I do agree the law has moved forward with the 2015 CRA. However as with so many bits of legislation and standards, they represent the minimum performance that needs to be attained, and they don't always cover every possible scenario.
For example the CRA sets out many points which should be referenced or reflected in the retailers consumer contracts of sale T&C's. But look at almost any set of T&C's and there far more wording and clauses than the CRA would require as its minimum.
So what are all these other T&C's for? Apart from justifying the legal teams charges to retailer for producing the document, they must be there to limit the retailers liability. That does not mean they're deliberately intending to defraud the consumer, but through their verbosity they can certainly intimidate and perhaps cloud the consumers perception on how to access or use their lawful rites.
But also becasue they are often overtly verbose, and the fact there is no standardisation of the wording, having different legal teams input into their construction it could be that certain wording in some T&C's is inappropriate - probably though a mistake, but it could also be a deliberate attempt to deflect a consumer of their rites by a less than scrupulous trader.
Because some of these issues may not be covered by the CRA, the consumer could not use the CRA to challenge them, in which case it might need the use of the Unfair contracts process.
Please remember I did suggest it would be rare.
Facebook
Twitter