MORE than half of UK small businesses say they have been hit by “unfair” contract terms with suppliers, according to research putting the total cost to small firms at nearly £4 billion over the last three years.
The Federation of Small Businesses cited problems for firms in terms of contracts with some utilities and providers of professional services such as human resources and legal advice.
Small businesses voiced concerns that some suppliers were failing to make auto-rollover clauses clear up front, tying firms into lengthy notice periods, charging high early termination fees, and putting details in small print. Each of these issues was highlighted by at least 20 per cent of survey respondents.
Two in five small firms said they felt powerless to do anything about unfair contract terms because the supplier was too important or powerful to challenge.
Colin Borland, who is senior head of external affairs for devolved nations
for the Federation of Small Businesses and is based in Scotland, said: “The law seems to have this idea that, when a small business contracts with a large multinational, they are negotiating as equals. Of course we know it’s nothing like that.
“Smaller businesses are more like consumers and so should enjoy the same rights – especially when dealing with standard form contracts where there’s no negotiation.
He added: “That is why we have argued that the Scottish Parliament should use the new consumer advocacy and advice powers it now holds to offer smaller businesses the protection they need.”
Mike Cherry, FSB national chairman, said: “Small firms on the bad end of a deal are losing out to the tune of £1.3 billion each year. We have identified persistent problems with suppliers, across sectors, treating small firms unfairly. This suggests the market is failing to deliver value-for-money products and services for small business customers.”
He added: “Small businesses don’t have the time, expertise or purchasing power to scour the market to find and negotiate the best deals. Small business owners behave in a similar ways to consumers, but they don’t have the same guarantees of quality or legal redress in an unfair situation.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here