Consumer Rights Bill — Schedule 2 — Unfair Consumer Contract — Double Charging — 16 Jun 2014 at 19:00
The majority of MPs voted against deeming a contract term involving double charging an unfair, and therefore non-binding, consumer contract term.
MPs were considering the Consumer Rights Bill. The amendment rejected in this vote was:
- Amendment 1, page 51, line 9, at end insert—
- “1A A term which requires a consumer to pay a charge for, or be liable for, an element of a good or service that another party has also been charged for in the course of the same transaction.”
Had the amendment been accepted the above text would have been added to the list of consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair present in the act;
The Bill sought to make unfair terms in consumer contracts not binding on the consumer while allowing the contract to continue, so far as practicable, to have effect in every other respect.
An example of a contract which would be deemed unfair under this rejected provision was provided during debate by Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour):
- if the estate agent applies a fee to both the buyer and the seller of a property on the same transaction.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Consumer Rights Bill
-  Schedule 2 of the Bill as introduced titled Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair
-  Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour), House of Commons, 16 June 2014
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||230 (+1 tell)||0||0||75.7%|
|Lab||0||198 (+2 tell)||0||77.5%|
|LDem||42 (+1 tell)||0||0||76.8%|