A few questions for a knowledgable electrician

[Stoday]

Contracts don't have to be written (except for land). They can be verbal or even implied. Unwritten just cause more aggro if something goes wrong.

If a change in price wasn't agreed when the spec changes were agreed, you should expect to pay less. With half the power to your shed, half the originally agreed contract price might well be appropriate if the issue went to court. So offer him half.

 

[riveralt]

Cancellation Rights
31.For all work over the value of £35.00 completed in the
domestic market, members must provide the
householder with a seven working day ‘cooling off
period’ form, as required by The Cancellation of
Contracts made in a Consumer's home or place of
work etc Regulations (2008). The cooling off period
form must provide details of how the contract can be
cancelled, together with name and address of the
person to contact.

I may have missed a bit - but surely this only applies to the customer changing his mind before the work has started.

He can't cancel it after completion.

Agreed, but the criminal offence is not to give the customer the option beforehand as outlined below:

Offence relating to the failure to give notice of the right to cancel
This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum
17.—(1) A trader is guilty of an offence if he enters into a contract to which these Regulations apply but fails to give the consumer a notice of the right to cancel in accordance with regulation 7.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

 

[riveralt]

Contracts don't have to be written (except for land). They can be verbal or even implied. Unwritten just cause more aggro if something goes wrong.

If a change in price wasn't agreed when the spec changes were agreed, you should expect to pay less. With half the power to your shed, half the originally agreed contract price might well be appropriate if the issue went to court. So offer him half.

Two separate elements are being discussed here.

Firstly the contract, whether verbal or written, is ultimately a civil matter - although I am sure there will be other criminal options available - like theft for example, say if he had said he fitted 10mm but actually fitted 4mm but charged for 10mm..

Second the issue of breaching The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 is a criminal matter.
While there may be wiggle room for the contract element, the appears to be little wiggle room for the second element.

 

[JohnW2]

Second the issue of breaching The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 is a criminal matter. While there may be wiggle room for the contract element, the appears to be little wiggle room for the second element.

I've seen debate about this amongst lawyers. There seems to be some uncertainty, at least in some of their minds, as to whether the requirement to provide a 'written notice of the right to cancel' still remains when the contract itself is verbal.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

Second the issue of breaching The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 is a criminal matter. While there may be wiggle room for the contract element, the appears to be little wiggle room for the second element.

I've seen debate about this amongst lawyers. There seems to be some uncertainty, at least in some of their minds, as to whether the requirement to provide a 'written notice of the right to cancel' still remains when the contract itself is verbal.

Kind Regards, John.

That may be the case and lawyers being lawyers I bet they would like their day in court, at our expense., With the possibility of a criminal offence or a civil action, I prefer to play the safe card and follow the rules to the letter. A pain the neck and the customer doesn't see why but.......... better safe than sorry.

 

[JohnW2]

That may be the case and lawyers being lawyers I bet they would like their day in court, at our expense., With the possibility of a criminal offence or a civil action, I prefer to play the safe card and follow the rules to the letter. A pain the neck and the customer doesn't see why but.......... better safe than sorry.

I don't think many people (other than lawyers!) would argue with that. ... and at least it gives you an excuse for not starting the work until at least 7 days after the contracts are signed (if you so wish)

Kind Regards, John.

 

[riveralt]

That may be the case and lawyers being lawyers I bet they would like their day in court, at our expense., With the possibility of a criminal offence or a civil action, I prefer to play the safe card and follow the rules to the letter. A pain the neck and the customer doesn't see why but.......... better safe than sorry.

I don't think many people (other than lawyers!) would argue with that. ... and at least it gives you an excuse for not starting the work until at least 7 days after the contracts are signed (if you so wish)

Kind Regards, John.

Customers can always sign their rights away so work can start immediately - you have to include that in the list of forms as well.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

That may be the case and lawyers being lawyers I bet they would like their day in court, at our expense., With the possibility of a criminal offence or a civil action, I prefer to play the safe card and follow the rules to the letter. A pain the neck and the customer doesn't see why but.......... better safe than sorry.

I don't think many people (other than lawyers!) would argue with that. ... and at least it gives you an excuse for not starting the work until at least 7 days after the contracts are signed (if you so wish)

Kind Regards, John.

