Jump to content


Verso owner

Problem with 2006 Toyota Verso semiautomatic car

Recommended Posts

I repeat again, even if you don’t like it. It is a thoroughly valid and worthy point to make to the OP......

 

I quote Andyorch

 

“Please can we keep this civil....the OP is free to take whoevers advice he feels is correct and unbiased.

 

Andy”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gentlemen - I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here!

 

Can I say that the advice I got from the Consumer helpline concours with that of Buyer Beware i.e. in the first 30 days the onus of proof is on me. I'm on to it, make no mistake!

 

The car goes to the Toyota garage on Tuesday for their assessment and will also be examined by an independent automomotive engineer who is registered with the IAEA.

 

If it has to go to court so be it.

If I win then all the costs I have incurred will be claimed back.

 

 I should have added that I am aware of the risks but the independent expert is confident that we have a case.

 

The main fault (gearbox automatically shifts into neutral and no further selection of a gear is possible unless engine stopped and restarted)

 

appeared after a total of about only 6 hours of driving.

 

What is the greater probability -  extremely unlucky or there was an existing intermittent fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verso owner, you do realize that ringing the Consumer Helpline is a bit of a lottery? The 'advisers' are well meaning volunteers who may or may not have any real understanding of the law about which they are giving advice!

 

You need to make an appointment with them to have a chance of getting advice from a solicitor who again may or may not have an expertise with the CRA 2015

 

There have been many instances on this forum when Citizens Advice (who run Consumer helpline) got things wrong in law - private parking springs to mind.

 

Lawgistics may claim to be the UK's No1 motoring lawyers but as that claim is directed at the motor trade who purchase a subscription from them, as dx (and before him Christine Keeler) said 'well they would, wouldn't they'.


My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Verso owner said:

 

Gentlemen - I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here!

 

Can I say that the advice I got from the Consumer helpline concours with that of Buyer Beware i.e. in the first 30 days the onus of proof is on me. I'm on to it, make no mistake!

 

The car goes to the Toyota garage on Tuesday for their assessment and will also be examined by an independent automomotive engineer who is registered with the IAEA.

 

If it has to go to court so be it.

If I win then all the costs I have incurred will be claimed back.

 

 I should have added that I am aware of the risks but the independent expert is confident that we have a case.

 

The main fault (gearbox automatically shifts into neutral and no further selection of a gear is possible unless engine stopped and restarted)

 

appeared after a total of about only 6 hours of driving.

 

What is the greater probability -  extremely unlucky or there was an existing intermittent fault?

 

I am glad you are seeing sense. If the report shows conclusively the fault was present at the point of sale then the retailer hasn’t a leg to stand on. 

 

I would take a punt that the fault was there and that’s why it’s previous owner got rid. The dealer might of checked the car thoroughly and did his job correctly but never knew of the problem..... who knows. 

 

Can I ask why you immediately jumped to reject without asking the dealer to repair?  It sounds like a lovely car ? A rejection should always be the last resort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked and looked, but i couldn't find the bit that says that the onus is on the buyer to prove the fault was present at point of purchase in the CRA 2015.

Perhaps you want to give us the exact section and point of the CRA 2015 so we can verify ourselves. 

 

My view is that self confident car dealers and their "legal" departments are deliberately misusing the following words: "the onus is on the buyer to prove the goods are faulty"

Well, of course one must be able to say what's wrong with something. 

 

They're then adding to this statement and including some wrong statements which are not in the CRA 2015 as long as i can see.

A faulty gearbox is faulty even if the fault is intermittent.

As long as the fault is there within 30 days the buyer can exercise the right to reject.

The seller can then try to prove that the fault was not present at point of sale hence, the buyer damaged it.

 

Here is the link to the official legislation,  please point us in the right (or wrong) direction. 

Also, there's no shame in saying "i made a mistake, i was wrong " especially online where nobody knows who you are.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat again. I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it’s important the OP has balanced advice. 

 
I will suggest again that you take up your grief with Lawgistics.
They are the professionals and they fully understand how the CRA should be perceived and how works in reality.
 
When, you choose to go to war it’s best to know your enemy.  :) 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, king12345 said:

I've looked and looked, but i couldn't find the bit that says that the onus is on the buyer to prove the fault was present at point of purchase in the CRA 2015.

Perhaps you want to give us the exact section and point of the CRA 2015 so we can verify ourselves. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go. It would be gracious if those who preached the wrong interpretation actually acknowledged the facts, amended their stance and started to give balanced, unbiased advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that unless ReasonableRon is a qualified lawyer, solicitor or barrister, his is just another opinion.

He is omitting to acknowledge that the 30 day right to reject is different to the 'reverse onus' that he mentions.

What is 'it is common knowledge?'

 

Likewise you consistently fail to add a citation (King12345 has pointed to the law, but you fail to follow through) which has been several times asked of you.


My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gick said:

 

Except that unless ReasonableRon is a qualified lawyer, solicitor or barrister, his is just another opinion. He is omitting to acknowledge that the 30 day right to reject is different to the 'reverse onus' that he mentions. What is 'it is common knowledge?'

