Martin Lewis, what three consumer laws would you introduce if you could?

1. Bailiffs: 'It's outrageous that we still don't have a proper independent regulator'

Martin: OK, so let’s have a think, three… Now, as always, like most people, things I'm currently working on tend to come to mind.

Most pressingly, I put out a statement just before the King's Speech on something I work on with my Money and Mental Health Policy Institute charity, which is, we're very disappointed this year that we're not getting independent regulation of bailiffs. So many people in the country who have bailiffs knocking on their door have mental health problems.

I get far too many cases of distress, upset, bullying, bad treatment coming from bailiffs. That's not to say all bailiffs are bad, but it is to say that there are too many cases of bad behaviour from bailiffs. I simply think for an industry that is doing what it's doing, coming into people's homes and taking their stuff – and so many of those people are vulnerable people – I do not think you can rely on self-regulation in that sector.

And I think it's absolutely outrageous that yet again, no government is putting in to have a proper independent regulator of bailiffs. So that will be my first one.

2. Faulty purchases: 'I'd introduce a low-end Ombudsman so it's easier to enforce your rights'

Second one on consumer rights, you say? Look, very simple. Going back to when they brought in the Consumer Rights Act, I gave evidence to that parliamentary committee.

One of the things I said at the time, they basically wanted to say, 'don't you like all these new, stronger consumer rights that we’re putting in?'. And I did, I was in favour of it. But I said the biggest problem is the only way to enforce these rights is to go to court.

And if you've got a faulty kettle or a faulty toaster, going to court is really difficult, is off putting. So people have these rights, but they can't enforce these rights if you have a dispute with a company.

So, I would probably put in a Bill for a low-end Ombudsman, Alternative Dispute Resolution type. I mean frankly, with the growth of AI, we could even have AI doing it. It may not give perfect adjudications, but at least it gives people a chance of having a cheap and easy and quick and hopefully free adjudication.

[The idea would be] if people are having a consumer rights dispute, they can go to some form of independent third party and get a proper resolution that is binding on the companies involved if there's a disagreement. I think that would be very useful strictly on your consumer rights area that you [podcast producer Matt] gave me.

3. Student loans: 'I'd like to see the terms locked in by statute'

And the third one? This one I've been calling for for at least a decade. I'm going to count this as a consumer right – you may not, but hey, it's my podcast – student finance.

Student finance has been a political football for a very long time and one of the great problems is the terms at which people get their student loans are not locked down. So what I would like to see is a statute that locks in the terms when you get them.

Now, there is some flexibility here. You could say certain terms are fixed and certain terms are variable. So, let's take an example: if you are repaying 9% of what you earn above a repayment threshold that goes up with inflation for 30 years, I would say the 9% is probably fixed, the 30 years is probably fixed and the repayment threshold is probably variable (within certain constraints).

And that should be enshrined in law so that when young people aged 18 are signing up for a contract that, with the current Plan 5 student loans is a 40 year contract for many of them, and they're doing it at 18 when they don't understand the financial system, they should have at least some transparent, rigid understanding of what this is actually going to mean – without allowing secondary legislation (laws that don't have to pass a vote in Parliament) to be able to change it to the whim of a future government.

So, I would like to see the terms locked-in at the point that you get them out. My entire campaign about the current Chancellor freezing the repayment threshold... if students had been told when they signed up that the repayment threshold is variable and it can be changed and it can be frozen, then while I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't feel like it's the moral breach that I think it is right now, which is a retrospective breach of contract.

So, the third rule I'd like to see is student loan terms locked in by statute with the knowledge of what is fixed and what is variable. They're such long terms, there's such a misbalance of power between the state and the people who take out the loans that it should not just be left up to the whim of ministers.

And, of course, as I always say, Parliament is omnicompetent. If it's locked into statute and if a government really wanted to change the rules, then it could take a vote to Parliament and it could change them in future. And I think it needs to be that level of materiality, that level of force that should be in place before they can change it.