Right to retreads

Fleet car owners often lease. I don't know why but they do. Leasers impose conditions about how the car can be returned, and I read a set today from Mercedez Finance saying that retread tyres are not "acceptable". Return a car with retreads and they charge you for a new set of tyres.

This should be made unenforceable, if it is enforcable now.

http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/media_library/unitedkingdom/mpc_unitedkingdom/passenger_cars_ng/ng_finance_and_insurance/de-fleet_video/de-fleet_pdf.object-Single-MEDIA.download.tmp/De-Fleet.pdf is the set of standards I've seen and the line is on pdf-reader page 10: "not acceptable: …. remoulds and other substandard tyres".

Why is this idea important?

Fleet car owners often lease. I don't know why but they do. Leasers impose conditions about how the car can be returned, and I read a set today from Mercedez Finance saying that retread tyres are not "acceptable". Return a car with retreads and they charge you for a new set of tyres.

This should be made unenforceable, if it is enforcable now.

http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/media_library/unitedkingdom/mpc_unitedkingdom/passenger_cars_ng/ng_finance_and_insurance/de-fleet_video/de-fleet_pdf.object-Single-MEDIA.download.tmp/De-Fleet.pdf is the set of standards I've seen and the line is on pdf-reader page 10: "not acceptable: …. remoulds and other substandard tyres".

It should be made clear that the Consumer Credit Act does not apply to Amateur Sports Club Subscription instalment schemes

We wished to provide our Members with the facility to pay their Annual sports club subscriptions (<£800) by monthly instalments in order to make membership more affordable in these difficult times.

Our legal advice was that this required us to obtain a Consumer Credit Licence and to register under anti-money laundering regulations.  However, other legally authorities are known to hold the view that the situation is not entirely clear cut.  Nonetheless, the general advice on CCA is if in doubt, then you should register – so we have.

If we had continued to insist that Subscriptions are paid annually in advance and in full, then niether act applies. 

The introduction of the scheme has cost us several thousand pounds in fees, which ultimately has to be borne by the Members of the Club, as it is a non-profit making entity.  It has also added significantly to administrative workload and complexity.

The application of both laws to this situation of a self administered scheme (where there is no actual lending of cash) seems well beyond the intention of the legislation and out of proportion to the perceived risks to the idividual and to the state that the Laws are attempting to address. It therefore makes membership of amateur sports clubs such as ours unnecessarily less affordable than they would otherwise be and adds to the Club's unnecessary "red tape".

It is quite possible that the law makers would consider that such self administered annual instalment spreading schemes do already  fall outside the respective Laws but no one is prepared to say so uneqivocally (despite lobbying by the National Golf Club Advisory Association).

What's needed is a definite statement that neither Law applies for self administered annual subscription spreading schemes of this type, where no actual cash loan is involved.

Why is this idea important?

We wished to provide our Members with the facility to pay their Annual sports club subscriptions (<£800) by monthly instalments in order to make membership more affordable in these difficult times.

Our legal advice was that this required us to obtain a Consumer Credit Licence and to register under anti-money laundering regulations.  However, other legally authorities are known to hold the view that the situation is not entirely clear cut.  Nonetheless, the general advice on CCA is if in doubt, then you should register – so we have.

If we had continued to insist that Subscriptions are paid annually in advance and in full, then niether act applies. 

The introduction of the scheme has cost us several thousand pounds in fees, which ultimately has to be borne by the Members of the Club, as it is a non-profit making entity.  It has also added significantly to administrative workload and complexity.

The application of both laws to this situation of a self administered scheme (where there is no actual lending of cash) seems well beyond the intention of the legislation and out of proportion to the perceived risks to the idividual and to the state that the Laws are attempting to address. It therefore makes membership of amateur sports clubs such as ours unnecessarily less affordable than they would otherwise be and adds to the Club's unnecessary "red tape".

It is quite possible that the law makers would consider that such self administered annual instalment spreading schemes do already  fall outside the respective Laws but no one is prepared to say so uneqivocally (despite lobbying by the National Golf Club Advisory Association).

What's needed is a definite statement that neither Law applies for self administered annual subscription spreading schemes of this type, where no actual cash loan is involved.

Reverse s.15 Consumer Credit Act 2006

Not so much a repeal of an unnecessary law, but a repeal of a repeal of a necessary law.

s.15 CCA 2006 repealed s.127(3-5) CCA 1974.  These provisions held that an court could not make an order to enforce a regulated agreement unless the creditor can provide a copy of the agreement, showing the relevant details, and the customer's signature.  The abolition of this requirement means that regulated lenders are in a unique posiion to be able to seek enforcement of an agreement without actually having any evidence that it exists, or that it is correct.

Why is this idea important?

Not so much a repeal of an unnecessary law, but a repeal of a repeal of a necessary law.

s.15 CCA 2006 repealed s.127(3-5) CCA 1974.  These provisions held that an court could not make an order to enforce a regulated agreement unless the creditor can provide a copy of the agreement, showing the relevant details, and the customer's signature.  The abolition of this requirement means that regulated lenders are in a unique posiion to be able to seek enforcement of an agreement without actually having any evidence that it exists, or that it is correct.