direct selling comments on the discussion paper

7/28/2019 DIRECT SELLING Comments on the Discussion Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/direct-selling-comments-on-the-discussion-paper 1/14

Contact: Emilie Barrau – [email protected]

Ref.: X/076/2007 - 11/12/07

BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation36 avenue de Tervueren, 1040 Bruxelles - +32 2 743 15 90Want to know more about BEUC? Visit www.beuc.eu

DIRECT SELLING

Comments on the discussion paperon the review of Directive 85/577/EEC



2


Summary

As a preliminary remark, we regret that the European Commission has not

produced an implementation report of Directive 85/577/EEC. While this has beenpartly compensated by the EC Consumer Law Compendium, the focus of thecomparative study has been to demonstrate the different ways of implementation

in the Member States. It has not provided evidence that different nationalprovisions on direct selling are an obstacle to trade, undermine consumer

confidence in the Internal Market or affect the well-functioning of the InternalMarket in other ways. This however is in our view a prerequisite to establish asound policy on the level of harmonisation needed.

Notwithstanding our concerns on full harmonisation or mutual recognition in thissector, we welcome the initiative to revise the current Directive which urgentlyneeds to be updated.

The biggest problems consumers are facing in direct selling situations are on theone hand, pressure sales techniques and pyramid schemes - both are now dealt

with under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive - and, on the other hand,

several contractual issues such as the exercise of the withdrawal right, theinfringement of consumers’ right of cancellation or the lack of duties of information

on the trader, remain and still need to be addressed.

We believe the revision of the Directive should include the following considerations:- The extension of the scope of the Directive to:

o both unsolicited and solicited visits – irrelevant of whether the goods andservices have a direct connection or have been specifically required;

o all contracts concluded in public (or private) places outside normalbusiness premises; and to

o contracts negotiated outside business premises but finally concluded in a

shop or via means of distance communication; including contractsconcluded on trader’s premises if consumers were targeted at home andhave been allured there;

- The removal of the minimum threshold of 60€;

- The introduction of a ban on payments and other types of consideration duringthe cooling-off period;

- The prohibition of the supply of services before the end of the cooling-off

period;- The introduction of restrictions on the hours during which direct sellers can visit

a consumer’s home;- The improvement of the written notice of right of cancellation. Measures should

inter alia include: a clearer display of the cancellation right in the contract; aclear statement when such right does not exist and appropriate and effectivesanctions in case of breach;

- Upgrade the doorstep selling directive to the standards of the distance sellingdirective in terms of contractual information and contractual obligations;

-No time limit when the seller has failed to provide the information on the rightof withdrawal;

- Member States should be able to retain national exemptions to better meet thespecificities of their national market;

- The Doorstep Selling Directive should apply in so far as its protective provisionsare not covered by the specific legislation applicable to timeshare;

- License requirement/certification scheme for direct sellers should be considered.



3


General remark

The discussion paper is part of the revision of the consumer law acquis. Since thepublication of the Green Paper earlier this year the European Commission hasconcentrated on a new approach in consumer policy, i.e. full harmonisation. Yet,

the European Parliament voted for a mutual recognition principle in sectoral

directives to be applied1.

The mutual recognition principle has been developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the background of free movement of products and services.Nevertheless it must be said that the Court never ruled on contractualarrangements. Products and services legally marketed in another Member State

have to be therefore recognised in the home country - but not necessarily therespective selling arrangements.

Yet, the consumer law acquis mainly deals with selling arrangements. Extendingthe ECJ jurisprudence to contractual arrangements without further analysis wouldbe the worst solution for European consumer protection. In practice, it would notdiffer from the country of origin principle, which the trader could apply if he so

wishes. This would clearly undermine consumer confidence in the Internal Marketand thus be contrary to the intention of the revision of the acquis. Mutualrecognition in the above mentioned constellation MUST be rejected under allcircumstances.

The European Commission has asserted that most Member States did go beyondthe minimum requirements of the directive at hand (Article 8) often in differentareas. This seems to prove that Member States have different necessities andtraditions to extend consumer protection rules. Yet, maximum harmonisation may

not be the right solution per se In contrast, harmonisation should be naturallyachieved through a high level of consumer protection. “Targeted” full harmonisationwould only be acceptable for consumers in specific cases and under conditions thatwe have outlined in our main response to the Green Paper2.

