But that is the right to a refund. All we are saying is that that should be a right. I think that we are very close on this. You are saying that if you do not want the trader back, please negotiate for damages, which are basically your money back. We are saying that there should be a right to your money back. At that stage, either you go to court, which we do not think is appropriate because it will take a long time to get your money back and you have no washing machine for that period, or you get your money back from the trader. The only difference is that we say that it should be automatic, and the Minister is saying that you should negotiate with them. The consumer is in a very weak position at the moment; we would like to strengthen it. We may return to this. We are probably not that far apart: we both agree that in those circumstances you would not want the trader back and you would want your money back. It is really just a matter of how we could get to that point. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Consumer Rights Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 13 October 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Consumer Rights Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
756 c29GC 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-10-12 15:48:48 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-13/14101319000134
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-13/14101319000134
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-13/14101319000134