InUK law concerning doorstep selling, the definition of doorstep selling does not including touting. Doorstep selling means the sales away from business premise.
However, it regulate good or service sales contract which is made,
- during an unsolicited visit by a trader to the consumer’s home or to the home of another person; to the consumer’s place of work; or
- during an excursion organized by the trader away from premises on which he is carrying on any business.
It is not including the contract combined in the business premise.
The Specific Commercial Trading Practices Law in
Japan is applied to sales, if the contract is combined in the business premise as long as a consumer is solicited by a doorstep trader away from a business premise. The touting sales practices were defined as doorstep sales in 2004 revision of the Law. The law revision was based on the serious damages of touting, especially in the younger people.[1]
The number of inquiries to the consumer centre in 2001 was 9,697 cases, while 3,825 cases in 1995.According to the survey of the National Consumer Affairs Centre in 2001, solicited goods or services by touting were as follows:
- Cosmetics-34.5%
- Beauty salon treatments-17.0%
- Accessories-7.8%
- Facial equipment using supersonic waves-6.1%
- Painting-5.6%
Actually, the breach of the law does not influence of the effect of the law. It only becomes an object of the administrative order. if a consumer is going to rescind the contract, the unfair practices described in the Consumer Contract Law: a misrepresentation, misleading and undue influence.
However, as long as an administrative order issues promptly and properly, it would bet expected to prevent the expansion of such unfair practices. Is there necessity to regulate the touting in UK?
Categories: doorstep selling · unfair trade practices
The doorstep selling for home repair services is popular in
UK, thus the OFT recommends to ban the doorstep selling if a consumer gives a prior consent. However, the DTI does not accept this recommendation.
Several local governments introduce the “No Cold Calling Zones” in a bid to protect mainly elderly residents from bogus workmen and high-pressure sales teams.[1]
It is a sheltered housing schemes, where signs will be erected warning sales people they are unwelcome and no goods will be bought. In
Japan, a similar system is introduced in several local governments. For instance,
Osaka city council started to deliver stickers to the residents, written as “I refuse to doorstep selling” since August 12, 2005.[2] Actually, the sticker would make a doorstep sellers hesitate to visit consumers. However, there is no sanction including an administrative order or criminal punishment to visit a consumer, ignoring the sticker. Therefore, there is little that can be done to stop salesmen ignoring the ban. It is also said in the
UK.The necessity of ban of cold calling to the doorstep selling is not changed even if the system is introduced.
Categories: cold calling · doorstep selling
In April 8, 2005, Japanese government issued the basic plan of consumer protection policy, based on the Consumer Basic Right Law, during 5 years. The plan obliges our government to inspect the attainment of every administrative body in each year.[1][2]
The national lifestyle panel is one of the inspection bodies. The panel issued the plan to achieve his role in June 29, 2006. [3]
Categories: consumer policy
In February 2007, the National Police Agency announced the analysis of criminal cases relating consumer transaction and business activity in 2007 fiscal year.
The figure of prosecution is 11,603 cases and 15,189 criminals:
- Illegal lending cases: 327cases, 718 criminals;
- Investment fraud: 17 cases, 73 criminals;
- Breach of the Specific Commercial Trading Act: 138 cases, 385 criminals.
Each figure is increasing except to illegal lending cases. The reason of decreasing of illegal lending cases is the enactment of new law. The law prohibits advertising by non registration business, in addition to demand against money deposit and investment law. Both activities are targeted to heavy criminal offences.[1]
Categories: enforcement
If a trader is against the Specific Commercial Trading Practices Law, he would be ordered to be suspended his business. The administrative bodies can several kind of order based on the law. The number of order has been increasing recently.[1] These orders are issued by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. In other words, only goods or services which the METI has a jurisdiction is regulated to. The law is not comprehensive or blanket. The law regulates several trading practices: doorstep selling distance selling, Phone contact sales, trading scheme, trading induced by job introduction and specific service. However, the law does not regulate the each practice comprehensively. It only targets to the specific goods or services which is designated by the METI. For instance, the doorstep selling is regulated by the law. However, if a consumer enjoy exercising the right stipulated in the law such as a cancellation right, it is necessary the goods or services are specified in the regulation under the law.
To designate goods or services to be controlled is a task of the METI. The judgment by the METI seems extremely careful considering the interest of industry. Meanwhile, the consumer detriment would increase and the consumer interest is harm.
