§ [Nos. 189 to 194.]
§ Clause 162, page 82, line 30, leave out 'they shall' and insert 'it shall, as between the authority and the Director, be the duty of the authority to'.
§ Clause 163, page 85, line 12, leave out 'authorities' and insert 'authorises'.
§ Clause 172, page 88, line 1, after '(1)', insert:
§ 'If an agreement contains a term signifying that in the opinion of the parties section 10(3)(b)(iii) does not apply to the agreement, it shall be taken not to apply unless the con-tary is proved. (1A)'.
1907§ line 18, at end insert—
§ '(3A) In proceedings under section 50(1) in respect of a document received by a minor at any school or other educational establishment for minors, it is for the person sending it to him at that establishment to prove that he did not know or suspect it to be such an establishment'.
§ Clause 173, page 88, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
§ '(2) Where a trader—
- (a) gives a customer a notice in compliance with section 104(1)(b), or
- (b) gives a customer a notice under section 104(1) asserting that the customer is not indebted to him under an agreement,
§ the notice is binding on the trader'.
§ Clause 173, page 88,line 40, leave out from 'court' to end of line 3 on page 89 and insert 'may direct such relief (if any) to be given to the creditor or owner from the operation of subsection (1) or (2) as appears to the court to be just'.
§ LORD JACQUESMy Lords, Part XI of the Bill is concerned with enforcement and there are two Amendments which call for comment. First, one of the factors determining whether an agreement for running-account credit is covered by the Bill is whether it is probable that the debit balance will not rise above £5,000. However, an unscrupulous debtor might enter an agreement on the understanding that his overdraft would exceed £5,000 and then draw a lesser amount and claim the protection of the Bill. To meet anxiety about this possibility while continuing to protect the consumer, Amendment No. 191 to Clause 172 places on the person claiming the contrary the onus of proving that Clause 10(3)(b)(iii) does apply, despite a term in the agreement saying that in the opinion of the parties it does not apply.
Amendment 194 to Clause 173(3) meets the criticism levelled at the concept of a notional prosecution by providing instead that the court should have discretion to decide the extent to which a creditor or owner may be relieved from being bound by a statement that has been shown to be wrong; for example, a statement saying that the debtor was £2,000 in credit when, in fact, he was only £20 in credit. This point waft originally criticised in this House. I do not think I need detain the House on any of the other Amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 194.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Jacques.)