EU Consumer Rights Directive: getting it right - European Union Committee Contents


CHAPTER 5: Clarity for consumers and provision of information

The issue

109.  In this chapter we consider the extent to which the text of the Directive is sufficiently clear for consumers; and how successful the provisions on general information requirements are and whether they could lead to an overload of information for the consumer. We conclude by discussing the concern that harmonisation of the consumer information requirements could lead to less mandatory information needing to be given when financial products are sold over the telephone, or by other means of distance selling.

Contents of the proposal on information

110.  In the recitals to the Directive, the Commission asserts that consumers should be entitled to receive information before the contract is entered into and states that it will look into the most appropriate way to ensure that all consumers are made aware of their rights at the point of sale.[29]

111.  Article 5 sets out the general information requirements in greater detail, listing the type of information to be provided to the consumer prior to entering into any sales or service contract. This includes: the main characteristics of the product; the price, inclusive of any taxes (or the manner in which the price is to be calculated where it is not possible to calculate this in advance); arrangements for payment and delivery; and the complaint handling policy. As the proposal makes clear, such information only needs to be provided if it is not already apparent from the context.

112.  The Directive provides that consumers need not pay additional charges they have not been informed of[30] and sets out specific rules in relation to the failure of intermediaries to disclose that they are acting for a consumer (and therefore that the contract concluded will be regarded as a contract between two consumers, falling outside the scope of the Directive)[31] and failure to provide information on the right of withdrawal.[32] Otherwise, breaches of these information requirements will be handled in accordance with the applicable national law, as detailed in Article 6(2) of the proposal.

113.  For distance and off-premises contracts, the Directive states that if the contract is entered into through a medium which allows limited space or time to display the information (such as over the telephone), the trader shall provide at least the information about the main characteristics and the total price of the product in that particular medium prior to entering into such a contract. The other information set out at Article 5 must follow in a "reasonable time" after any distance contract has been entered into.[33]

Clarity of the proposal for the consumer

114.  Many of our witnesses thought that the whole text as drafted was insufficiently clear (QQ 22, 43, pp 19, 21-2). Diana Wallis considered that the proposal would make life more complicated for consumers, while Dr Twigg-Flesner told us that "the clarity in the text from a consumer point of view is not there" (QQ 187, 20). He thought that "the consumer will need legal advice from a fairly authoritative source to actually make sense of their legal rights", a view also held by BEUC, which warned that "the Directive is not clear for lawyers, so do not even think about consumers' rights" (QQ 20, 258).

115.  The TSI thought it important that "a consumer rights directive should be readily understood by consumers … it should be straightforward enough to be understood by the people it most affects." Similarly, it was suggested by one of our witnesses that a clearer, more accessible Directive would be particularly helpful when consumers try to solve things informally with traders—a scenario which he suggested was fairly common (QQ 296, 20).

116.  Nevertheless, there was recognition from some that "the Directive is there to be interpreted by lawyers and experts". The OFT was particularly clear that it was not aiming for a directive from which the average consumer could gain an immediate understanding of their rights. Instead, it suggested that a Directive which was clear and capable of being explained to consumers should be the main goal (QQ 63, 292, 298).

General consumer information provisions

117.  The provisions in the Directive about general information for the consumer were one of the more widely supported and accepted aspects of the proposal amongst the witnesses that we heard from (QQ 28, 65, 102, 161, 205, 208, 277, 279, 299, 324, pp 57, 107). The attempt to give more structure to consumer information was welcomed, and the information included was considered to be of the kind a consumer would require to make an enlightened choice (QQ 28, 161).

118.  The clarification in the Directive that the information provided for in Article 5 would only have to be provided "if not already apparent from the context" was cited as a key point by EuroCommerce, the CBI and by BEUC, which identified it as a "safeguard clause". The example was given of a hairdresser with the prices displayed at the front door, where it would be unnecessary to tell the customer when they came in how much it would cost for a haircut as it was already apparent from the context. The CBI believed that this "gave us sufficient flexibility to deliver this [information]", though they admitted that they would have serious concerns if the statement "if not already apparent from the context" was interpreted differently and required them to give all of this information every time a transaction took place (QQ 161, 414-16, 279).

