It's time we had an Unfair Contacts and Terms Act (UCTA), along the lines of the United Kingdom’s UCTA 1977.

For too long now, the public has been at the mercy of the exploitative, ruthless and profit-driven motives of capitalist businessmen and local authorities. The sad fact is that many an average member of the public does not know his rights and the legal reasoning behind them.

A few examples of unfair terms:

i) ‘Park at your own risk’ or ‘Operator will not be held liable for loss, theft or damage ...’

This goes against the principle in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, whose principle holds that the above clauses cannot be announced on signboards after a person has taken a ticket and entered into a parking lot because ‘a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before.’

Further a person who pays to park can reasonably expect the owner of the lot to take steps to ensure the safety of his vehicle. Under the UCTA '77, any exclusion of negligence liability for personal injury (and damage to property) by businesses is prohibited.

ii) Astro employs a policy whereby a customer's service can be ‘interrupted’ ‘anytime’ and ‘at random’ (quoting from a customer service representative whom I spoke to) for failure to pay any overdue amount.

It is submitted that this is arbitrary, as a debtor should be given a finite grace period after the overdue date - say, ten days, before the service is interrupted. As it stands, depending on the computer programme's random selection, some customers could get their service cut one day after the due date, while others, a week or even ten days later.

A customer should be also given a chance to inform Astro if payment has been made in order for them to acknowledge and 'stay execution'. As it stands, if I settle an overdue amount, my service can still be interrupted while payment is being processed, as I was told by the above customer service representative that, Astro's ‘computer is not programmed to defer service interruption while payment is being processed’.

An UCTA would require interruption and termination schedules to be clearly spelt out and also allow for a debtor's notice of payment made to be duly recorded.

iii) Parking summonses written out and left under one's windshield wiper goes against two important principles: ‘You are only bound by what you sign.’ (L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd) and ‘Silence does not amount to acceptance.’ (Felthouse v Bindley).

A person who has flouted parking laws should be made aware that he is being summoned and accept/acknowledge this vide his signature. These principles also apply to ‘saman ekor’ speed trap cases.

There have also been cases where an owner's vehicle has been towed away for flouting parking laws. This, it is submitted, is ultra vires as it is a disproportionate action (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation) unless the vehicle in question is obstructing traffic flow or posing a danger to other road users.

It is therefore submitted that legislation be tabled to address the above issues in order to better protect a citizen's rights under the law. An Unfair Contracts and Terms Act would thus be timely and appropriate.