MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

gwynevans · 11-02-2009, 07:32 AM

From a look here, it appears to be an attempt to 'harmonise' the consumer rights in an attempt to boost cross-border trading. The point that the Express has noticed is that in the UK, we appear to have more consumer protection that the rest of the EU in certain areas and that's proposed to be reduced down to a 'common' level.

I was initially sceptical, but it looks to me as if they have a point this time. See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights...e_table_en.pdf, particularly the bottom of pg 8. (Yes, the doc's subject to change, but at the moment, this is in it...)

"On the one hand, consumer- protection will decrease in all Member States (current directive obliges the trader to reimburse the consumer as soon as possible and always within 30 days). On the other hand, this new rule protects traders against dishonest consumers, which do not intend to return the product."

My emphasis - Frankly, I don't actually consider more protection for retailers as being a good enough reason to reduce the consumer protection.

11-02-2009, 07:32 AM	#7
gwynevans Wizzard Posts: 1,402 Karma: 2000000 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: UK Device: iPad 2, iPhone 6s, Kindle Voyage & Kindle PaperWhite	From a look here, it appears to be an attempt to 'harmonise' the consumer rights in an attempt to boost cross-border trading. The point that the Express has noticed is that in the UK, we appear to have more consumer protection that the rest of the EU in certain areas and that's proposed to be reduced down to a 'common' level. I was initially sceptical, but it looks to me as if they have a point this time. See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights...e_table_en.pdf, particularly the bottom of pg 8. (Yes, the doc's subject to change, but at the moment, this is in it...) "On the one hand, consumer- protection will decrease in all Member States (current directive obliges the trader to reimburse the consumer as soon as possible and always within 30 days). On the other hand, this new rule protects traders against dishonest consumers, which do not intend to return the product." My emphasis - Frankly, I don't actually consider more protection for retailers as being a good enough reason to reduce the consumer protection. Last edited by gwynevans; 11-02-2009 at 07:36 AM.