Definitions (Article 2)

Question 1: Do you think that specific issues should be addressed in relation to thecurrent definitions of “consumer” and “trader” in the field regulated by Directive85/577/EEC? If so, please specify which ones. Please note that the general issue of

defining "consumer" and "trader" is being considered in the Green Paper on thereview of the acquis. Therefore only issues specific to doorstep selling are relevant to this consultation.

Please refer to BEUC answer to the Green Paper regarding our views on the generaldefinitions of consumer and trader3.

1 European Parliament report regarding the Green Paper on the revision of the consumeracquis, A6-0281/2007

2 BEUC/X/30/2007, 21/05/2007 - Mapping the future of Europe’s consumers…, Commentson the Green Paper “Review of the Consumer Acquis” (COM (2006) 744 final)

3 BEUC/X/30/2007, 21/05/2007 - Mapping the future of Europe’s consumers…, Commentson the Green Paper “Review of the Consumer Acquis” (COM (2006) 744 final)



4


Yet, direct selling raises particular concerns:

o Charities

First, it has been ambiguous whether a non-profit organisation can also beregarded as a “trader”. In the UK, in 2006, 14% of doorstep visits were made by

charities4. Here, the doorstep selling situation raises particular pressure. The new

directive should thus make it clear that charities are considered as traders in thecontext of this directive.

o Consumer-Trader

Second, it has been debated whether a natural person in a mixed purpose case

(sometimes called the ‘consumer-trader’) falls under the definition of “consumer” or “trader” or whether a new definition should be introduced.

We believe that the professional should be defined as a natural or a legal personwho acts for purposes which fall primarily within his/her trade, business or

profession. In case of mixed activities (partly outside and partly in the context of aprofessional activity) the special protection to the other party should apply as soon

as the professional activity is not negligible. The fact that the person is acting in thecontext of his/her professional activity, even though only in part, should be enoughto protect the other party.

Therefore, when an individual sells products to another individual and does so inhis/her professional capacity, i.e. as the representative of a brand, then, it fallsunder the definition of trader and should be treated as such.

o Third parties/Agents

Particular concerns appeared in cases where agents or independent brokers wereinvolved. In those cases, it was difficult to establish the legal attribution of thedoorstep selling situation to the trader (bank credit). We therefore welcome the

jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Crailsheimer Volksbank EG case5 and call for its codification. On the basis of this decision, it should befurther clarified that the directive would also apply to an independent third party

(broker) that sells products or supplies services of the trader.

Question 2: Are any other notions in need of definition?

N/A

4 Which?; ‘Energy companies are cold calling kings: Utilities companies are the worstoffenders’, House & Home, 02 March 2006

5 C-229/04 - The ECJ stated that where “a third party intervenes in the name of or onbehalf of a trader in the negotiation or conclusion of a contract, the application of theDirective cannot be made subject to the condition that the trader was or should havebeen aware that the contract was concluded in a doorstep-selling situation as referred toin Article 1 of the Directive”.



5


Scope of application (Art. 1 & Art. 3(1) and 3(3))

Situations in which direct sales arise (Article 1)

Question 3: Are the doorstep situations which are listed at Article 1 of the Directivestill up to date? Do they need to be amended, expanded, repealed and/or

harmonised in any way to reflect new market realities? Please explain how and on

which aspects.

Several Member States (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece;Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Poland) have extended the scope of application of thedirective to encompass other situations such as contracts concluded in publicplaces, transport, contracts concluded at fairs and exhibitions, contracts concluded

on trader’s premises if the consumer has been allured there …6.

o Public places/ trade shows

Today, some of the contracts concluded outside business premises are not caughtby the Directive (e.g. after a consumer has been approached on the street; tradeshows…). In particular trade shows compare to a direct selling situation where the

consumer is deprived from possibilities to compare products and the vendor acts inthe only interest of the one product. Negotiations in a non commercial environmentmay be a disadvantage for the consumer as he/she may be less aware of thecommercial action. We therefore believe that the scope should be extended to

cover all contracts concluded in public (or private) places outside normalbusiness premises. In all these situations, the goal of the directive applies in acomparable manner and the protection should therefore be extended.

o Home Parties

Similarly, we believe that even if most consumers who participate in home partieswould know about the commercial purpose, the situation generates a strongpressure from their peers in addition to the usual pressure from the seller and thus

requires adequate consumer protection.

o Consumer's place of work

In the current directive, the consumer benefits from the same protection at his/herwork place as the surprise element is comparable to home situations. Oftenhowever, work colleagues can act as traders but are not ‘visiting’ as such as they

are already present on the premises. We would thus advocate clarifying that a ‘visit’ of the trader is not a condition to make the provision applicable.

o Relation to distance selling

Furthermore, today there is a legislative gap as contracts concluded afterwards bymeans of distance communication are neither covered by the Doorstep Selling

Directive nor by the Distance Selling Directive. In addition, often today a companywould use both means of communication.