Customers can always sign their rights away so work can start immediately - you have to include that in the list of forms as well.

My customers always have to sign a waiver if they need me to start within 7 days of me coming to see them. I am in a trading standards fair trade scheme and the TS Officer explained that this was the minimum standard required to comply with the criminal law and a breach of it would resuly in my prosecution, expulsion from the scheme and me not being paid for the work done. It is a enough to persuade me to comply. I know that this law does have teeth from other tradesmen that have lost out through not obeying it. Though as I say, I have yet to meet a customer,; who says that they were already familier with this law and have ever sign a waiver previous to the one I get them to sign.

 

[SimonH2]

Customers can always sign their rights away so work can start immediately - you have to include that in the list of forms as well.

NOT true. They may be able to sign away some of their rights, but any contract purporting to have them sign away quite a wide range of rights would be illegal and unenforceable. Looking back through the thread I realise the topic under consideration (at this point) is the 7 day cooling off period, but you don't want to perpetuate the myth that you can avoid liability for stuff by getting someone to sign away their rights. The best you can achieve by having someone sign such a disclaimer is being able to show in court should it come to it, that you made someone aware of some risks and they accepted these as coming with the activity.

My customers always have to sign a waiver if they need me to start within 7 days of me coming to see them. I am in a trading standards fair trade scheme and the TS Officer explained that this was the minimum standard required to comply with the criminal law and a breach of it would resuly in my prosecution, expulsion from the scheme and me not being paid for the work done. It is a enough to persuade me to comply. I know that this law does have teeth from other tradesmen that have lost out through not obeying it. Though as I say, I have yet to meet a customer,; who says that they were already familier with this law and have ever sign a waiver previous to the one I get them to sign.

I'm guessing that's a waiver of their 7 day cooling off period, not a waiver of their other rights ?

In the context of the original question, there was a contract to install a certain size of supply, but this was not supplied. Should it come down to it, I think you'd find a court would not find the customers acceptance of the changes as varying the contract as he was forced to make that change having been given false information.
Not only could that leave him not getting paid, but also liable for any additional costs in having it put right by someone else if he doesn't do it himself.

The lack of any waiver to the cooling off period would just be a bonus prize to be hit with.

 

[riveralt]

Customers can always sign their rights away so work can start immediately - you have to include that in the list of forms as well.

NOT true. They may be able to sign away some of their rights, but any contract purporting to have them sign away quite a wide range of rights would be illegal and unenforceable. Looking back through the thread I realise the topic under consideration (at this point) is the 7 day cooling off period, but you don't want to perpetuate the myth that you can avoid liability for stuff by getting someone to sign away their rights.

You must be a lawyer or a reporter because you are talking a load of codswallop by deliberately taking my comment out of context, when in response to JohnW2....

That may be the case and lawyers being lawyers I bet they would like their day in court, at our expense., With the possibility of a criminal offence or a civil action, I prefer to play the safe card and follow the rules to the letter. A pain the neck and the customer doesn't see why but.......... better safe than sorry.

I don't think many people (other than lawyers!) would argue with that. ... and at least it gives you an excuse for not starting the work until at least 7 days after the contracts are signed (if you so wish)
Kind Regards, John.

Customers can always sign their rights away so work can start immediately - you have to include that in the list of forms as well.

Where does it say that they have signed ALL their rights over?
So in the context of the full transcript of the conversation, the response is TRUE.
Having made the 'not true' statement you even contradict yourself in the next sentence when you 'realise' that the sub-topic under discussion is the seven day cooling off period.
But instead of accepting that you had drawn the wrong conclusion and deleting your initial comment you seek to justify it, AGAIN, by reiterating your erroneous statement.
If you make a mistake and realise you have made such a mistake - STOP and delete your comments. Don't carry on an try to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[SimonH2]

Customers can always sign their rights away so work can start immediately - you have to include that in the list of forms as well.

NOT true. They may be able to sign away some of their rights, but any contract purporting to have them sign away quite a wide range of rights would be illegal and unenforceable. Looking back through the thread I realise the topic under consideration (at this point) is the 7 day cooling off period, but you don't want to perpetuate the myth that you can avoid liability for stuff by getting someone to sign away their rights.

