Your rights to reject a vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

[Surfer01]

It seems that some people may misunderstand their rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and may be subsequently losing out so hopefully this post may be of some help.

 

Briefly as per Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 22 if you purchase for instance a new or second hand motor vehicle from a trader and within the first 30 days, a fault occurs, you have the right to reject it without giving the dealer an opportunity to do a repair.

If you do give the trader the opportunity to repair, then there is a waiting period.

 

In effect from the time you notify the dealer of the fault until the time the vehicle is repaired to the satisfaction of both parties, the clock stops ticking.

If the dealer has the vehicle for 6 months or more the clock does not move forward. Therefore if the fault is rectified and the clock starts again and another fault occurs you are still within your rights to reject the vehicle as you are still within the 30 day short term rejection period as per clause 8 of section 22.

 

If the vehicle develops a fault after the 30 day short term period and within 6 months of purchase then under section 19 clause 14 you have the right to request a repair, replacement or refund however you have to give the dealer one opportunity to repair. If this repair fails then you still have the opportunity to request a replacement or reject the vehicle and obtain a full refund depending on the mileage done by the vehicle. For removal of doubt, the legislation states;

 

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.

 

If a repair is done then the waiting period kicks in until the repair is done to the satisfaction of both parties.

It then restarts and the repair itself can have a 6 month period form the date that both parties found it to be satisfactory.

 

If another fault occurs and the vehicle is still within the 6 month period, the waiting period kicks in again until such time as the repair has been done to the satisfaction of both parties. In effect several months down the line you still have the opportunity for a repair, replacement or rejection.

 

I have hopefully highlighted some of the benefits to the consumer if the CRA 2015 is used correctly.

 

Obviously the above is only a brief outline, but hopefully will go some way towards helping people who have made a purchase and the dealer is ignoring the CRA 2015.

By ignoring the CRA 2015 the dealership cna be found to be in contempt and have criminal charges imposed against them.

 

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is a very powerful piece of legislation and is very beneficial to the consumer.

[AndyOrch]

Excellent post I have made this a Sticky Surfer01.

 

I will leave the thread open for a short while for any responses.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Surfer01]

Appreciated and many thanks.

[ReasonableRon]

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).

[Surfer01]

Correct the trader would need to prove that that the fault was not or could not have been present at time of delivery however as you state it would be very difficult for them to prove it was not present at the time and I would think that unless there was conclusive proof the judge will probably side with the consumer.

The point of my post was to show people that there is life after the 30 days and that it is worth approaching the dealer for them to rectify the issue and that they should not be fobbed off easily.

[MaxxPower]

Out of curiosity, one query I have is how does this work with trade-in vehicles?

 

If a vehicle is rejected within 30 days and the consumer traded in a vehicle against it, what happens then?

Is the consumer entitled to the return of that vehicle if the trader still has possession of it?

What if the vehicle is still in the traders possession, but has a significant amount of extra mileage?

What happens if the vehicle is no longer in the traders possession? Is the consumer then entitled to the trade-in value of their vehicle (as set by the trader) at the time it was traded in?

[ReasonableRon]

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).

[Chuffnut]

The consumer is entitled to the trade in value of the vehicle if it is not possible to rewind the deal and put everyone back to where they started.

[Chuffnut]

Reasonable Ron has made some valid points that need to be added to this sticky, this thread does seem to have been born from a debate on another thread a week or so ago and it's worth pointing out a few things.

 

The short term right to reject can only be exercised if there is a fault that is defined so by the CRA, meaning it is not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality or not as described. Age and mileage plus price paid would be considered here. For example, an electrical gremlin causing an erroneous, intermittent dash light on a 5 year old car with 30,000 miles with a sale price of £8,000 would not be considered a fault worthy of rejection. A shagged fuel pump on a 20 year old £500 banger with 180,000 miles on wouldn't fly either. A misfire caused by a head gasket failure on a 7 year old £4,000 car with 70,000 miles would definitely be grounds for rejection. It's not black and white and ultimately decided by a judge.