6 EU Consumer Law Compendium, April 2007.



6


For that reason, the scope should also be extended to cover contracts negotiatedoutside business premises but finally concluded in a shop or via means of distance communication. It would also cover contracts concluded on trader’spremises if consumers were targeted at home and have been allured there (e.g.

letter asking him/her to collect a good at the traders’ premises).

Also, as discussed below, we think that cases where a trader makes a visit

solicited by the consumer should also be covered under the scope of thisDirective.

Question 4: Have you encountered any problems with the application of Article 1? If so, which problems have you encountered and how do you feel these could besolved?

The drafting of Article 1 has created some problems of interpretation andapplication.

o

“Express request” (Art.1.1 (ii)) / Goods or services other than thoserequested by the consumers (Art.1.2)

The exclusion of solicited visits made at the “express request” of the consumer is

ambiguous. Even though it has been for example clarified that a consumeraccepting a visit after cold-calling was not considered as an “express request”, inpractice, it has been very difficult to prove.

Likewise, the case where a consumer has requested a visit from the trader for

specific goods, but he/she buys goods other than those he/she has requested, hasbeen very difficult to assess.

As regards these first two issues, the only way to solve the problems is for both

unsolicited and solicited visits – whether or not the goods and serviceshave been specifically required - to be covered by the directive

o The expression “during an excursion organised by the trader” has beendifficult to interpret.

The definition of “excursion” given by the ECJ in the Travel Vac case (C-423/97)

may be too limited. The ECJ defines excursion as “a contract concluded in a townother than the one in which the consumer lives and at a certain distance from it,such that he has had to undertake a journey to reach that town”. An excursion

does not necessarily have to take place in another town. For instance, a trader caninvite the consumer to come to the remote industrial zone of the same city; itshould also be considered as an excursion.

Additionally, a problem has arisen in cases where the trader is not – as such - theorganiser. For instance, in Germany, consumers are invited to join leisureexcursions at a very low price but end-up attending for hours direct sellingdemonstrations (“Freizeitveranstaltung”). With the current drafting, the consumerneeds to demonstrate that the trader is not independent from the organiser –

which may result very difficult to achieve. We would prefer the following drafting “during an excursion organised to the benefit of the trader” i.e. when the trader has

an interest in having consumers brought to his premises.



7


Regulatory options restricting the scope of the Directive (Articles 3(1) and3(3))

o Restrictions on the basis of the value of the contract (Article 3(1))

Question 5: Should the regulatory option at Article 3(1) which allows Member States to exclude contracts of a value of less than 60 euros be modified and/or

harmonised further? Please explain why and how.

The minimum threshold should be removed totally. Many Member Stateshave either set aside the possibility to apply a threshold, in particular the new

Member States, or lowered the threshold considerably. Some have additionallyrequested that the threshold only applies in case of immediate payment by theconsumer. Harmonisation and simplification can thus best be achieved through the

abolishment of a threshold altogether.

Moreover, the minimum threshold can easily work as an incentive for direct sellersto circumvent withdrawal rights by offering products or services for less than the

minimum threshold or to split an offer into several offers to remain under thethreshold (especially for some services where it is hard to determine what the(total) price of the contract is – e.g. subscription to a magazine).

By no means does a buying power comparison between 1985 and 2007 suggestincreasing the threshold. Some of the new Member States’ buying power is lowerthan that of the old Member States in 19857. In Germany in 1988, the per capitanet income was 696 marks a month8 while in Romania the net income today is 860new leu (i.e. 251.98 euros) per month9. The gap is striking.

Question 6: Is the current threshold adequate taking into account the present reality of the direct selling market?

