|
|
|
|
Coventry
City Council v Lazarus & Others A garage was prosecuted for failing to comply with the
requirements for credit advertisements in relation to a number of car
advertisements in local newspapers. They were acquitted by a magistrates' court
on the basis that they had a defence under s.168(1) of the Consumer Credit Act
1974. The court heard evidence that in 1990 Warwickshire Trading Standards
Department had advised the garage in writing that their advertisements did not
comply. Coventry Environmental Services Department wrote in similar terms on the
5 April 1992, and again on the 9 April 1992. The garage was provided with copies
of the OFT booklet on the Advertisements Regulations. Subsequently, Linda Lazarus, a partner in the business,
contacted the Retail Motor Industry's Federation, and received a visit from
their area manager, Brian Norman, who offered advice. Further advertisements were published in November and
December 1992, and failed to comply. In drafting their advertising, the garage
relied on advice from Mr Norman and their understanding of the OFT booklet. They
did not take legal advice. On this basis the magistrates acquitted the partners. The local authority appealed and it was ordered that the
case be remitted to the Magistrates' Court to complete the hearing. The basis
was that the garage had failed to satisfy both limbs of the s.168 defence, in
that, although it was clear that they had relied on information provided by
another person - subsection (1)(a) - they had not taken all reasonable
precautions and exercised all due diligence - subsection (1)(b) because they had
not taken the legal advice offered in the Trading Standards letters and
recommended in the OFT booklet. |