The are quite technical. These areas were initially

The
Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (CPR) 1 is to reform the existing
law on unfair commercial practices such as misleading and aggressive selling.
The CPR came into force on 1 October 2014 amended the Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT)2. The problem with the CPUT
is the clarity of the rights of redress that are available once breach of those
regulations is established. Previously, consumers could not directly enforce
the CPUT as it could only be enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority
and Trading Standards.3

Consumers
could only rely on misrepresentation, duress and undue influence if they wanted
to enforce the rights themselves. This is problematic as consumers often find
it difficult to comprehend as they are quite technical. These areas were
initially used in transactions between businesses which is not the most
suitable for consumers. Moreover, these pre-existing rules had various
limitations.

A
misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made that induces the consumer
into a contract.4
This is illustrated in Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service5.
There a few limitations to misrepresentation such as there is no remedy in
the cases of misleading prices and actual contract must have existed. Next,
statements as to the future are not treated as misrepresentation as it is not a
statement of existing fact.67 Although rescission can be
obtained, it does not cover repayment of anything that is not the actual contract
price. Moreover, it must be proven that there was inducement.8

For
a consumer to be able to claim under duress, it requires a contract that has an
element of threat. The threat must be independently illegal.9 It offers the remedy of rescission
and is usually confined between business to business transactions. The problem
is there is no protection for consumers when aggressive selling or enforcement
is used. It has very limited scope where it cannot be used even to catch obstructive
behaviour such as not answering consumer’s calls. There is no rescission if
pre-contractual threats were made, causing expenditure and in cases of threats
used in repayment of debt. There are also no damages available for economic losses
or distress.

The
equitable doctrine of undue influence requires a special relationship of ‘trust
and confidence’ which has been abused, leading to an uninformed decision made
by the person who trusted.10 In Allcard v Skinner11,
it was held although there was undue influence, she could not recover due to her
delay. It will materially affect whether or not someone can obtain relief if they
neglect their rights knowingly.12 This rule is usually used
to protect businesses from liability and is unlikely to establish in business
to consumer transactions. There is no damages available for distress.

The
CPUT has different categories of prohibition. Schedule 113 contains
31 examples of conduct which are the black list of prohibited practices. Reg.5
Para 2 sets out when action would be considered as misleading. This provision
is wider than misrepresentation as it covers both existing fact and future
statements.14
It offers higher protection as it covers situations even if it is only likely
to deceive.15
The remedies available are unwinding which also applies to situations of no contract,
damages, and discount which was not claimable under misrepresentation.

Reg.7
Para 1 sets out when commercial practices are deemed as aggressive. Para 2
determines when it uses harassment, coercion or undue influence. This covers
similar things covered under duress and undue influence but its scope is much
broader. There is no need for an illegal act to break a contract or a need for
special relationship. Examples of aggressive sales are pressure selling and consistent
phone calls at home or work to the consumer. The remedies available are unwind,
damages and discount. Consumers can also claim for distress.

The
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) 200516 concerns unfair business
practices in EU law. It requires member states to control these practices
through public enforcement. It is implemented in the UK by the CPUT. The UCPD
does not require that there be private law rights for those affected by these
practices although it does not prevent Member States from giving them.17
Most academics assert that is it necessary to introduce private law rights
based on the UCPD as inconsistency between the public and private realm is confusing.
The Law Commission considered the issue, which lead to the CPR 2014.18

Essentially,
CPR will provide higher consumer protection by allowing consumers to enforce
their rights directly against the trader.19 The main premise is to
introduce rights of redress to those who have been victims of aggressive practices
the entitlement to unwind, discount and damages.20 The main provision is Regulation
3 which addresses regulations 27A-K to the CPUT. Reg.3 introduces new Part 4A
which explains when and how the rights to redress can be enforced. The new
regulation 27A sets out when a consumer has a right to redress. Another reform
it introduces is under regulation 27B allows remedies to apply to contractual
and non-contractual situations when payments are made.

In
the event that the consumer succeeds in proving the considerations in Reg.27A,
the following remedies are available. The consumer has the right to treat the
contract as void within 90 days of the contract being entered to or the
goods/service being delivered.21 Next, the consumer can
receive a discount on the price payable under the contract.22 The 90-day limit does not
apply here, and the deductions ranges from 25% to 100%, which increases incrementally
by 25% depending upon the seriousness of the breach.23 Finally, the grounds for
right to claim damages are various, such as the financial loss suffered, distress,
physical inconvenience or discomfort that the consumer has suffered.24

1 Consumer Protection (Amendment)
Regulations 2014/870 Reg. 3

2 Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008

3 Fair
Trading Act 197; S.17(2), S.26

4 M Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract (16th
edn OUP, 2012) 339

5 Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia
World Service 2000 EWHC Ch 140 

6 M Furmston, (n 30) 341

7 Maddison v Alderson (1883)
8 App Cas 467 

8 M Furmston, (n 30) 345

9 ibid 389

10 M Furmston, (n 30) 400

11 Allcard v Skinner (1887)
36 Ch D 145

12 M Furmston, (n 30) 401

13 Schedule 1, CPUT 2008

14 Regulation 5, Para 4(c) CPUT 2008

15 Regulation 5, Para 2(a) CPUT 2008

16 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC

17 ibid, Art 3(2)

18 Law Com report (Consumer Redress
for Misleading and Aggressive Practices, (Law Com No 332, 2012),  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236079/8323.pdf

19 Regulation 2(1) ‘commercial
practice’

20 Regulation 27K CPR 2014

21 Regulation 27E (3) CPR 2014

22 Regulation 27I CPR 2014

23 Regulation 27I (4) CPR 2014

24 Regulation 27J (1)(a), (b) CPR
2014