Talk:Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005

Stodgy
Can't help feeling this is a bit 'stodgy' but could not face rewriting it myself. (The DIrective itself is worse!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esthameian (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 May 2007‎
 * It certainly is! I came here because of a mention in this BBC News story, which seemed to imply that the Directive would make a difference to the way ticket agencies charge booking fees. This Wikipedia article would hugely benefit from an introduction that was written in plain English and explained whether or not this might actually be the case. As it stands, it's so dense (even if better than the Directive itself) as to be almost useless to the casual reader. 86.135.7.198 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably responsible for most of the "stodginess" in this article although I didn't sign in for all my edits so some just list an IP address - I can admit the article's not written in encyclopedia or press- style, more academic/professional, though I mean style, not quality (!). I might be able to rewrite bits of it in plainer English but a lot of what I've dealt with is fairly technical.

You're not going to get an answer in an article like this to the question:- how does this affect how ticket agencies charge prices. The directive is very, very broad in its application and even if there's a definite answer to that question [I can't say one way or the other from memory] it's too specific for an article like this, at least unless it runs to tens of pages. If you want an answer to how the directive applies in a specific circumstance, you should ask a lawyer based on your specific facts.

Anyway the directive isn't "directly applicable" in English (including Welsh), or as far as I'm aware Scottish or Northern Irish law:- it may have some direct effects in UK legal systems, but it's not simply a question of saying "the directive gives me this right against Mr. Bloggins so that's that, I have these rights, blah blah". You'd need to wait for the implementing legislation (UK-made rules, probably still being prepared by the DTI).

MattWest 20:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to make the text slightly easier to understand, by getting rid of some of the jargon and adding more explanation. It doesn't add much to the substance of what the article says, but I've tried to translate it for non-specialists. I'm not sure that that can be done for some of the later bits of the article. Any views on how to improve it further?

MattWest 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A few links to other explanatory sites might help (BERR, Some Trading Standards sites)

One point about the maximum harmonisation - this means that some practices that are currently illegal in the UK (i.e. prosecutable) will now only be subject to civil law remedies, if that. There was some concern that exisitng enforcement powers only related to criminal matters and the BERR are supposed to be ensuring that enforcers (principally TSOs) in the UK can do things like requiring production of documents or other evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.98.210 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)