Dieselgate lies...

Car weekly Autoexpress reports that Volkswagen Audi Group have been on the receiving end of an ear-bashing from EU officials for refusing to pay compensation to 'dieselgate' owners in the EU.

  "... members of the European Commission have struck out at the German carmaker, demanding it to pay equal compensation to affected owners outside the US. 

European Commission commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska said: "Volkswagen should voluntarily pay European car owners compensation that is comparable with that which they will pay US consumers with. Treating consumers in Europe differently than US consumers is no way to win back trust."

 Speaking before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Paul Willis, Managing Director of Volkswagen Group UK, said: “To pay compensation there has to be a loss, and at this stage I see no reason for there to be a loss. Our engineers tell us there will be no difference in fuel consumption or driveability. “So the only other area is on the question of residual values. I, at the moment, have seen no clear evidence of adverse impact on residual values. So when I say that there is no loss, then there is also no need for compensation.” 

 Yet VW may not be off the hook completely. The UK Government has stated that if evidence of consumers suffering from falling residual values or vehicle performance emerges, VW would be liable to compensate owners. 

 Transport spokesman Viscount Younger of Leckie said: "The Competition and Markets Authority has not opened a formal investigation but is continuing to assess whether there is evidence of consumer harm."

Now there isn't really a legal mechanism for the governments of the EU of the UK to secure compensation for groups of consumers. Legally speaking, it is generally up to consumers themselves to sue VAG, either themselves or in a class action, so why are the government not pointing this out?

 As for the question of 'loss', it is true that for some legal remedies do require the plaintiff / pursuer to evidence their loss. In the UK however, there is a little known remedy that allows consumers to be awarded punitive damages where the trader has induced them to contract by a 'misleading action'.

 The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 insert Regulation 27J into the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - (official guidance here).  This provides for "the right to a discount". To cut a long story short, a court can award the affected consumer a discount of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%. The most relevant provisions read as follows:

 (4) Subject to paragraph (6), the relevant percentage is as follows— 

(a)if the prohibited practice is more than minor, it is 25%, 
(b)if the prohibited practice is significant, it is 50%, 
(c)if the prohibited practice is serious, it is 75%, and 
(d)if the prohibited practice is very serious, it is 100%. 

(5) The seriousness of the prohibited practice is to be assessed by reference to— 

(a)the behaviour of the person who engaged in the practice, 
(b)the impact of the practice on the consumer, and 
(c)the time that has elapsed since the prohibited practice took place.

While there is much within the Regulations for m'learned friends to debate, most folk would agree VAG's behaviour has been utterly reprehensible let alone 'more than minor'.  But Regulation 27J(5)(c) may well explain why the government is not very keen to point this remedy out to consumers. After all, we wouldn't want a major German company to actually go bankrupt would we?

Not Often I Agree With Trade Unions, But...

From the Telegraph

Union bosses are to be stopped from holding “rolling” strikes and will only be able to stage walkouts with the support of 50 per cent of the workforce, under Conservative plans.

The Tories will legislate to ban rolling mandates, with a law that a strike must take place within three months of any ballot.

There will also be a legal requirement for a 50 per cent turnout threshold for any strike ballot to be lawful, ministers said.

I don't much like trade unions. I think they're antiquated organisations that came about in a time of limited mobility and our greater mobility has rendered them generally pointless. But I think people have a right to strike and to withdraw their Labour if they're reasonable about it.

And I also think that part of that membership includes a certain degree of being part of things. That you're part of the democratic system, that like parliamentary elections, you'll get what you're given if you don't turn up. We don't nullify elections or parliametary votes because not enough people turned up. If you can't be bothered, you're going to be ignored.

I think most of the reforms of the 80s like laws against secondary picketing and flash strikes are reasonable in terms of balancing the rights of workers and users of their services. It's reasonable that parents have notice of a strike to make arrangements. But from both a position of rights and reducing union power, we should allow strikes to happen.

You see, I like it when public sector employees with power strike because they generally turn the public against them. The tube strikes are making the public much more open to the idea of driverless trains on the Underground network. Point out how often private school teachers go on strike to a parent who's had to take a day off, you've got someone who is more likely to think that voucher schemes are a good idea.

