Consumer Rights Bill

Written evidence submitted from the Glass and Glazing Federation (CR 10)

1. The Glass and Glazing Federation (GGF) is the leading authority for employers and companies within the flat glass, glazing, home improvement, plastics and window film industries, and has over 500 members who can be found in over 1,500 business locations throughout the UK.

2. Our member companies are required to meet high entry standards and must show proof of previous experience, as well as meet a number of qualifying criteria. Once they are accepted as a member company they are continually vetted by the GGF, must follow our ‘Code of Good Practice’ and work to standards in the GGF’s ‘Glazing Manual’. Given our focus on providing high standards to consumers, the GGF is supportive of moves to increase consumer protection. However, although the GGF has been engaging with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) as the Bill has passed through its consultation and parliamentary phases, there remain some key issues which the GGF believe have not been fully addressed in the Bill which will have a significant and negative impact on businesses in the construction sector and consequently on consumers.

Key major concern

3. Our key area of concern is that the Bill will not protect businesses from a small number of consumers who may look to take advantage of the Bill in order to gain what they might see as "free goods". As the Bill is currently drafted, a consumer could reject a houseful of windows, or even a whole conservatory, based on one fault, even if the overall installation was satisfactory. This is referred to in sections 101 and 102 of the Explanatory Notes of the Bill. If the consumer’s way of making the goods available is to say to the trader that the windows can be removed, that would be an added cost to the trader. Once a replacement window is fitted it legally becomes part of the fabric of the consumer’s property, and if a trader had to refund the price of the whole contract for the goods and installation service to the consumer, it would not be worthwhile for the trader to then undertake the extra work of taking out the windows which they would then not be able to sell elsewhere. 99% of replacement windows are made bespoke to the consumer’s specification (e.g. style, colour, made accurately to the size of the window apertures of their property) and as such cannot reasonably be sold or used elsewhere.

4. Whilst the GGF accepts that this is unlikely to occur in the majority of cases, the experience of our members shows that there are a small number of consumers (who are always a topic of conversation by our members) who look for loopholes in order to not have to pay for goods or to obtain unreasonable reductions in price. Whilst in previous meetings BIS have suggested that they do not think that this is a significant problem, we believe that there would be more cases of this happening than anticipated by BIS, particularly if it became known that it was possible to get windows for free. We consider that the aim of the Bill should be to protect both consumers and businesses and should not rely on an assumption that consumers will not exercise what would be a legitimate right under the Bill as it is currently drafted.

5. This would be particularly damaging for the many SMEs in the construction sector who would not be able to cope with covering these costs. In instances where consumers buy and install multiple windows made to their specification, the costs incurred by the trader if a consumer were to reject these goods (where only one has a fault) would run into thousands of pounds. If some businesses were forced to fold as a result of this – which is likely in cases where there are microbusinesses and SMEs – this will lead to a reduction in competition and innovation in the sector. This could also inadvertently have a negative impact on consumers by forcing businesses to increase costs and hence their prices to cover the potential for this happening.

6. This is an issue which will not only have a significant impact on the glazing sector but on the whole of the construction industry, for example with roofers, painters and decorators, kitchen fitters etc., where goods are made or supplied to the consumer’s specification.

Solution

7. The GGF notes a disparity between the Consumer Rights Directive and the Consumer Bill of Rights. Whilst the Directive will recognise that windows made to the consumer’s specification will be goods which are exempt from cancellation rights from date of delivery, the Bill does not make a distinction between goods which could be easily resold elsewhere (e.g. toasters, cameras) and goods made to the consumer’s specification.

8. Under the Directive (due June 2014), a consumer could order a number of windows made to their specification. If they were then to change their mind after the trader had made the windows, they could not cancel under the Directive. However, due to the nature of this building product and on -site installation, there can often be a single fault or mark on just one window which a consumer could utilise under the Bill as drafted to wait for the windows to be delivered and then reject the whole set of windows for a fault on one and gain a full refund. The GGF does not believe that this would be in the spirit of the Bill, however at present the Bill provides traders with no protection against this happening, particularly in instances where complex goods such as windows are involved. This could lead to an increase rather than decrease in the number of disputes between traders and consumers.

9. The GGF therefore believes that the Bill should be amended to make a distinction between generic goods and goods made to a consumer’s specification. In the instances where goods have been made to a consumer’s specification, or materials have been cut to size on site and are of no other use, we believe that the Bill should be amended in the remedies and partial rejection clauses so that the consumer may only reject that part of the product or complete product which is not of satisfactory quality, and may not reject the remaining products. Taking an example of replacement windows, if a consumer were to order 10 windows made to their specification for their house, and one of these windows had a fault, then the GGF would propose that so long as the trader is able to repair or provide a replacement for the faulty window from the same design suite as the others, then consumers should only be able to access the remedies under the Bill to the one window rather than all 10 windows. We believe that this amendment would provide protection to consumers and businesses, particularly as the nine windows which are of satisfactory quality would be impossible for the trader to resell at their normal price, as there is no effective second-hand market for windows specifically made to a consumer’s order. (Note: we recognise that such windows are sometimes sold on Ebay for very low prices).

Conclusion

10. The GGF is fully supportive of the Government’s aim to increase and clarify the rights of consumers. However, we believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the Bill as it is currently drafted and this could have a significantly negative impact on businesses and ultimately on consumers as a result. If the Bill is not amended then we believe that there will be a damaging effect in the long-term on consumers, as it will result in less choice, less competition, and higher prices.

February 2014