With regards to the answer to the previous question, we accordingly believe thatthe 60 euros limit ought to be deleted. Should it otherwise be kept, we urge the

European Commission to remain to minimum harmonisation. Transparency could beeasily achieved through information on different thresholds on a Commission’swebsite for example.

7 Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg , the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, theUnited Kingdom and Greece

8 “The average net household income of blue- and white-collar workers rose 30.6 percentafter 1980, totaling 1,946 marks per month in 1988. Per capita net income was 696marks a month (1988)”.http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/State_GDR_Economy.pdf

9 From the Federation of European Employers www.fedee.com – figures of September2007.



8


o Derogation from Article 1(2) on solicited visits (Article 3(3))

Question 7: Should the regulatory option at Article 3(3) which allows Member States to derogate from the provisions on solicited visits at Article 1(2) be modified and/or harmonised further across the EU? Please explain why and how.

The drafting of Articles 3.3 has led to difficulties as regards its implementation. In

addition, the interpretation of “direct connection” is difficult.

We believe that the exception in Article 3.3 is not justified, lacks legalcertainty and thus should be deleted.

Question 8: What is your practical experience of the application of the exclusion (or

where applicable the inclusion) of solicited visits from the scope of the Directive and in order to improve legal certainty and consumer protection, should the Directivebe extended to all solicited visits?

The reason for the existing protection is that unsolicited visits may catch consumersoff guards and thus they would be more vulnerable to pressure selling techniques.However, a OFT study on doorstep selling and cold calling10 demonstrates that suchtechniques can have the same effect in both solicited and unsolicited situations.

The fact that solicited visit can be exempted from a right to cancel has led to somepeculiar situations. For instance, in Belgium, consumers had no right of withdrawalfrom broker services regarding immovable property when the conclusion of thecontract was preceded by a prior request of the consumer11.

Consumers are as likely to regret a purchase made from a solicited visit as from anunsolicited one. Moreover, the distinction between solicited and unsolicited visits,such as the question whether a second visit by a trader should be considered as an

unsolicited visit, raises legal uncertainties.

Consequently, we ask for both unsolicited and solicited visits – whether the

goods and services have a direct connection or not - to be covered by thedirective. This regulatory decision will simplify the law and bring more legalcertainty to business, consumers and enforcement authorities (especially in termsof the application of the right of withdrawal) and increase the confidence of

consumers when engaging in direct selling. In addition, only one contract for bothsolicited and unsolicited visits would need to be established by businesses. Somecompanies and industry code of conduct12 already offer cancellation rights for

solicited visits. We do not believe that this would substantially raise the level of cancellation13.

10 OFT report on doorstep selling and cold calling, September 2006.11 EU Consumer Law Compendium, April 2007.12 See for instance FEDSA code of conduct towards consumers - www.fedsa.be 13 For instance, “In the case of double-glazing (which accounts for the majority value of

doorstep sales), information from stakeholders suggests that around 4% of unsoliciteddoorstep sales currently result in cancellation (this figure is quite variable, and oftencancellation can result due to failure to qualify for credit facilities). The extension of thisright to solicited visits might be expected to result in a similar or lower percentage of cancellations. In addition, many companies in this area already offer cancellation rights



9


Specific exemptions (Article 3(2))

Member States have made an extensive use of the regulatory option to better meetthe specificities of their national market. We believe that Member Stats should

retain this right. Nonetheless, the following exceptions should be given particular

consideration:

o Utilities companies

Numerous complaints were received in the energy sector in the UK. In 2004, gasand electricity sales account for 53% of doorstep sales14. Similarly, in 2006, utility

companies accounted for nearly a fifth of uninvited doorstep sales visits – that ismore than any other industry15. When reviewing the Directive, specific attentionshould be given to utilities services contracted in a direct selling situation.

o Credit agreements

Credit agreements concluded outside business premises have raised several issues.

The main criticisms focus on the cost of credit/persistently high prices that reflectan absence of effective competition16. We believe a total ban on credit agreementsin direct selling situations is needed. Credit agreements should be covered by thespecific provisions of the Credit Directive (in particular with regard to the obligation

to pay interest rates after cancellation). However, the legislative process for therevision of the Directive being still on-going, BEUC reserves the right to amend itsposition at a later stage.

