Would a requirement that consumers continue to make payments while the case is being resolved present a barrier to significant numbers of consumers obtaining redress through ADR?
20. As noted in the consultation paper there are arguments on both sides. Asking consumers to continue to make payments in a case that may ultimately be determined in their favour could seem harsh. On the other hand allowing them automatic grace could potentially encourage unmerited complaints by those in hardship, could be unfair to lenders and may be distressing to consumers whose arrears build up as repayments are not being met. We therefore suggest that the ADR is set up to deal with complaints promptly and efficiently. Lenders should not be able to prolong procedures unnecessarily. Where the consumer is in obvious distress the ADR should be able to fast track a sufficiently serious complaint. Q5 Should the fact that a case is being handled by the ADR body preclude either party from bringing court action 21. No. It should always be open for a consumer or business to take legal action in the courts. It should however be at the court’s discretion on a case by case basis whether the p
Related Questions
- can the ombudsman make a business apply a decision on an individual case to all other consumers in the same position?
- Doesn the bill eliminate the requirement for seized animals to be held in custody until the case is resolved?
- Does the ability to write-off equipment leases payments continue under the present tax code?