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

119.  Nevertheless, several witnesses were critical of certain aspects of the provisions. These included: that consumers might be overloaded by information; that there was a lack of guidance for traders about how best to arrange the information; the possible deterrent to traders of information duties and the consequences of not providing information; the provision for breaches of these requirements to be dealt with by the Member State concerned; insufficient clarity in Article 5 (1)(b) to ensure third party trader information would be given immediately to the consumer; and the potential implications of the proposal for foodstuffs and medicines, labelling of which is covered in other existing legislation (QQ 28, 29, 65, 299, pp 2-3, 97, 184-85).

120.  One widely shared criticism was the apparent lack of guidance for the trader about how best to arrange information for the consumer (QQ 28, 65, 299, 325). The OFT stated: "It is much easier in legislation to say that this information should be given than to say how it should be given." They suggested that Member States should be encouraged or required to issue guidelines to traders as to how best to provide such information to ensure that consumers would be well-informed and not bombarded with information that they were unable to digest (Q 299). This concern was also raised by Consumer Focus, which suggested that summary boxes, as used with financial services, could be used to ensure that consumers could get the information they really needed to know quickly and easily without having it "drowned in a lot of legalese" (QQ 65-66). Another suggestion was that there could be a more coherent template across the board, possibly as an annex to the Directive, which might help traders on how to present information to consumers (Q 30). The Minister acknowledged concerns over how best to convey information to the consumer and stressed the need for common sense (Q 325).

INTERACTION WITH EXISTING DIRECTIVES

121.  A number of witnesses questioned the interaction between the information requirements in this and other Directives. EuroCommerce noted that pre-contract information requirements are dealt with in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and the BRC questioned whether there was an unnecessary duplication between the two (Q 162, p 161). Dr Twigg-Flesner agreed that the UCPD "already contains very extensive information obligations" (Q 29).

122.  BEUC highlighted an additional issue with the Services Directive: "this Directive says that its information requirements are full harmonisation but it is without prejudice to the Services Directive" and asked "how can you get out of this jungle?" It suggested that there was no clarity for consumers and that this did not represent an exercise of clarification and simplification. Consumer Focus thought that the provisions were in many ways a repetition of the provisions in the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (QQ 258, 67 see also Q 162, p 161).

INFORMATION OVERLOAD?

123.  As we have noted, a significant concern was the potential for a situation where the consumer was overloaded with information (QQ 65, 99, pp 28, 152). The TSI considered that the public just needed to know where they could get the right information when they needed it (Q 302). BEUC expressed the views of many of our witnesses when it told us of its concerns that too much information would mean that none of it could be managed by consumers. Furthermore, BEUC was adamant that informing consumers should not be an alternative to having rules to protect them (Q 277).

124.  The Minister recognised that there was a risk of overloading consumers with information, but described the general information provisions as a welcome aspect of the proposal (QQ 324-25). He also noted that the information provisions could overload businesses, and stressed that a balance had to be struck between giving the consumer the information they needed to protect themselves and the placing of requirements on businesses in terms of the information they would have to provide (Q 328).

125.  However, other witnesses were not persuaded of information overload for consumers. For the OFT, "there is no such thing as an over-informed consumer" and it stated that it believed in the consumer having as much information as possible (QQ 299-300). Even BEUC, which was concerned about the potential for overload, conceded that it was important to make the information at Article 5 available for the consumer, "even if he does not read it." (Q 277) A similar point was made by the French government, which emphasised that when a consumer is provided with information, even if they do not read that information at the time of entering into the contract, they will often need to refer to it later during the life of the contract; for example, when something goes wrong and they need to know how to get redress (QQ 102, 105). Diana Wallis acknowledged that while the information as it was presented in the Directive looked rather detailed and cumbersome, most of the provisions were things that ordinary people would want to know if something went wrong. She stated that if "the right information is given at the outset we might have a lot more happy consumers and a lot more happy enterprises" (Q 205).

