Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ReasonableRon last won the day on June 5 2018

ReasonableRon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Excellent

About ReasonableRon

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Maybe so, but you generally don't find those people advising others on matters relating to the environment...... Seriously though, this is not the first time that this issue has cropped up and I think that it boils down to a fundamental misconception that the CRA 2015 presents some sort of 'silver bullet' that will magically solve all faulty goods issues. It will not. I have even seen people refer to this Act as if it is a suitable substitute for a guarantee on the goods "because if it goes wrong you will be covered under the CRA". The CRA is there to cover the quality of goods as supplied at the point of sale/supply. Yes of course there is a durability aspect to this as well but when it comes down to goods such as second hand cars where if a component (that was working when sold) fails after the sale but as part of the normal deterioration of the vehicle then this generally would not be covered. In other words, if a clutch is expected to last for 80,000 miles and you bought a car at 78,000 last month and the clutch has now failed 2,000 miles later then the CRA will not automatically cover you, because the vehicle is only displaying reasonable wear & tear. The Act tries to manage levels of expectation by defining satisfactory quality as what a 'reasonable person' would expect, and most reasonable people would not expect goods that are subject to wear and tear to last beyond their typical design life. I know that this is contrary to views above expressed many times that any fault that occurs is covered under the Act but this is simply not true. The CRA 2015 was brought in to bring together the various existing supply of goods legislation into one place and to set out specific remedies and timescales where previously there was not definitive guidance (hence confusion prevailed). The short-term right to reject is actually nothing new; in fact under previous legislation was in theory available for much longer than 30 days. What the CRA actually introduced is a right for the supplier to repair or replace (and therefore not have to accept the rejection) if the fault becomes apparent after 30 days before the consumer could insist on outright rejection. In some ways that is actually better for businesses. All of the above assumes that the goods are proven to have been faulty at the point of sale. The burden of such proof always rests with the consumer except where certain remedies are sought in the first 6 months, where the goods are assumed to have been faulty from the beginning and it is for the supplier to prove otherwise (which can often easily be done). This reversed burden of proof is nothing new as it was originally introduced as part of the Sale & Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations in 2002. Don't get me wrong, the CRA is an effective piece of legislation generally and it has certainly focused and sharpened the minds of traders to ensure that problems are resolved correctly, but there needs to be a sense of balance in the advice given to consumers before someone finds themselves at the extensive end of self initiated litigation that was doomed to fail from the outset.
  2. Wow. I can't quite believe that me referring to what the law actually says is being stated as 'just another opinion'. This refusal to accept reality because it doesn't fit the narrative appears to be clouding the otherwise generally well-meaning advice overall, but does not do this forum any favours overall in terms of the quality of responses, particularly when this advice comes from members who by virtue of their post count are perhaps assumed to know their facts from their conspiracy theories? Maybe reference to the narrative and table on pages 39 & 40 of this Government issued document may assist the non-believers? If the narrative doesn't make the matter clear then the table on page 40 must surely do so?
  3. The problem with the CRA, as with many pieces of UK legislation, is the confusing manner in which it is written. However, it is there. It is common knowledge that for the first 6 months there is a reversed burden of proof in which it is for the supplier to prove that the goods were not faulty at the point of sale. This is set out in s19(14) and s19(15) of the Act, however s19(14) sets out that this burden of proof only applies to the right to a repair or replacement or to the right to a price reduction/final right to reject. The wording of s19(14) makes it quite clear by omission of reference to subsection (3)(a) that it does NOT apply to the short term right to reject, meaning that the burden of proof remains with the consumer. I note that there seems to be a rather entrenched position being taken by some who refuse to acknowledge this fact, but the law is clear (albeit rather clumsily written) and the advice to the Op from the Consumer Helpline is indeed correct.
  4. My comment was made on the understanding that there was an option to attend in person, as there is with most 'normal' motor auctions. If not then I happily stand corrected. However, the site Terms appear to be clearly stating that by registering with them as a bidder you are declaring yourself to be a trader and not a consumer. OP did you register with them on this basis? * The user acknowledges that our business is that of selling used, recovered stolen, accident-damaged and/or insurance write-off vehicles and other used goods. * As such the user acknowledges that as a registered Trade Member you are a trader in such vehicles and/or other goods and, whether or not this is your first occasion that you are using our Services, you are purchasing all Lots with a view to your trade and with a view to a profit. * The user expressly acknowledges and agrees that you are not a consumer of our services, but a trade purchaser. As such you accept that it is fair and reasonable in all circumstances for us to exclude, restrict or limit (as the case may be) our obligations and liability to you in respect of the lots we offer for sale on behalf of sellers (who on occasion may be us).
