Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008

In response to the first question, I can safely say that it would not hinder the ability of the supplier to ensure that they can get payment. The cooling-off period is therefore not related to the quality of the work which, depending on the type of work, would have its own set of regulations for settling any disputes. It would therefore have no impact. Indeed, the regulation specifies that a consumer shall be required, "““to pay in accordance with the reasonable requirements””," of the specified contractor for goods that were provided before cancellation and that were made to a customer’s specifications or had been incorporated into any contract. There is therefore no impact on the requirement on the consumer to pay. I understand that the noble Lord is also concerned that the burden should fall only on rogue traders. In fact, many businesses already voluntarily provide consumers with a cooling-off period and a cancellation right in relation to a contract made as the result of a solicited visit by a trader. Members of the Direct Selling Association, whose member companies account for 59 per cent of total direct sales, offer consumers a 14-day cooling-off period as part of their code of practice. There was some lobbying about whether the cooling-off period should be 14 days. My understanding is that, after analysing the issue, we were not persuaded that the cooling-off period should be increased because there was no quantifiable evidence to suggest that that was necessary. We also considered the point in light of the ongoing discussions in the European Commission, which will consider cooling-off periods in all the legislation that applies to consumer protection. The Commission will bring forward proposals later in the year. On Question, Motion agreed to.