In any case, as we have already mentioned on several occasions, and against what

the ECJ held in Schulte17 and Crailsheimer 18 judgments, it should be clearly set outthat withdrawal from one contract automatically implies that the consumer is alsono longer bound by any other contract that form an economic unit with the contractthe consumer withdrew from (bundled contracts).

Immovable property contracts - Article 3(2)(a)

Question 9: Do the current exemptions need to be modified in the light of new market developments or interpretation problems? Please explain.

N/A

on solicited visits, so for them there would be no additional costs, further limiting the

impact on them of this measure.” – OFT report on doorstep selling and cold calling,September 2006.

14 OFT report on doorstep selling, 2004.15 Which?, Energy companies are cold calling kings, Utilities companies are the worst

offenders, News: House & home | 02 March 2006.16 NCC home credit report, June 2004.17 C-350/03.18 C-229/04.



10


Question 10: Does the interaction of this Directive with the Timeshare Directiveneed to be clarified further?

Following the European Court of Justice’s decision in the Travel Vac case19, it is

clear that the interaction between the present Directive and the Timeshare

Directive needs to be more closely examined.

We believe that if a timeshare contract is concluded outside business premises, the Directive at stake should apply in so far as its protective provisions are notcovered by the specific legislation applicable to timeshare.

Written notice of right of cancellation - Article 4

Question 11: Can Article 4 be improved, in particular with respect to the modalitiesfor providing notice? If so, how?

Consumers generally have a very low appreciation that they have additional rights

when purchasing in home or from the doorstep, with just 6 per cent correctlyidentifying this to be the case20. In addition, written contracts do not seem to be apractice widespread in direct selling. This often leads to vagueness and/orconfusion about the price, delivery, right of withdrawal, cooling off period and/or

other consumer rights.

We believe that Article 4 could be improved by including the following measures:

o More prominent display of cancellation right

Prominent display of the cancellation modalities would help increasing consumers’ awareness about their rights and empower them in relation with the direct seller.The right of cancellation should be clearly displayed in the contract (same size

print). A model form of cancellation should be given to the consumer. He/she would just need to sign it and send it to the trader. For instance, in France and theNetherlands, the law requires a mandatory cancellation detachable form with the

address of the trader to be attached to the contract – which has proven verysuccessful.

o Clearly state when there is no cancellation right

It should be clearly stated how cancellation right can be exercised and how suchright may be lost. If no cancellation right exists, it should be clearly stated orally

and in writing to the consumer.

o Need appropriate and effective sanctions in case of breach

19 Case C-423/97 - The ECJ stated that the directive “applies to a contract relating to theacquisition of a right to use immoveable property on a time-share basis and to theprovision of services whose value is higher than that of the right to use the immoveableproperty”.

20 OFT doorstep selling report, May 2004 – Annex K ‘Consumers' knowledge of their rightswhen buying at the doorstep or in the home’.



11


Please refer to our answer to the Green Paper as regards our views on the failure tocomply with information requirements in the consumer acquis21.

When the seller has failed to provide the information on the right of withdrawal, the

cooling-off period should commence when that information has been provided. A

time limit is not a good solution because the seller may take advantage holdingback information during this period. We support the Heininger judgment22 that

prohibits the imposition by national laws of a time limit within which the right of cancellation can be exercised, where the consumer has not received theinformation about his/her right to cancel the contract.

o “Durable medium”

As regards the issue of the definition of “durable medium”, we would ask you to

refer to our answer to the Distance Selling consultation23.

Right of withdrawal - Article 5

Question 12: Do the rules concerning the exercise of the right of withdrawal and itsconsequences need to be clarified in the field of doorstep selling; if so whichaspect(s) should be treated differently from the field of distance selling and why?

Please refer to BEUC answer to the Green Paper regarding our general views on theright of withdrawal24.

Nevertheless, in a direct selling situation, it seems appropriate to distinguish

between the delivery of goods and supply of services.

o Delivery of goods

In a direct selling situation, the cooling-off period should start from thereceipt of the goods – to give the possibility to the consumers to examine them(same as in a distance selling situation). In addition, it can turn out that the

product presented is not the product the consumer thinks he is buying.

As regards “home parties”, we propose that the organiser is considered as thetrader. Thus, the cooling -off period would start when the consumer receives the

goods from the organiser – not when the goods are given to the organiser by thesupplier.

