asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware of the great public anxiety in relation to the operation of hire purchase agreements having particular regard to the small print conditions which seem to be heavily loaded in favour of suppliers; and whether he will take the necessary steps to require hire purchase firms to alter their agreements so that the consumer is afforded more protection.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Hire Purchase Agreements.
106.
The information available to me does not indicate that the position is as suggested by the Deputy, or that the requirements of the Hire Purchase Act in relation to hire purchase agreements do not provide fair protection for the rights of all parties.
Is the Minister not aware of the fact that a number of artiles have been obtained on hire purchase and when they became faulty the hirer was left in such a way that he or she was held responsible for having them repaired and continuing the payments? I know of numerous cases of this kind where people are not getting value for their money.
I do not think this necessarily follows. It depends on what the articles are——
Washing machines.
——and the quality of the articles. Assuming someone paid cash for them the position could well be just the same and the redress available is no less in the case of people having them on hire purchase than in the case of people paying cash.
In the case of people who bought washing machines from the ESB on hire purchase their electricity has been cut off despite the fact that the machines are no use to them.
If this is so I suggest to the Deputy that the difficulty does not lie in the hire purchase arrangements but in relation to the quality of the goods supplied. If the quality of the goods supplied is substantially below what it is represented to be when they are being sold then the purchaser, whether by cash or hire purchase, has a remedy.
An ordinary working person has not got the wherewithal to pursue such a matter. Surely reputable concerns like the ESB handle good articles but yet this happens.
I cannot speak with any authority on this because I am not aware of the particular cases to which the Deputy refers but, again, I suggest that if the position is as the Deputy suggests it has nothing to do with the hire purchase regulations.
Is the Minister aware that in relation to hired out television sets there is often a hidden clause that they must be retained and paid for for two years? Even if they break down they must be paid for. Should it not be necessary that before people sign a contract they should be told that this was one of the conditions?
I am not aware that this is so and the Deputy will realise that he is now referring to the renting of sets as distinct from hire purchase. However, from personal observation I was under the impression that most of the firms renting television sets provide a service for repair which is quite satisfactory. In regard to the question of the length of time for which one is bound, this is normally made quite clear even in their advertisement in the newspapers apart from the actual negotiations.
I am afraid the Minister is reading a different newspaper from the one I read because I never saw a statement in any newspaper that a person must pay for two years even for a purchased set because with some of them it is possible to rent at a diminishing cost which is a form of hire purchase but if after having it for a period something goes wrong or if because of a drop in circumstances or moving out of the area a person wants to return it he must pay whether the set is working or not.
I am not aware that this is happening, certainly to any appreciable extent, but if the Deputy supplies details of cases to me I will be glad to investigate them.
In regard to television sets it is true to say that when a hirer notifies a company that he wants to hand back a set the hirer is held responsible for the payment until such time as the set is collected at the convenience of the company.
For a period of two years even if it is returned.
If this is happening it can only happen if the person renting the set has agreed to take it for, we will say, a period of two years.
He signs nothing saying he is going to take it for two years. He is never told anything about it.
From my own observations this is not by any means a widespread practice but if the Deputy will give me details of cases in which there was misrepresentation by the companies concerned I will have them investigated.
It is on the form but nobody reads the small print.