Information requirements for financial services and products

126.  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) highlighted concerns that the Directive might lead to a lower level of protection being provided for off-premises sales of financial services.[34] In particular, it warned that consumers who bought face to face or at a distance would be better informed than those who bought off-premises, and suggested that it might create an incentive for providers to sell products off-premises in order to avoid more detailed information requirements (pp 173-74). (See Box 5 for definitions of distance and off-premises contracts)

127.  As an example, the FSA stated that "for mortgages sold off-premises the FSA will no longer be able to require lenders to give out the Key Facts Illustration which contains key product features and risks that we require to be given to the customer before they make a purchasing decision." Similarly, the FSA would no longer be able to require firms to give out a Key Facts Document in relation to personal pensions (pp 173-74).

128.  The ABI agreed that "In the way the Directive is framed, it could require less information for off-premises contracts to be provided to customers than is currently required by the FSA" (Q 400).

129.  When we put this issue to the Minister, he told us that he shared the concern that the Directive might reduce the level of mandatory information to consumers of financial services products and that this was an intense concern across the EU in general. He suggested that the risk was that the information would not be provided and stated that the Government were discussing this issue with the Commission. When we spoke to the Commissioner about financial services, she told us "the requirement for information on such kinds of financial services and financial contracts is the same, the principle is the same" (QQ 329-30, 226).

130.  In terms of providing a solution to the problem, the Minister stated that "we would specifically prefer that financial services were not included in the scope of the off-premises provisions that are in Chapter 3 of the Directive" (Q 329).

Conclusions and recommendations

131.  We recognise the importance of consumers' awareness of their rights and consider that a clear and comprehensible Directive is an important part of informing the consumer. However, there is an inherent tension in providing a legal text that is clear to lawyers and is also accessible to all consumers. We recognise that the transposition of the Directive into national laws will provide an opportunity to improve accessibility of the Directive. In the first instance, we consider it essential that the Directive should be sufficiently legally robust and clear for those explaining the provisions to consumers, so that they can do so accurately. We believe it would also be helpful for national authorities to produce comprehensive guidance documents for consumers on their rights.

132.  We note and support the permissive nature of the provisions on general consumer information. We agree that, where already apparent from the context, the trader should not be obliged to furnish the consumer with such information. Nevertheless, we are concerned about how that might be adjudicated should a dispute arise between the trader and consumer as to whether or not something is "apparent from the context". We recommend that clear guidelines covering this area are drawn up.

133.  We consider that attention should be paid to the need for guidance on how information should be communicated to provide certainty to businesses and to highlight key information for consumers, possibly through the use of summary boxes.

134.  We are not convinced by the argument that these provisions will overload the consumer with information, though this is conditional on information being deployed sensibly, in line with the requirements set out in Article 5. We consider it important that consumers are given this information, regardless of whether they read it at the time of purchase or not, so that they have access to it in the future, should the need arise.

135.  We are concerned about the possibility created in this Directive for a reduced level of mandatory information to be provided to consumers of financial services products. We note that this is a concern shared across the EU and warn about the potential impact of this on consumers who are sold such products off-premises. We are concerned that this could create an added incentive for businesses to sell financial products off-premises, thus multiplying the adverse effect on consumers. We recommend that financial services are excluded from this part of the Directive.


29   COM(2008) 614 Recitals 17, 60 Back

30   COM (2008) 614 Article 6(1) Back

31   COM (2008) 614 Article 7 Back

32   COM (2008) 614 Article 13 Back

33   COM(2008) 614 Article 11(3) and (4) Back

34   The FSA informed us that the information provisions would apply to mortgages, non-insurance based pensions, certain investments, banking and payment services. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009