 

In addition to this to exercise the 30 day right to reject a reverse burden of proof exists, meaning the consumer has to prove the fault existed on the day of the sale. This would be easy enough to prove if the circumstances were say a 5 year old car with 50,000 miles on and a £6,000 sale price and the gearbox vomited all over your drive. Gearboxes don't just give up so quickly. This reverse burden of proof exists to protect the dealer from "buyers remorse" consumers, who could in theory return the car for any minor reason in order to get a refund if they decided they didn't like the colour of the car anymore.

 

Between day 30 and the end of 6 months period the burden of proof rests with the dealer to prove the fault was not present at the point of sale as per the provision Reasonable Ron has highlighted above and what I highlighted on the other thread last week. As Surfer pointed out, this can be difficult to do, a car has a million components which are more or less all gradually failing so it's hard for the dealer to prove the fault wasn't present at the point of sale. Again however, age, mileage and price paid will be factored in to any court decision. If you have bought a vehicle for £1,500, with 120,000 miles on and 4 months and 4,000 miles later the fuel injectors fail, you'd expect a dealer to be able to demonstrate to a judge that the car did not have any issues with the injectors at the point of sale, indeed 4,000 miles have been travelled and in any case, 120,000 miles had been travelled prior to that!

 

In another thread, a fellow forumite had been in possession of his car for 5 months and the windscreen washers had stopped working. Again it would be easy for a dealer to demonstrate that for 5 months the windscreen wash was working perfectly well so it would be highly improbable that the fault was present at the point of sale.

 

After 6 months, the reverse burden of proof returns where the liability falls on the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the point of sale.

 

The act is there to protect the consumer against unscrupulous dealers selling faulty cars and getting away with it. It's not there to protect the consumer from all repair bills or expected maintenance on their cars, when considering the age, mileage and price paid. People should make sure they exercise their rights and take unscrupulous dealers to task but they should also be aware of the nuances of the CRA and not be given a false sense of security that a court will favour them under any circumstance.

 

Good thread, Surfer.

[Surfer01]

You are incorrect regarding the 30 day short term right to reject. Age and mileage would not be a consideration. The burden of proof regarding the fault is not on the consumer within the first 6 months never mind the short term right to reject. I am sorry but your post is very misleading and hopefully it will be removed unless you correct it and post the correct information with links to the relevant legislation. Are you a student studying law?

[Chuffnut]

If you read my post I said the burden of proof rests with the dealer from the end of the 30 day period to the end of 6 months. There is a reverse burden of proof within the first 30 days and after the initial 6 months.

 

Age and mileage would be a consideration when determining what would constitute a fault under the cra. A fault is defined under the cra generally as “not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality, not as described”

 

If you think that the quality of a 3 year old car is the same as a 15 year old car then good luck to you. It clearly isn’t.

[Surfer01]

Age of the vehicle does not matter within the first 30 days if a fault occurs and you want to reject.

Otherwise you might as well buy privately as according to you, you have no rights within the first 30 days.

I am happy to be corrected if you can point to the CRA 2015 legislation that states age and mileage will be taken into consideration.

[Chuffnut]

I’ve just googled “Reverse burden of proof cra 2015” and this is one of the first results;

 

https://www.geldards.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015---whats-in-store-for-traders-1.aspx

 

They appear to be a law firm so one would assume they are correct.

[Chuffnut]

Would you consider a light bulb failing after 5 days to be grounds for a short term right to reject?

This isn’t a loaded question, just foundations for answering your question.

[Surfer01]

What has that to do with legislation. I asked for a link to the legislation within the CRA 2015.

[Chuffnut]

It has everything to do with it. I quoted you some legislation the other day and you ignored it so i’m not sure why you seem so keen now.

 

Let me put it another way. Part of the contract that goods must conform to, states the goods or services must be of satisfactory quality, yes?

