excellent (but snarky) comment on the jobs act by the deal professor April 3, 2012
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , add a commentIs here.
april is national financial literacy month April 3, 2012
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , add a commentThe CFPB asks for stories. There have been quite a few of these financial literacy months now, and the problems persist. And I would bet that the Jobs Act will not help.
what “education” at the new college for the humanities? June 8, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , add a commentLinda Colley, a leading historian of Britain, empire and nationalism, and her husband, Professor Sir David Cannadine, an expert in British history 1800 to 2000 — both based at Princeton University — have taken equity stakes in the New College for the Humanities, but will deliver only one lecture each in the first academic year, Grayling confirmed.
According to the article, others will be teaching 5 hours of lectures, and some even 20 hours over an academic year. So who will actually be doing the teaching?
protecting consumers of financial services – or not January 17, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , add a commentReading the UK consultation on reforming the consumer credit regime which was issued on 21 December (clearly not designed to be published in prime time for attracting consumers’ attention and probably noticed even less than it might have been because of the disruptive snow falls which pushed Heathrow airport to the top of the news for days (although the closing date is 22 March)) I am not at all sure what is being proposed, except that there seems to be a sort of doublespeak going on. The UK is going to have more effective protection for consumers of financial services, but it will also be “appropriate”, and “proportionate and cost effective” and there will be opportunities for “simplification and deregulation”. Shifting functions away from the OFT doesn’t seem to me necessarily to be a pro-consumer move, and there’s a suggestion (in para 2.11) that the Treasury plans to gut consumer remedies:
The Government does not expect there to be any overall dilution of current levels of consumer protection under option 1. However, it is unlikely that there would be a direct replication of the existing formulation of all CCA consumer protections in the rulebook. The regulator would need to conduct analysis of the consumer protections provided for under the CCA and would consider how best to ensure that a FSMA-style regime for consumer credit delivers at least equivalent levels of consumer protection (including whether this might require any changes to legislation). This would also include consideration of the important differences between the CCA and FSMA enforcement regimes. For example, under the current FSMA regime, breach of a rule does not make a transaction void or unenforceable or constitute a criminal offence (although it may give customers a right of court action for any loss suffered, and firms and individuals can be prosecuted for carrying out regulated activities without authorisation). However, the broader range of sanctions under FSMA may provide an equivalent level of consumer protection. It is also important to note that, to the extent that many consumer protections are enshrined in EU law through the CCD, there would in any case be limited scope for amending requirements relating to many types of credit agreements.
This suggestion that the remedies under the two regimes are broadly equivalent seems to me to be misleading in the extreme. A regime which treats certain types of agreement as being void or unenforceable is quite different from one which might give rise to a claim for losses suffered.
consumer protection in the uk October 14, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , add a commentMore details on what is to happen with consumer protection here (wouldn’t it be nice if the announcement of changes to quangos (or non-departmental public bodies) linked to other related departmental press releases and announcements ?). Enforcement will be transferred to the Citizens’ Advice service and to local Trading Standards bodies:
In our proposed new regime, Trading Standards will be given responsibility for enforcement of almost all consumer law. Local threats to fair trading will continue to be handled at local authority level. But national and regional threats will now increasingly also be addressed through one or more dedicated, expert teams, within Trading Standards with work co-ordinated nationally for this purpose. Specific arrangements may need to be made in Scotland and Wales.
This approach chimes with the Government’s Localism agenda, should lead to significant efficiency savings and is a potential model for integrating local and national funding for regulatory enforcement in other areas.
In addition to these measures, I propose that responsibility for all non-financial consumer education, information and advice, and notably the Consumer Direct helpline, will transfer to the Citizens Advice service. I believe there is scope for other Government advice and information services also to become part of the Citizens Advice service, to reinforce a simple message to consumers — if you need information or advice, go to Citizens Advice.
Yes, but will they provide proper funding? And how is this decentralization of enforcement consistent with the idea of increasing transparency touted in the quangos announcement?
eu commission consults on basic payment accounts October 6, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consultation, consumers , add a commentThe Commission has published a consultation document inviting stakeholders to comment on the idea of EU rules for basic payment accounts. The closing date for submissions is 17 November, and the consultation period is stated to be short because of a broader consultation last year. Some comments last year suggested that this was an issue self-regulation could not fix because those who are excluded from establishing bank accounts may not fit within banks’ economic models (see, e.g., comments of The Financial Inclusion Centre and Community Development Finance Association; Pour la Solidarité; Which?). In contrast, the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber argued that:
Forcing providers to offer a product by law is a tremendous interference with their private autonomy. Therefore, such an obligation must be rejected. Beyond that, a “one-size-fits-all”solution is not the appropriate approach for the issue at stake. The degrees of financial exclusion and the reasons for this exclusion vary significantly among the Member States. The appropriate response to the problem of financial exclusion can and must be found at the national level.
