Commons Sense

House of Commons · Westminster Hall

Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Consumer Ombudsman Scheme

11 February 2020 · 3 other contributors · 4,151 words

Opened by Martyn Day SNP Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Responding minister: Kelly Tolhurst

Business Compliance

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Martyn Day raised concerns about consumer rights act 2015 and consumer ombudsman scheme in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key points

  • Mr Martyn Day raises concerns about the Consumer Rights Act 2015's inability to enforce compliance from rogue traders.
  • Mr Day highlights a case where Mrs Johnston and her husband faced difficulties returning defective goods from R&J Leather (Scotland) Ltd.
  • Mr Day calls for the government to review the Act and make professional body membership compulsory for traders to facilitate ombudsman complaints.

Key requests to Government

Mr. Day calls on the Government to review the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to make membership in a professional body compulsory for traders, enabling consumers to pursue complaints through an ombudsman scheme and improving clarity around rejection rights.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Martyn Day SNP Linlithgow and East Falkirk

Mr. Martyn Day is concerned about the lack of enforceability in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly regarding rogue traders who do not comply with its terms. He highlights a case involving his constituent Mrs Johnston and her husband who faced significant difficulties returning defective goods from R&J Leather (Scotland) Ltd due to the company's refusal to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process or accept responsibility for the faulty product. The legal battle took nearly two years, involving multiple court hearings and significant costs. Mr Day argues that such cases demonstrate a failure of the Act to protect consumers effectively.

Other contributors (3)
  • Kate Osamor Lab Co-op Edmonton and Winchmore Hill

    We have a lease with Apogee for a photocopier that has not worked for two years, despite attempts to resolve the issue. The provider is demanding £28,000 in taxpayers' money to terminate the contract.

  • Patricia Gibson SNP Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East

    Martin Lewis's report from 2017 highlights the need for mandatory membership of legally enforceable ombudsman schemes by all organisations to protect consumers. Calls for the entire ombudsman landscape to be referred to the Law Commission should be taken seriously, as not all ombudsmen are equal and a level playing field is needed.

  • Yvonne Fovargue Labour Co-op Warrington North

    The current landscape of ombudsman schemes is confusing, and a single access portal would be beneficial for consumers. The current ombudsman system is confusing and needs a complete overhaul to bring all ombudsmen into line with proper enforcement powers.

Government Response

Kelly Tolhurst

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk on securing today's important debate, and I thank the other hon. Members who have made interventions. In this country we have a strong consumer rights framework, which gives most consumers the confidence to settle any disputes directly with businesses. Around six out of 10 such disputes are resolved directly with the business concerned. However, this debate has rightly highlighted the real problems that some consumers have in enforcing their rights, and addressing that issue is my top priority as the Minister with responsibility for consumers. I am concerned that tens of thousands of consumers still go to court to resolve disputes with business because many do so because the business refuses to participate in a cheaper, quicker and less adversarial alternative dispute resolution process. We know that many consumers would prefer to have different ways to settle their differences with businesses. Alternative dispute resolution schemes give consumers and businesses a quicker and cheaper way to resolve disputes than going to court. ADR is not mandatory for the furniture and home furnishings sector, where the furniture ombudsman provides dispute resolution services. The furniture ombudsman can only offer its services when businesses join the scheme. My Department has announced its intention to publish a Command Paper in the spring of this year. In that Command Paper, we will bring forward a package of reform to make it easier and quicker for consumers to use ADR services. It will also cover ways in which we can strengthen our public enforcement system to tackle consumer rip-offs. The Government will carry out a five-year post-implementation review of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 later this year. I am committed to making the system more effective, with better access. Through the forthcoming consumer and competition Command Paper, we will be closely examining the areas of the dispute resolution landscape that are not working for consumers and laying out our proposals for reform.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy