terms are scrutinised by the FCA before the firm becomes authorised.

hahaha thats the funniest thing ive read all day, its funny because its utterly disingenuous, and taken entirely out of context. I am fully aware of the contents of Regulation 36, shame you omit the most important part, which is Regulation 36(1)

36.—(1) The trader must not begin the supply of a service before the end of the cancellation period provided for in regulation 30(1) unless the consumer—

(a)has made an express request, and

(b)in the case of an off-premises contract, has made the request on a durable medium.


There is no express request, end of!!!

[pt2537]

Ametheyst, you will find most CMCs have built in a term which says the consumer agrees to them starting work immediately.

CMCs may be on temp permissions, but the FCA doesn't hand those out freely. Allay were also authorised by the CMR before the FCA who will have looked at their terms, and objected to anything which was 'unfair'.

Now heres a thing, we hear all the time banks squawking "Its in our terms and conditions so we can do it" my answers to that is simple, if i put in my terms and conditions i could bludgeon my bank manager with a hammer each time the bank cocks up, would that be legal? Hell no, just cos a term is there doesnt make it fair. Believe me on that ive made a living challenging unfair terms very successfully.

To say that the CMr looked at allays terms and objected to anything unfair, is that supposed to make us feel ok now and not challenge anything for unfairness? Im sorry but thats not how it works, far from it.

[Amethyst]

I can't see anything about it in their terms though ?

There is a version here https://www.allay.co.uk/terms-conditions/

[pt2537]

I can't see anything about it in their terms though ?

There is a version here https://www.allay.co.uk/terms-conditions/

thats because there isnt, unless you go to the stevie wonder version of course.

[Awareness]

Out of respect (and relevance) to the OP, I don't think its appropriate to continue debating this. In fact, I think it will be unhelpful. But, if you'd like to DM me, I'm happy to continue the debate privately,

[Amethyst]

I'll move posts to a separate discussion thread - probably more useful

[Amethyst]

I think that's worked … as you were ….

[EXC]

Ametheyst, you will find most CMCs have built in a term which says the consumer agrees to them starting work immediately.

CMCs may be on temp permissions, but the FCA doesn't hand those out freely. Allay were also authorised by the CMR before the FCA who will have looked at their terms, and objected to anything which was 'unfair'.

CMR only ever looked at the terms of a CMC at the initial authorisation application stage - that's what they told me.

All CMCs were automatically granted temp permission by FCA if they held CMR authorisation at the point regulation transferred to them.

[Awareness]

Unless the CMC was audited, which wasn't uncommon. Even then, the terms were scrutinsed.

I'm afraid your knowledge of the FCAs application is limited. Firms still had to submit their T&Cs, amongst other things.

It's also worth noting Allay doesn't have a disciplinary record.

[EXC]

Unless the CMC was audited, which wasn't uncommon. Even then, the terms were scrutinsed.

I'm afraid your knowledge of the FCAs application is limited. Firms still had to submit their T&Cs, amongst other things.

It's also worth noting Allay doesn't have a disciplinary record.

I ‘m sure they did have to submit T&Cs to FCA as part of the application process but to be fair the jury is still out on them.

[Awareness]

The FCA, if & when it spots something unfair, takes action - particularly with CMCs or industries providing services which a consumer can do themselves for free, or for expensive products. They pose more risk to consumers, so the FCA pays more attention to them. That's its job.

Just because applications haven't been all approved, doesn't mean they haven't been rejected. Which I have no difficulty believing they have been.

The question for this 'debate' is whether or not Allay's terms comply with the rules, specifically in the OP's case. However, based on what the OP has said, I think there is a large misunderstanding about what has happened and I don't think the rules surrounding cancellations are relevant.

As I have already said, CMCs don't get their knowledge from no where. So I think it is entirely probable (and reasonable) to think that the OP did instruct the CMC and simply forgot; then with the deadline approaching he/she decided to act themselves, dismissing anything from the CMC as 'spam'.

Allay is a large(r) CMC. It is more subject to scrutiny than several firms because it poses more risk and FOS has found in its favor in the cases I have seen (and linked in here).

I don't think it is helpful to assume a business is flouting the law without knowing all the facts. Doing so could encourage a consumer to pursue a course of action (whether intended or not) which will ultimately cause more harm to them than anything else. For the sake of 'fighting the good fight', I don't think that's worth it here.

[pt2537]

The FCA, if & when it spots something unfair, takes action - particularly with CMCs or industries providing services which a consumer can do themselves for free, or for expensive products. They pose more risk to consumers, so the FCA pays more attention to them. That's its job.

Just because applications haven't been all approved, doesn't mean they haven't been rejected. Which I have no difficulty believing they have been.

The question for this 'debate' is whether or not Allay's terms comply with the rules, specifically in the OP's case. However, based on what the OP has said, I think there is a large misunderstanding about what has happened and I don't think the rules surrounding cancellations are relevant.

As I have already said, CMCs don't get their knowledge from no where. So I think it is entirely probable (and reasonable) to think that the OP did instruct the CMC and simply forgot; then with the deadline approaching he/she decided to act themselves, dismissing anything from the CMC as 'spam'.

Allay is a large(r) CMC. It is more subject to scrutiny than several firms because it poses more risk and FOS has found in its favor in the cases I have seen (and linked in here).

I don't think it is helpful to assume a business is flouting the law without knowing all the facts. Doing so could encourage a consumer to pursue a course of action (whether intended or not) which will ultimately cause more harm to them than anything else. For the sake of 'fighting the good fight', I don't think that's worth it here.

with all due respect, im dealing with a case or two involving this firm. I can tell you without a doubt, 1) no details compliant with the regulations were given 2) the cancellation form falls short of the model form required by the regs 3) the client was not asked to give their express waiver of their rights to cancel so the company could start work.

Now defend the CMCs all you like but the facts are the facts, and lets not forget how companies fall foul of the distance selling regs even the big ones.

[EXC]

Just because applications haven't been all approved, doesn't mean they haven't been rejected. Which I have no difficulty believing they have been.

Of the 810 applications for full authorisation, FCA are yet to reject a single one of them.

[Amethyst]

Wish the FCA register would let you filter down to view the new category of claims management firms - it's quite annoying, I did start putting them on a spreadsheet to try keep track but it got a bit tedious.