So, trying to stop strikes is not only morally wrong, it's also bad for winning the hearts and minds of the public to accept reform.

The Age of Consent

I've pondered this question a bit. Here's Prof John Ashton's take on it:-

Leading public health expert Prof John Ashton has called for a national debate on lowering the age of consent, claiming society is sending out "confused" signals about when sex is permitted.

Prof Ashton said: "Countries that have a more open attitude towards teenage sexuality and in fact some of the countries that have lower ages of consent - the young people get involved in sex later and they also have much lower teenage pregnancy rates."

Before I get into what is a bit grey and about opinions, let's deal with some facts: The Netherlands has the same age of consent as the UK and much lower teenage pregnancies. Switzerland has the same age of consent as the UK and much lower teenage pregnancies.

And regarding having sex later, Austrians lose their virginity slightly earlier despite having a lower age of consent.

On the age thing, here's my take:

The age of consent isn't about telling young people when sex is permitted. You aren't going to stop a 15 year old from shagging his 15 year old girlfriend if she wants it. Something like 1/3rd of people lose their virginity before they're 16, so as a deterrent it clearly doesn't work.

What the age of consent is really about is stopping girls (and let's be honest, it's generally this way around) from being taken advantage of by older men who can easily impress them and are also far more experienced at seduction. You let them get to an age of emotional maturity, they're going to make a reasonable decision.

I'm not even sure that 16 is right or whether it should be 17. I remember going out with 16 year olds when I was that age, and that when I went out with 17 year olds they seemed to be considerably more mature, more likely to have cast off the age of listening to Duran Duran and Wham and listening to something more grown up.

We probably should also have something codified about the 17 year old who shags his 15 year old girlfriend that we really don't want to prosecute (and we don't now, but the law should be clearly stated).

Thoughts?

Forced Marriage Laws

Something you notice as you get older is that new laws appear and you think "how come we don't already have a law against this?".

Then you do a little Googling and find that actually, we already do. Or at least, there are things in other laws that allow you to achieve the same objective of the new law.

Such is the announcement of the government introducing a law that would criminalise families that forced their children into a marriage.

The law is unnecessary. A person in this country can refuse to marry in the registry office. Marriages can be annulled because of undue pressure. So, the only way to get them to marry is to take them abroad against their will to less civilised countries. At which point, we have laws against kidnapping. Or if taken to a country and told to marry and that they can't return, we have false imprisonment laws. We even have a Forced Marriage Unit that rescues people that have been forced into marriages abroad.

So, why is the government wasting a whole lot of time and money on a law that's unnecessary? The government's own explanation, of making it clear to families that forced marriage is against the law, as though a family that has to evade British law to get someone to marry hasn't worked this out. Fact is that the families know it's not legal, but have already made their mind up that the government can go to Hell and they'll do it anyway.

So, what's the law really about? What it's really about is creating a positive story for the government, something vaguely about upholding British justice, something that will make the public less likely to think that Fred Karno's Army are running the country.

In terms of outcomes, it makes no difference, as we already have all the laws we need. Arguably, we'd be better not having this law with its consultation, civil servants drafting, redrafting and so forth (all of which costs an eye-watering amount of money) and instead hiring a few more people at the Forced Marriage Unit to rescue women from forced marriages and prosecute those involved in it.

Pre-Nuptial Agreements

*** Please note I am not Mark Wadsworth ***

From The Times:

Lord Justice Thorpe said that any rule that prenuptial contracts are void seemed “to be increasingly unrealistic” and “reflects the laws and morals of earlier generations”. He added: “As a society we should be seeking to reduce and not to maintain rules of law that divide us from the majority of the member states of Europe.

You what?

Who gave you, an unelected judge the right to choose to bring about further European integration? Who gave you the right to decide that pre-nups are something we want in this country? I couldn't really care less about pre-nuptial agreements, but the law should be based on the society we want, not that of any other country and agreed by us, the people.

What happens if someone comes before this judge who has had sex with a 15 year old? Can he argue that because the majority of member states have an age of consent around that figure that he should be let off? Or what about someone who owns a handgun? Will they be let off because most of the EU allows them?

They might be venal scumbags, but the correct place for changing the law is parliament. And they might come up with some stupid laws about smoking in pubs and dangerous dogs, but parliament is still the right place to change the law.