Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
A boutique law firm in London
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • Xavier Prida
    • Martina Raciti
    • Ewelina James
    • Rachael Machado
    • Maria Constantin
    • Peter Dally
    • Richard Stewart
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Paul Stelges
    • Hannah Leader
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Sue Warwick
    • D A T Green
    • Antony Corel
    • Stewart White
    • Mor Swiel
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Robert Harvey
    • Shardi Shameli
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

Consumer rights in times of COVID-19: key issues to be considered by traders

September 17, 2020By Preiskel & Co

The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) recently issued its revised “Statement on coronavirus (COVID-19), consumer contracts, cancellation and refunds“, which was first made available on 30 April 2020. The updated statement now focuses on consumers’ rights where lockdown rules do not prevent a trader from rendering a service but change how it can be rendered.

For instance, if the service is fundamentally different to what was initially agreed, the consumer would usually have the right to cancel its contract and be reimbursed. Now, if the differences in the service are only minimal, a consumer should be able to decide between cancelling the contract on the trader’s standard terms (as long as these are fair), or receiving the service and obtaining an appropriate deduction in the price.

While the updated statement also foresees the situation where the provision of a service is hindered by compliance with COVID-19 restrictions which are laid down in the form of government guidance (rather than law), it goes on to reaffirm that the consumer would still have to cancel the contract on the trader’s standard terms (again, as long as these are fair). Nonetheless, the statement underscores the significance of promoting adherence to such government guidance and exhorts traders to treat consumers fairly.

Another crucial amendment to the CMA’s updated statement warns that consumers should not be required to take unreasonable or unnecessary steps to be reimbursed and that a formal claim is not required for a refund to be due. An overhaul to the section focusing on the timing of reimbursements now clarifies that an interruption in the service caused by COVID-19 is now less likely to be a satisfactory justification for late repayment. An additional segment of the statement reinforces the need for trader’s standard terms to specify plainly and prominently the amounts to be withheld or charged on consumer cancellation, which sums shall not be disproportionate.

Please contact Jose Saras or Xavier Prida if you have any questions relating to drafting consumer contracts.

The material contained in this article is only a general review of the topics covered and does not constitute any legal advice. No legal or business decision should be based on its content.

 

Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • CMA AI Report: The Foundation of the UK’s AI Response
    September 21, 2023
  • Navigating Health Data Compliance: A Roadmap for Employers
    September 21, 2023
  • Transatlantic convergence? Recent cases on advertising and privacy from the USA and UK
    September 15, 2023
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK
    September 14, 2023
  • Virgin succeeded in defending a claim by EE for loss of EE’s profits caused by Virgin’s breach of the MVNO Exclusivity Clause
    September 12, 2023
  • Getting out of a (data) scrape: global statement published for the protection of publicly accessible personal data online
    September 8, 2023
  • The dark side of design: the ICO and CMA call for businesses to rethink their website layouts
    August 18, 2023
  • Could the Supreme Court’s ruling on litigation funding agreements cause havoc for litigation funders?
    August 17, 2023
  • US Threats of a ‘Te(ch)xodus’ from the UK?
    August 17, 2023
  • Smoother Sailing for EU-US Data Transfers after GDPR Adequacy Decision
    August 4, 2023
  • Unlocking Data Flows: EU-US Data Privacy Framework Receives Adequacy Decision
    July 13, 2023
  • UK’s World Leading Approach on Artificial Intelligence – White Paper outlines 5 guideline principles for responsible use of AI
    July 5, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • CMA AI Report: The Foundation of the UK’s AI Response 21 Sep 2023
  • Navigating Health Data Compliance: A Roadmap for Employers 21 Sep 2023
  • Transatlantic convergence? Recent cases on advertising and privacy from the USA and UK 15 Sep 2023
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK 14 Sep 2023

Preiskel news

  • Tim Cowen, Chair of Antitrust Practice, Preiskel & Co, quoted in The Times
  • Practical Guide – Net Neutrality in the UK
  • Danny Preiskel featured in GCCM Magazine (June/July 2023 issue 55)  
  • Danny Preiskel moderating a panel at the MEF Connects – The Future of Fraud Prevention event (5th September 2023, hybrid)
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy