From: The Older Gentleman on
Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:23:04 +0100, Mark
> <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 07:50:12 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
> ><g6jns(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>Regrettably Trading Standards are
> >>not given the resources to deal with this sort of unscrupulous behaviour.
> >
> >I think you're right. However I am uncertain whether it would be
> >feasible to bring a case against PayPal in the UK.
>
> It would be perfectly feasible.
>
> >IME Trading Standards only deal with criminal cases and not civil
> >ones.
>
> TS deal with Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations cases. A
> number of other organisations are also permitted to bring UTCCR cases
> on behalf of consumers, notably the Consumers Association . That
> neither TS nor the Consumers Association nor the UK European Consumer
> Centre nor any other European Consumer Centre have shown any interest
> at all in doing so is perhaps an indication that Mr Crossland is wrong
> again.

Possibly, but I think his argument that eBay would not be allowed to get
away with their 'online only' terms in court, when faced with a signed
receipt, is pretty persuasive.


--
BMW K1100LT & K100RS Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Mark on
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 19:07:38 +0100, "Fran" <usenet1304(a)btinternet.com>
wrote:

>
>"Mark" <i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
>news:p6p9c5dut25ad70bg08aahm0thp8evi7j3(a)4ax.com...
>
>> IME Trading Standards only deal with criminal cases and not civil
>> ones. Every time I have tried to contact TS I get passed straight to
>> Consumer Direct, and the latter I have no confidence in.
>>
>
>You do realise they're one and the same?

They appear to be very different entities to me. When I last spoke
directly to someone from TS then they were very helpful and
knowledgeable. However CD seem only seem to be able to regurgitate
boilerplate letters that are of little use.

From: Peter Parry on
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:00:07 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The
Older Gentleman) wrote:

>Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>> TS deal with Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations cases. A
>> number of other organisations are also permitted to bring UTCCR cases
>> on behalf of consumers, notably the Consumers Association . That
>> neither TS nor the Consumers Association nor the UK European Consumer
>> Centre nor any other European Consumer Centre have shown any interest
>> at all in doing so is perhaps an indication that Mr Crossland is wrong
>> again.
>
>Possibly, but I think his argument that eBay would not be allowed to get
>away with their 'online only' terms in court, when faced with a signed
>receipt, is pretty persuasive.

Not really, it is based upon a common misunderstanding of the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation. They do not seek to create a
contract favourable to the consumer, merely one both sides understand
and enter into freely. Really quite bad contracts are perfectly
permissible under the UTCCR's.

There is no doubt that PayPal have laid out their terms clearly and in
plain language. There is no doubt that those terms are part of an
Alternative Dispute Resolution service which the seller agreed to
participate in.

To suggest that a court would undoubtedly find such a term to be
unfair is, at the very least, rather optimistic.

From: The Older Gentleman on
Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:00:07 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
> >> TS deal with Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations cases. A
> >> number of other organisations are also permitted to bring UTCCR cases
> >> on behalf of consumers, notably the Consumers Association . That
> >> neither TS nor the Consumers Association nor the UK European Consumer
> >> Centre nor any other European Consumer Centre have shown any interest
> >> at all in doing so is perhaps an indication that Mr Crossland is wrong
> >> again.
> >
> >Possibly, but I think his argument that eBay would not be allowed to get
> >away with their 'online only' terms in court, when faced with a signed
> >receipt, is pretty persuasive.
>
> Not really, it is based upon a common misunderstanding of the Unfair
> Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation. They do not seek to create a
> contract favourable to the consumer, merely one both sides understand
> and enter into freely. Really quite bad contracts are perfectly
> permissible under the UTCCR's.
>
> There is no doubt that PayPal have laid out their terms clearly and in
> plain language. There is no doubt that those terms are part of an
> Alternative Dispute Resolution service which the seller agreed to
> participate in.
>
> To suggest that a court would undoubtedly find such a term to be
> unfair is, at the very least, rather optimistic.

Well, OK. As was said a long time ago, though, we'll never know for
certain until someone does. I hope it isn't long.


--
BMW K1100LT & K100RS Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com