In the Consultation Document, and without noting that there was some noticeable opposition, the Commission states that the 2009 consultation:
revealed broad support for some EU action which could promote access to basic bank accounts throughout the Community.
Some action perhaps, but what should it look like? How to fix this issue through regulation? In order to ensure accessibility (but subject to the need to act to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing):
Criteria such as the level or regularity of income, employment, credit history, level of indebtedness, individual situation regarding bankruptcy or future activity of the account could not be taken into account for the opening a basic payment account.
The document suggests that the cost of basic accounts should be “reasonable”. This term is so far undefined, although the document suggests it may be defined later. The problem of charges for basic accounts was raised last year and could have merited some more detailed thought already, so this is disappointing. In thinking about the question of how to define “reasonable” charges for basic accounts one might focus on the comments of Which? that:
Banks are not charitable institutions but charging consumers fees for basic bank accounts would undermine the basis of BBAs: to achieve the aim of universal banking for all EU citizens.
On the other hand, the Irish Banking Federation argued that it would be inappropriate to regulate charges:
Although yet to crystallise in an official capacity, the features of a basic bank account being mooted in Ireland include no account-keeping fees, and no or low-cost transaction fees. However it would be
inappropriate for providers to be instructed as to the basis upon which they should construct their business
model as this is clearly a business decision.
So the Commission’s choice to use an indeterminate term such as “reasonable” looks like an attempt to postpone the arguments over charges to a point in time after the basic idea of EU rules on basic bank accounts has been agreed.
irresponsible consumers and health August 30, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , comments closedThe EU Parliament is concerned about health literacy (or a lack of it) in the EU. One of the issues the Parliament has focused on is doctors’ communications about prescription medicines. But it seems that parents may be quite (surprisingly) cavalier in their attitudes to giving over-the-counter medicines to their children. Although the study was carried out in Australia the authors seem to think this problem is more general.
liability for malicious falsehood under english law June 2, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , comments closedAs the UK Parliament begins to consider changing the law relating to libel as a result of the introduction of Lord Lester’s Bill last week, the Court of Appeal holds that in a claim for malicious falsehood (as opposed to a claim for libel) a statement that is capable of more than one meaning is not subject to a rule that it has only one right meaning. Lord Justice Sedley stated:
…On the judge’s unchallenged findings, the meanings which reasonable consumers might put on Asda’s health-food packaging include both the damaging and the innocuous. Why should the law not move on to proof of malice in relation to the damaging meaning and (if malice is proved) the consequential damage without artificially pruning the facts so as to presume the very thing — a single meaning – that the judge has found not to be the case?
I do not accept that doing this will make trials of malicious falsehood claims unwieldy or over-complex. This is not because these claims are always tried by a judge alone: the experience of common law judges is that juries are on the whole very good at assimilating and applying sometimes complicated directions. It is because it makes the trial of the issues fairer and more realistic. Instead of (as here) denying any remedy to a claimant whose business has been injured in the eyes of some consumers on the illogical ground that it has not been injured in the eyes of others, or alternatively … giving such a claimant a clear run to judgment when in the eyes of many customers the words have done it no harm, trial of plural meanings permits the damaging effect of the words to be put in perspective and both malice and (if it comes to it) damage to be more realistically gauged.
The decision rejects the artificiality of identifying one meaning for words that may be interpreted by readers in different ways and puts the emphasis on the question of malice.
oft study February 4, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , comments closedThe OFT has announced a new market study:
The OFT would welcome views and evidence on when and how contracts cause problems for consumers or firms. It will be contacting key parties directly, including Government departments and consumer bodies. Others who wish to make a submission should visit www.oft.gov.uk/consumer-contracts or email consumercontracts@oft.gsi.gov.uk.
talking about credit cards November 16, 2009
Posted by Bradley in : consumers , comments closedWe just had an announcement that our faculty and staff assistance program is holding a seminar on credit cards where the speaker will apparently:
review ways to responsibly maximize the use of credit cards.
I think it is likely that those words don’t quite get across what they mean. If they meant show how to use credit cards responsibly, why didn’t they say so?