 

How do you think that term “satisfactory quality” is determined? It’s not written in any legislation so how would a judge rule on what amounts to satisfactory quality? What criteria would he/she use? On a used vehicle?

 

It would be easy to see if the goods matched the contract in terms of “as described” for example a description of “great specification including sat nav” would be broken if the consumer discovered three days later, actually it doesn’t have sat nav!

 

Fit for purpose? Well, does it get me from A to B? Allows me to get to work? That’s easy enough for a judge to interpret.

 

Satisfactory quality. On a used car. How do you think a judge interprets whether to rule a car of satisfactory quality or not?

 

Answer, he/she uses age, mileage and price paid. The only reasonable criteria he can use. And the basis of whether a car can be rejected under the 30 day short term right to reject is if it does not conform to the contract.

[Surfer01]

Please point to the legislation as per post #9.

[Chuffnut]

There isn't legislation that expressly states that the age and mileage of a vehicle will be taken into consideration. There is a difference between how law is written and how it is used.

 

I've answered your question, please answer mine. How do you think a judge interprets whether to rule if a car is of satisfactory quality or not?

 

Consumers coming to this forum should receive well balanced advice. Simply stating "Briefly as per Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 22 if you purchase for instance a new or second hand motor vehicle from a trader and within the first 30 days, a fault occurs, you have the right to reject it without giving the dealer an opportunity to do a repair." is not balanced, it gives people a sense of entitlement they are not necessarily entitled to. A lot of the time people don't want to hear the other side of the coin because it doesn't suit them to listen. They just want to hear "don't worry, you're covered, any fault take it back to the dealer and get your money back"

 

Consumers should be encouraged to exercise their rights. They should also be made aware of the rights of the retailers as well. The CRA protects both sides of the coin. In the context of the 30 day short term right to reject it protects the consumer from dodgy dealers selling unfit or poor quality cars. It protects the dealer against those customers who have "buyers remorse" and think they can reject a car and get their money back for any reason.

 

That's all I'm saying. At the end of all the debate, people should be given a balanced view. Not be told what they want to hear.

[Surfer01]

I quoted the legislation which it seems a specific poster is unable to comprehend. The CRA 2015 does not differentiate between new and second hand goods. It does state that goods should be fit for purpose and durable and it is the responsibility of the trader to ensure that the goods are fit for purpose, safe and durable.

 

The purpose of the thread was to help people by referring them to the legislation which is freely available on the Internet and was passed by parliament.

They can then make a decision based on the legislation and also help from the forum.

 

Unfortunately It seems to have developed into an argument by one poster that my initial posting is incorrect.

Perhaps a law student who thinks they know everything?

[Chuffnut]

And you haven’t answered my simple question. I don’t think this is an argument I think it’s a debate and would help anyone looking for advice, balanced advice rather than cherry picking the parts they want to hear. I’ll say nothing else on this subject and the mods will of course delete anything i’ve said that isn’t factually correct.

[buyer-beware]

Surfnut. Utter Tosh. You ignore and continue to ignore the sellers rights. Your extreme interpretations are misguided.

 

A responsible dealer will freshly MOT, repair as neccessary including advisories, they will service and have the car independently inspected including a PDI which covers all aspects of the car and is signed and agreed by the buyer. The responsibility is for the dealer to ensure the car was as of a satisfactory condition at the point of sale and for the buyer to agree. From that point onwards it is up to the buyer to take responsibility for subsequent repairs and maintanence of THEIR vehicle. The issue is making the purchaser fully aware that taking ownership and of resposibility for the general repairs and maintenance of the old used machine they purchased is their responsibilty.

 

The CRA is designed to protect retailers equally as well buyers, it's not one sided. The TONE and alot of the guidance on here is extremely misguided, with views and interpretations which specifically chose to ignore the sellers rights. If you are going to give advice do so with balance and fairness.......