You must be a lawyer or a reporter because you are talking a load of codswallop by deliberately taking my comment out of context, when in response to JohnW2....

Neither, just someone who has been in situations where it pays to know what the law says, not what you'd like it to say. Having a basic grasp of contract law is kind of useful when in business

What I wrote is correct, there are a great many rights which you cannot (enforceably) ask someone to sign away.

You are correct that the 7 day cooling off is something that can be waived when done correctly, but you did not actually write that. You wrote that "Customers can always sign their rights away so work can start immediately" which is not a true statement (or at least is incomplete to the point of being inaccurate). Had you wrote that "Customers can always sign certain rights (specifically their right to a cooling off period) away so work can start immediately" then you'd be correct.

Note that this part of the thread (a legal discussion over contracts) started with a discussion over the change to the initial contract - ie the customer asked for and was sold one thing, then something else was installed. You yourself wrote earlier :

Two separate elements are being discussed here.

 

[riveralt]

Neither, just someone who has been in situations where it pays to know what the law says, not what you'd like it to say. Having a basic grasp of contract law is kind of useful when in business
What I wrote is correct, there are a great many rights which you cannot (enforceably) ask someone to sign away.

But, in the context of the debate that was taking place and in particular the statututory instrument we were discussing, this is one of those situations which does allow the consumer to sign away their rights - as per regulation 9 (1).
This is what the law says and not what you would like it to say!!
So, I am afraid, you are wrong, your intervention added nothing and you sought only to muddy the debate.
Furthermore, if you really had even a basic grasp of contract law ( I assume the rolling eyes were because you don't) you would understand that reading things in isolation, or with blinkers on, as in your case, invariably leads you to drawing the wrong conclusion. Lawyer or not you would be laughed out of court.

 

[SimonH2]

All I'll say is that if that's what you want to believe then carry on. We differ in opinion - enough said.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Second the issue of breaching The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 is a criminal matter. While there may be wiggle room for the contract element, the appears to be little wiggle room for the second element.

I've seen debate about this amongst lawyers. There seems to be some uncertainty, at least in some of their minds, as to whether the requirement to provide a 'written notice of the right to cancel' still remains when the contract itself is verbal.

Kind Regards, John.

The Trading Standard Officer was VERY clear on this. So please don't muddy the water with speculation. Unless you are going to give some facts where this has been tested in law and failed. If it had I would have expected to hear about it. But if you know different please give us the facts - not speculation.
Thanks

 

[JohnW2]

I've seen debate about this amongst lawyers. There seems to be some uncertainty, at least in some of their minds, as to whether the requirement to provide a 'written notice of the right to cancel' still remains when the contract itself is verbal.

The Trading Standard Officer was VERY clear on this. So please don't muddy the water with speculation. Unless you are going to give some facts where this has been tested in law and failed. If it had I would have expected to hear about it. But if you know different please give us the facts - not speculation. Thanks

What I stated were facts – that I’ve seen debate of this amongst lawyers and that the debate illustrated the uncertainty in their minds. As you imply, if I were aware of the matter having been tested in a court, I would be reporting the judgement, not the uncertainty as to what that judgement would be.

In case you’re interested (probably not ), the discussion arose whilst I was dining with a close family member and a number of other barristers, one of whom was a QC with particular interest/expertise in this area. The debate was largely academic (and hence way over my head), but it was clear that the group included people who would probably have been prepared to present both arguments to a court, particularly since none of them was aware of the point having yet been tested in a court.

What was agreed was that it would be a very odd, and hence improbable, for someone to enter into a contract with a consumer which was only verbal, yet present them with a written notice of their right to cancel that verbal contract. It was therefore felt that, whether lawful or not, those who do not provide written contracts probably do not usually provide written notices of the right to cancel, either. They also felt that the latter situation was most likely to arise in relation to very minor verbal contracts (I recall window cleaners and doorstep milk deliveries being mentioned) which were unlikely to ‘excite’ either consumers or Trading Standards to the extent that the matter would get into a court of law.

I will, however, enquire as to whether anyone followed up this discussion and identified any relevant case law. I presume that most electricians do provide written contracts, in which case this discussion is obviously moot for them.

Kind Regards, John.