  5. However Section 28(g) of the above legislation excludes coverage to contracts concluded at a public auction.
  6. I think that your view about a lightbulb being sufficient to render an entire vehicle to be of unsatisfactory quality may well be considered by most people to be 'unreasonable' and therefore would fail the test for satisfactory quality at a very early hurdle. See CRA Section 9(2). I also think that a split wiper blade may also be legitimately argued against under the same grounds, bearing in mind that they are both easy and cheap to replace. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to test this in court! Regarding the duty to inspect the goods, I agree that there is no actual duty.....however if the goods are inspected before purchase (and who buys a used car without inspecting it first?) then the CRA does not provide protection for faults that should have been apparent. See CRA Section 9(4)(b).
  7. Doesn't that slightly contradict what you said earlier in the thread about not being able to charge anything? I agree that the actual charges in this case seem to be massively excessive and probably easily challenged, but generally speaking if a firm can prove or justify what their reasonable costs are then they wouldn't seem to be in breach of any rules, or am I missing something?
  8. Not sure what doesn't make any sense about my post? I never said the OP took finance out, I was talking about the finance that the person (the fraudster) took out immediately prior to selling the vehicle to the OP. Assuming that finance agreement was indeed a fraudulent one then the decision in Hudson v Shogun Finance may well bind the court in this case.
  9. The issue that appears to work against you here is the fact that the vehicle was fraudulently sold so soon after the finance had been taken out, with no payments being made. This would indicate that there was an intention to commit this crime from the start (i.e. use the finance as a means to steal the vehicle). This takes the matter into different waters than if the vehicle was being sold further into the life of a HP agreement. Normally, providing you could demonstrate that you were clearly acting in good faith, you would be able to claim the rights of an innocent purchaser under s27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 however in this case the actions of the seller would suggest that good title to the (stolen) goods is unlikely to have passed to you. The HPI check is a sideshow because it does not make any difference legally to either the buyer or the lender. My only suggestion is to present your case as best you can in court and see what they decide.
  10. Sorry but from your description you seem to be pigeon holing GAP into yours/others experiences of it associated with historic failed sub prime finance providers, which risks having a very narrow minded and - if I may say so - evidently cynical viewpoint. GAP is actually widely associated with the purchase of new or nearly new cars - the 'return to invoice' variety in particular has nothing to do with finance agreements and can prove to be a financial lifesaver. I bought a brand new Mitsubishi ASX two years ago, paid cash for it, and bought a 5 year GAP policy for the equivalent of less than £80 per year. If the car is written off during that time then the policy tops up my insurance payout to provide a brand new replacement vehicle. Bearing in mind that after 4 years the car will have depreciated by at least £10k that is not some mickey mouse Welcome policy but done through a proper insurer and providing a real potential benefit. I get the fact that for whatever reason you don't like GAP, or maybe the firms you seem to associate with it, but I think that the advice provided has had weight added by your 'site team' status yet it could be potentially very damaging to some. Sorry I'm not meaning to offend by the way.
  11. I agree. It is dangerous for anyone on this site to give sweeping statements such as 'GAP insurance is useless', and I doubt he/she or this site itself would take responsibility for someone acting upon that advice only to suffer a claimable event the following week that ends up costing them £1,000's.
  12. Just for clarity, was the vehicle new when you originally leased it?
  13. I would have thought that the basic expectation would be that each party is returned to the position they were in immediately prior to the original sale taking place. In the case of a p/ex vehicle then this should be returned where possible but if that is impossible then the cash equivalent of the original allowance should be paid. That's why it is important to both parties to ensure that a sensible and realistic p/ex valuation is provided. Incidentally, motor vehicles are the only goods that the Consumer Rights Act allows the seller to make a deduction for their use if returned within the first 6 months (not applicable to outright rejection within 30 days).
  14. Without wanting to re-ignite what appeared to turn into some form of disagreement on another recent thread, I think that the opening post should also point out that the trader has the right to challenge the assumption that a fault occurring within 6 months must have been present at the outset. The following extract from the CRA is relevant here, which although partly repeating what is quoted above also gives the full picture of when that would not apply: (14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and © and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. (15)Subsection (14) does not apply if— (a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or (b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract. In other words, under 15(a) above, if the trader can prove that the fault was not or could not have been present at the time of delivery but has happened afterwards then their liability for remedy under CRA cannot be safely assumed. This is an important point particularly relating to the sale of used motor vehicles, where faults that were not present at the time of delivery can occur at any time. Whilst it may be difficult for a trader to prove that the fault was not present at the time, it is not impossible (e.g. if the fault would have caused an MOT failure yet it passed at the time it was sold).
  • Create New...