21 BEUC/X/030/2007, Mapping the future of Europe’s consumers…22 ECJ Case C-481/9923 BEUC/X/085/2006, BEUC’s comments on Distance Selling Consultation.

The term “durable medium” […] should be specified in the sense of it being a mediumappropriate as a means of proof recognised under procedural law. It would be useful tolook at the definition included in directive 2002/65 (distance marketing of financialservices) […].

24 BEUC/X/30/2007, 21/05/2007 - Mapping the future of Europe’s consumers…, Commentson the Green Paper “Review of the Consumer Acquis” (COM (2006) 744 final).



12


o Supply of services

The supply of services (e.g. work being carried out) before the end of thecooling-off period should be prohibited. It would avoid difficult situations like inthe UK where consumers have to pay the costs of removing the works – which

could prevent consumers from exercising their rights (lock-in).

That being said, the main problem across Europe is that cooling-off periods simplyare not respected. Measures, such as those listed below, should be taken to ensurethat consumers are not deprived of their right to withdraw from the contract: Any payment before the end of the cooling-off period should be

prohibited (like in Belgium and France for instance). In addition, it would alsosolve the difficult issue of reimbursement.

The exercise of the right of withdrawal should involve no costs for the

consumer25.

Interaction with other consumer protection legislation

Question 13: Does the interaction of this Directive with the Distance SellingDirective need to be clarified further?

Please refer to our answer to question 3 above.

Question 14: Is there scope for further harmonisation of this Directive with theDistance Selling Directive?

Some Member States, such as Sweden, have chosen to transpose the twoDirectives in a single piece of legislation due to their common features. Thecomparability of marketing practices and consumers’ interest in these situations

point to the need to adapt the Doorstep Selling Directive to the standards of theDistance Selling Directive. The information requirements as well as therequirements to provide a written confirmation seem to be basic needs, which the

Doorstep Selling Directive is missing so far.

o Contractual information

The following information should be given in writing to the consumer:- The identity of the direct seller/company, its address, its email address and

website when relevant;- the main characteristics of the goods or services;- the total price of the goods or services including all taxes, fees and charges;- delivery costs, where appropriate;- the arrangements for payment, delivery or performance;

- the existence or not of a right of withdrawal; and

- the guarantees and existence of after-sales services, when relevant.

25 In Hungary, some traders restrict the right to cancel the contracts by stipulating a 20-30% cancellation penalty fee.



13


o Time limit to perform the contract

It should be stated that the contract should be performed within 30 days.

o Reimbursement

Whenever relevant, the reimbursement should be made within maximum 30 days.

o Effective redress

The trader should inform the consumer of any Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

mechanisms available in case of disputes. In case where a code of conduct exists,such code should be made known to the consumer.

Time restrictions on doorstep selling

Question 15: Do you feel necessary to introduce at European level restrictions on

the hours during which direct sellers can make visits to a consumer's home?

The UCP Directive expressly mentioned in Article 9.a. that when determiningwhether a commercial practice is aggressive, one should consider “its timing,

location, nature or persistence”. Nevertheless, we believe that the introduction of restrictions on the hours during which direct sellers can visit a consumer’s homeis a commendable initiative – especially in late evening or early morning hours -and we would support its introduction into European legislation.

Ban on payments during the cooling off period

Question 16: Do you think that the introduction in Belgium and France of

restrictions or bans on payments (and other types of consideration) during thecooling off period was necessary for consumer protection and has been workablefor traders? Do you think that similar restrictions or bans on advance payments

should be or should not be introduced at European level? Why?

Further to our answer to question 12 above, the cooling-off period is the mostimportant feature of consumer protection in this directive. For consumers to be in a

better position to terminate the contract – not having to worry about how to gettheir money back - and to ensure a strict enforcement of their withdrawal right, wesupport the introduction of a ban on payments and other types of

consideration during the cooling-off period. In addition, it would solve thedifficult issue of obtaining reimbursement from traders.

Other issues

Question 17: Is/are there any other issue(s) or area(s) that requires to be explored further or addressed at EU level in the context of the doorstep selling Directive?



14


o License requirement /certification scheme for direct sellers

In some countries, like Malta, if the direct seller does not have a license, theconsumer can denounce the contract. We believe that a licenserequirement/certification scheme for direct sellers should be considered as it would

both strengthen consumer confidence and help to get rid of rogue traders.

END

direct selling comments on the discussion paper

Documents