From as early as the 1300's consumer protection has started to grow however, more so recently than ever before. Most recently the 'Consumer Rights Act 2015' legislation came into force on the 1st October 2015. It has been itemised that it's made the rights for consumers protection clearer , although some also contend that it has essentially changed them altogether. In contrast to the points above, it is clear that there would be a consensus that the act not only provided further implied terms on consumer protection, but also consolidated previous terms into one act.
Consumer protection can be defined as a shield available to consumers when they are being treated iniquitously or when things go wrong with their purchases. An example of the above could possibly be when one buys something which is described as gold, and it has not been hallmarked. If it is not, then one would be able to have their consideration back as the Hallmarking Act 1973 states that 'it is illegal to describe anything as being Gold, Silver or Platinum unless it has been properly hallmarked or it is exempt. This is a clear example of how consumer protection is a significant necessity to the protection and rights of consumers. However, the main question which needs to be discussed is whether the rights of English consumers have primarily changed since the effects of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has come into force.
Firstly, it is important to discuss whether the primary purpose of the act was to consolidate previous legislation into one, making it easier for consumers and traders to know the law when entering into contracts. Before the Consumer Rights Act 2015, there were many other pieces of legislation that provided the same consumer rights (E.g. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, Sale of Goods Act 1979). An example of this may be seen under s.14(2B)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, where it states that goods are to be 'fit for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied'. This is evidently similar to s.10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which states 'Goods to be fit for particular purpose'. This is not the only implied term that is the same, throughout the act there are multiple terms taken from previous legislation. This clearly shows that the main purpose of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was to consolidate previous implied terms and make them easier to find and apply, rather than changing the rights surrounding consumers.
The above was also supported by the United Kingdom business government minister Nick Boyes who stated, "Whether it's downloading music or buying a fridge freezer, the Consumer Rights Act makes it easier to understand your rights." , which clearly supports the argument that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 merely consolidated and made rights more accessible and understandable.
Contrary to the point above, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has introduced new rights surrounding digital goods for consumers in Part 1. In an era where digital goods are significantly increasing, especially due to the invention of smart and new technology, the government have finally decided to create a whole new section for this area. This essentially means that consumers will now get similar rights on digital goods, as they would if they were buying physical goods. This includes, digital goods to be as described and fit for purpose etc, as well as the introduction of 14-day refund and calling off period for digital downloads. This point clearly provides evidence to support some people's arguments that the Consumer Rights Act has fundamentally changed the rights of consumers, however, it could also be argued that they have purely been enhanced and not changed.
Furthermore, another point which needs to be discussed due to the nature of the question is the definition of 'consumer'. Previously under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the definition of consumer consists of three elements such as 'not making a contract in the course of business, the other party in the contract must be dealing within the course of business and goods being supplied of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption'. Whereas, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it states a consumer is 'an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession'. The definitions above are nearly identical, with both stating that a consumer is one who purchases for themselves, rather than their business or trade.
A further argument to show that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has fundamentally changed the rights of consumers is that one is now able to challenge terms that are hidden within the small print. The act itself, under Unfair Terms, states that terms are available to be tested for fairness unless the wording of the terms are 'prominent' and 'transparent'. The above argument clearly shows that the law surrounding the rights of consumers has changed, allowing more protections. However, some may argue that this is similar to the test of fairness for terms in the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which stated that one could use the test of fairness if the terms were not 'plain and intelligible'. Therefore, some may have differing opinions on whether the act changed this rights for consumers, but in fact made it more understandable and fair.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has also adapted the two tier remedy system from the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. This is used for when a trader breaches the term within a contract. The new three tier system goes through the right to reject, right to repair or replacement and the right to price reduction or final right to reject. Whereas, the old system only provided a two tier system which goes through the stages of 'right to reject' and the repair or replace the goods within a reasonable time.
The new system has provided more protection and allowed the process of the remedy system to become more flexible. This shows that the arguments put forward in this essay could all be right, in a sense that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has both just consolidated and changed the rights of consumers.
Finally, it is also relevant to discuss the fairness tests and how the Consumer Rights Act 2015 test is similar to the old regulation 5 test. Under regulation 5, the test of fairness states that a contract term that has not been individually negotiated is regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant inequity in the parties' rights and duties, to the loss of the consumer. Within the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a term may not be assessed for fairness if it specifies the main subject matter of the contract and is transparent and prominent and a term in a consumer contract is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. As you can see the wording is very similar and the approach in which the fairness test is used, is too very similar. This provides evidence that consumers rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 have not changed.
Overall, it is very clear that there are many points to support the essays title, in the sense that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has changed rights for consumers slightly but not fundamentally. The main purpose of the act, in reference from governmental sources who implemented the act and valid statue evidence, was to consolidate and make the consumer rights/protections more accessible and understandable to both consumers and traders. However, it is also clear that there have been some changes, with the most noticeable being the introduction of consumer rights with digital goods. In conclusion, many arguments sway towards the act primarily consolidating and creating coherence within the law surrounding consumer rights from various other acts, such as the Sale of Goods Act and the Unfair Contract Terms Act etc, rather than changing fundamentally changing them.