CTSI HAS ITS SAY Some of the institutes contributions to government policy debate Parliament made the right choice in relation to the short-term right to reject and the one repair/replacement rule Draft Directives on online sale of digital content/tangible goods Charities and fundraising (CC20) consultation Draft Directives on the online sale of digital content and tangible goods UK government call for views, February 2016 CTSI supports the principle of moving towards greater harmonisation in European online sales law, but not to the detriment of UK consumers and businesses. Before the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), when matters were considered in great detail, CTSI believes parliament made the right choice in relation to the short-term right to reject and the one repair/replacement rule. Both these provisions are fair to buyers and sellers, and bring much-needed clarity to consumer purchases of tangible goods. Now, the institute is concerned that the negative consequences of the current proposal far outweigh the positive benefits of greater harmonisation, and the lack of detail in the proposal makes it difficult to endorse at this stage. The planned scope is wider than under the CRA, but its not clear how far it extends, what free content is covered, what actively providing data means, or how it would tackle products such as cloud storage currently viewed as services in UK law. CTSI therefore thinks these proposals would cause an unacceptable reduction in UK consumers rights, which would also be detrimental to businesses because of the costs associated with both the greater uncertainty of interpretation and the operation of parallel regimes. The proposals may also present a risk to e-commerce uptake generally. Consumers may come to believe that they have fewer rights online, which will be bad for e-commerce, bad for consumer choice, andbad for business growth. Alternatively, a minimum harmonisation directive would enable all the benefits of closer harmonisation to exist alongside the retention of important, additional local requirements. We suspect that the UK will not be the only member state that wishes to retain elements of their systems that work well in their domestic markets. Lead officer: David MacKenzie For more details, and to contribute to consultations such as these, visit www.tradingstandards.gov.uk Charities and fundraising (CC20) consultation The Charity Commission, February 2016 CTSI supports the proposed new version of the guidance document on trustee duties, first and foremost because it highlights that trustees are ultimately responsible for the activity of fundraising legally responsible. It is likely that some become trustees because they want to help, but they may not realise that they will have a substantial legal burden to discharge. Charities do a fantastic job. Life as we know it would not be possible or at any rate would be vastly more risky without the involvement of charities. The social fabric of the country would be undermined without the valuable contributions of volunteers and public-spirited citizens, without whom these charities could not function. Image and reputation are therefore of paramount importance. The financial crisis in 2008 put great strain on charity resources, and CTSI members became increasingly aware that some charities were resortingto fundraising methods that were unacceptable. This becomesa risk if charities employ professional fundraisers and collectors are incentivised. It appears, however, that the worst of those practices have been curbed. Nevertheless, it is timely that trustees are made fully aware of the onerous burden they take on, even for the most worthwhile of causes. CTSI therefore approves and supports the proposed new version of the guide and the reasons behind it. Lead officer: David Sanders For more details, and to contribute to consultations such as these, visit www.tradingstandards.gov.uk Credits Images: SpeedKingz / Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock To share this page, in the toolbar click on You might also like CTSI has its say March 2016