Widespread unfairness in consumer contract terms

More than half the consumer contracts reviewed by Gfk NOP in an anonymous survey of 120 firms of all sizes for the FSA contained at least one variation term that was “clearly unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999: the figures were 35% for stand-alone critical illness cover; 75% for mortgages; and 50% for child trust funds. The FSA notes that some of the mortgage and critical illness contracts examined permitted the firm to vary ‘for any other valid reason’ or ‘for any other fair and reasonable reason’, which, it says, is not valid since the basis is not “clearly and unambiguously defined”.