In the discussion of the law reform, to demolish this system More important thing is the regulated goods and services are limited within the jurisdiction of the METI. Other goods or services is not controlled by any the law. If there is no ministry that has power to regulate, the questionable business would be remained out of control until the new regulation is enacted.The Consumer Contract Law prohibits the trading practices like as misleading and misrepresentation. It would be expected to cover the fracture of individual consumer protection law.
Categories: consumer policy · enforcement
The ratio of consumers who have complaints over the goods or services and would like to inquire is almost 50 %. The ratio has not been varying in past 5 years at least.
Where does a consumer inquire his complain? The report compiled by the National Consumer Affairs Centre in 2007 shows it.
Most consumers or victims tend to inquire to the shops or manufactures: 29.2% to shops and 22.8% to the makers. Only 4% of the consumers visit to the local government consumer centre. About 85% of consumers in our country know the existence and role of the consumer centre.
The complainants who inquire to the consumer groups is quire few, only 0.4%. The above result of the survey reveals that the Japanese consumer groups seldom fulfill the role of organization as a complaint resolution.[1]
On the other hand, the role of local bar associations is quite important. Most bar associations have specific consultation section regarding consumer protection, in addition to the specific committee of consumer protection. In the result of survey, the organization named as others would include the bar association.
For instance, the Osaka Bar Association prepares a consultation in free. It include the consumer affairs.[2]
The specific committees of local bar association, dealing with consumer protection, usually have close relation to the local consumer centre. The committee corporate with the consumer consultants and give an advice to resolve consumer disputes in usual. In the complicated case that the consumer centre can not deal with, the consultant of the centre recommend the bar association or individual lawyer who can deal with.
Categories: redress
In March 16, 2007, the FSA confirmed the illegal activity of the Credit Suisse
Japan, therefore the agency demanded the company to prevent unlawful business and keep compliance. According to the FSA, an employee of the Hong Kong branch of the major Swiss financial group went on business trips to
Japan and engaged in soliciting deposits for the branch in 2003. There are some acts to prohibit the business related to get deposit on business in Japan.1. Nobody can operates a business to accept deposit without a license, promising a depositor to pay interest. It is stipulated by sec. 2 of the Lending, Depositing and Interest Rate Restriction Law (amending in 2006), adding sec. 4 of the Banking Act.
I suppose it is primary understanding as a banker that it is necessary to prepare the license prior to operate the banking business even if in a short trip. [1]
Categories: financial services
Foreign exchange margin trading has been massively increasing in
Japan. The outstanding of margin was about ₤1575, 000,000 in the end of March 2006, and would be estimated about ₤2782, 500,000 in the end of March 2007. The gross number of accounts would be 660,000. The reason of increasing can be sleeked to the lower deposit interest rate. It is only 0.4% apr in average.
The trading had been permitted in April 1998 accompanied by revised the Foreign Exchange Law. Subsequently, many rogue traders got involved in the market, because there was no restriction to take part in the trading.
In 2000, the number of inquiries to the consumer centre was only 28 cases; however the number increased to 724 cases in 2002. Many consumers were cheated and took huge loss by the trading.[1]
In 2005, the law was revised, introduced opt-in rule to the trading, therefore the traders were banned to solicit the consumers except the consumers’ prior consent.[2]
As a result, rogue traders faced difficulty to continue their business, transferred to the business such as a foreign commodity futures trading or foreign option trading. Therefore, the traders operating now are almost big brokerage companies. But their business practices are not honestly. It is apparently indicated by the huge number of litigations and court rulings. [3]
Categories: financial services · other investment
In March 1 2007, the finance Services Agency published the states of damages caused by unauthorized money drawing in 2006 fiscal year: used by forged card and bank passbook, stolen card and unauthorized accessing to internet banking.[1][2]
Categories: financial services
It is estimated that there are over 2.29 million debtors who borrow money from more than 5 lenders.
In fiscal 2005, the Consumer Affairs Centre, an independent administrative agency, dealt with 63,128 cases of multiple debts–triple the figure of five years ago.[1]
According to a 2006 report of the Centre, the estimated 2 million debtors overall are struggling under the yoke of paralyzing debt.
Although a figure of personal bankruptcies registered 240,000 in 2003, thereafter the figure has been reducing and the figure was 180,000 in 2004.[2]
Categories: loan · over-indebtedness
