All change for Businesses that sell to Consumers?

Does your business sell to consumers (i.e. those ordinary folk who buy goods, services or digital content for themselves and not behalf of the company that they work for)? If it does, then 01 October 2015 will see the coming into force of the new Consumer Rights Act 2015.  This is one of the most  significant pieces of legislation which is intended to make dealing with consumer contracts a much clearer and simper exercise for businesses, traders and consumers alike. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is to consumer law, what the Employment Rights Act 1996 was to employment law nearly 20 years ago…yes, it really is 20 years! At present, Consumer law is made up of over 100 separate pieces of legislation in this country and can be almost impossible to follow. The Consumer Rights Act pulls much of this legislation together and places it into a single, modern Act that covers the sale of goods, services and digital content (things such as ‘apps’ as we know them!). Unfair contract terms are also brought into the Act along with a number of other provisions. While many of the Consumer Rights Act’s provisions remain largely unchanged from their original sources of legislation, there are also important new provisions, such as those governing: consumer rights and digital content, remedies for sub-standard services, and unfair contract terms. Whilst the clocks going back, dark nights and Halloween seem an eternity away, there’s only 6 weeks before October is here. So that’s more than enough time to dust down those contracts and terms of business to make sure that your business is “Consumer Proof”....

Agency Workers And Job Vacancies

Those readers who use agency workers will be aware that those workers must have access to information about job vacancies within the organisation from day one of their assignment. The EAT has confirmed though that this does not equate to a right to apply for all posts or to receive preference over permanent employees. In the case of in Coles v Ministry of Defence the MOD gave priority to redundant permanent employees. Mr Coles was not happy that one of the redundant employees was given “his” job or that he had not been offered an interview (although he had been informed of the vacancy). The EAT held that agency workers are entitled to equal treatment in respect of working time and pay, which was not the same as a right not to be treated less favourably than permanent employees. In giving preference to redundant permanent employees, the MOD had done nothing wrong. Back to legal...