OT ish: Cancellation of Contracts

[The Medway Handyman]

Had a meet with the people from Trading Standards recently to renew my Fair Trader status.

Apparently, according to the 'Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumers Home or Place of Work etc Regulations'.....

...if I get a job over £35, I have to give the client the right to cancel within 7 'calendar' days.

So, if someone rings on a Monday with a leak - and I shuffle a few jobs around & do it on Tuesday - I have apparently committed a criminal offence and could face a £5K fine.

Similarly, if a customer calls on a Tuesday & I can do the work the following Monday - I'm also a criminal.

This sort of thing happens regularly in my business, I have to keep my advertising level fairly low because I've found people will wait a week for jobs, but not three weeks. Bear in mind I often do three very small jobs a day, rather than one three day job.

Unless - I get them to sign a form agreeing to cancel the notice period. Just what the small businessman needs - extra paperwork. And to be honest, I think it would look like I was trying to do some kind of dodgy deal.

Now apparently, if I don't get the client to sign the waiver, he is under no obligation to pay me.

More details here;

appears these regulations would also apply to Tupperware/Avon/Ann Summers parties & the local paper boy, but strangely not to mortgage, home purchase plans, or home revision plans - where you are highly likely to be stitched up IMO.

Any of you self employed guys out there come across this? Seems completely unworkable to me and puts yet another obstacle in the path of an honest trader.

Guvmint fuckwits.

[Newshound]

Sounds like lunacy. So every emergency plumbing job is done after signing the waiver?

[jgharston]

+1. Every electrical job I do now is on my own property that I let out, so I don't make any money from it. However, I "should" pay somebody to Part-P inspect it, or pay to buy a self-certification certificate - from work I do that doesn't generate me any money.

JGH

[NT]

The pdf is fairly clear about doing works before the 7day period is up.

NT

[The Medway Handyman]

Apparently yes.

TBH if someone asked me to sign a waiver before commencing a job, I'd suspect some kind of rip off.

[The Medway Handyman]

here;

>>> It appears these regulations would also apply to Tupperware/Avon/Ann

Clear yes. Workable no.

[geoff]

In message , The Medway Handyman writes

Did you miss the bit where you are committing an offence if you don't inform the customer up front about his rights

[Clive George]

No, you've not committed an offence by doing the work. You have however taken on the risk that you might not be paid unless you get the signature on the form saying the consumer knows they had the right to cancel but wanted the work doing sooner.

Ditto.

Having seen the sample forms, I don't think so. It's pretty obvious, and somebody with your sales experience should be able to say the govt need the customer to have this cancellation form and if they want the work doing earlier than 7 days they need to sign this other form.

And you're under no obligation to do the work. Make it clear that no waiver = job doesn't get done till the seven days is up.

[Andy Wade]

"The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer?s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008, SI 2008 No. 1816

"Regulation 5: Scope of application.

"These Regulations apply to a contract, including a consumer credit agreement, between a consumer and a trader which is for the supply of goods or services to the consumer by a trader and which is made?(a)during a visit by the trader to the consumer?s home or place of work, or to the home of another individual; (b)during an excursion organised by the trader away from his business premises; or (c)after an offer made by the consumer during such a visit or excursion."

So it doesn't apply if the contact is made on the phone before you go round to the house? (IANAL...)

[Andy Wade]

Oops - /s/contact/contract (FAOD).

[Brian Gaff]

Sounds to me like a perfectly well meaning piece of legislation being applied in the wrong context. Brian

[dennis]

That would be covered by the distance selling regulations wouldn't it? You would be better off getting the paper signed IMO.

[dennis]

Sounds to me like TMH is bored and wants to stir. There is no extra work above and beyond what should be done anyway.

[Mark]

I would agree. It looks like TS have got it wrong.

I expect this legislation is an attempt to control those people who call around and offer to replace your driveway with some leftover tarmac.

[Harry Bloomfield]

The Medway Handyman wrote on 21/12/2011 :

Question 5 seems to cover that situation.

[Robin]

I would be surprised if TMH actually enters into a contract over the phone with a new client, without knowing just what's involved. I would expect it to be more in the nature of him (i) providing his best estimate of what will be involved time/cost wise and (ii) undertaking to (make his best efforts to) turn up at the agreed time. The contract is them more probably made (informally in practice) on the spot.

Apart from anything else, concluding the contract over the phone means both are committed - not to mention bringing to bear the DSR ;)

[dennis]

Concluding it over the phone probably means the client can cancel. He has seven days from when the goods/services turn up. The trader may be able to claim some costs if he had to order specials/perishable stuff to fulfil the contract.

[Newshound]

Agreed. The other problem was the dreadful "legalese" of the two documents TMH is expected to get his clients to read and sign. Pity they didn't get them looked at by the "Plain English" people.

ps presumably we need versions in Farsi, Tamil, Welsh......

[Mike Clarke]

Doesn't distance selling have an exclusion for items which have to be specially made to order? Most of TMH's work would probably be covered by that.

[dennis]

I doubt if TMH does anything special. The client could cancel when he turns up and there would be nothing he could do other than try and intimidate the client into paying. If he did some work then he would have some claim but not necessarily all of the stuff.