 

Likewise you consistently fail to add a citation (King12345 has pointed to the law, but you fail to follow through) which has been several times asked of you.

 

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?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gick said:

Except that unless ReasonableRon is a qualified lawyer, solicitor or barrister, his is just another opinion.

He is omitting to acknowledge that the 30 day right to reject is different to the 'reverse onus' that he mentions.

What is 'it is common knowledge?'

 

Likewise you consistently fail to add a citation (King12345 has pointed to the law, but you fail to follow through) which has been several times asked of you.

 

People used to believe the earth is flat.... and I am sure there are still a few people that still do......

 

 

Edited by buyer-beware

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, buyer-beware said:

 

People used to believe the earth is flat.... and I am sure there are still a few people that still do......

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be an immediate acknowledgement by the team that misinformation has continually been preached as gospel about the 30 day right to reject rule.

 

Get it out in the open, put it to bed and make a fresh start giving balanced advice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, buyer-beware said:

 

I am glad you are seeing sense. If the report shows conclusively the fault was present at the point of sale then the retailer hasn’t a leg to stand on. 

 

I would take a punt that the fault was there and that’s why it’s previous owner got rid. The dealer might of checked the car thoroughly and did his job correctly but never knew of the problem..... who knows. 

 

Can I ask why you immediately jumped to reject without asking the dealer to repair?  It sounds like a lovely car ? A rejection should always be the last resort. 

 

Yes apart from the gearbox issue the car seems to be in excellent condition. It's just that having now become aware of the history of this particular Toyota model with the semiautomatic gearbox I would not be confident to drive it as it would always be in the back of my mind that the same problem could arise at any moment. A bit daunting when doing 70mph on the motorway! There is only a one year warranty on the new parts fitted by the official Toyota garage and I have read of instances where people have had the necessary work done (at about £2K), only for the same problem to arise again!

 

It is indeed possible that the dealer did check the car before selling it on and did not pick up the problem. We certainly didn't during the short test run. However that does not prevent us rejecting the car within the 30 days (remembering that the fault appeared after only about 6 hours of driving in total!).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update as to where we are at (if there is anyone out there who is still interested of course!).

 

The car has been tested by the Toyota garage and their computer has found an error code which indicates that there is a fault with the clutch actuator system.

 

Unfortunately it is not possible for the software to say when the fault occurred but both the Toyota service guys and the independent automotive engineer have stated that it is highly improbable that the fault occurred within the first 6 hours we had the car.

The cost to repair would be around £2400.

 

The dealer has agreed to refund us the money we paid for the car provided we supply a copy of the independent engineer's written report, which is not unreasonable of course. We should get that report middle of next week.

 

In some ways it might have been better that the whole business went to court as we would almost certainly have won the case and been able to claim back the huge amount of additional expense that this matter has caused us. (Must be of the order of £600+ by now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for updating us. Of course you could claim those other losses – but maybe it's better not to rock the boat.

Anyway, well done. It shows that it is worth standing your ground


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BankFodder said:

Thanks for updating us. Of course you could claim those other losses – but maybe it's better not to rock the boat.

Anyway, well done. It shows that it is worth standing your ground

 

Yes, I would feel a bit uneasy about "rocking the boat" as you say, although it is quite a bitter pill to swallow. I guess we have learnt a lot from this experience! What I have done is to include a list of all the expenses we have incurred in my latest letter to the dealer so they are aware, but I haven't specifically said that we might try to reclaim these. It could deter them from getting awkward at the last minute and opting for the small claims court option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would suggest that we might examine the possibility of you getting your refund and then proceeding arteries to get the outstanding money.

There is a principle in law that payment of a lesser sum cannot be satisfaction for a greater debt. There are exceptions to this rule – but the general rule is a very well established principle.

I think it might be better not saying anything to the dealer about any outstanding sums - although it may be rather late because I gather that you may already have sent a letter to the dealer.

Get your refund and then come back here.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/04/2019 at 07:33, buyer-beware said:
Quote

 

I am glad you are seeing sense. If the report shows conclusively the fault was present at the point of sale then the retailer hasn’t a leg to stand on. 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, without wishing too much to wake up this discussion once again, the above quote is quite wrong. It would be correct if it said:-

 

Quote

 If the report shows conclusively the fault was not present at the point of sale then you don't have a leg to stand on. 

 

 

 

 

So to summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is not relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months.

Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time.

I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality.

As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle.

It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.

I couldn't have found better word to describe "The bigger picture"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2019 at 17:08, BankFodder said:

 

Also, without wishing too much to wake up this discussion once again, the above quote is quite wrong. It would be correct if it said:-

 

 

 

So to summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is not relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months.

Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time.

I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality.

As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle.

It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.

 

The part that I have highlighted in bold, I think it's not quite right.

 

I don't believe that if a consumer took a dealer to court, with the defect being a blown bulb, 25 days after taking ownership, they would win. Or else, people could just decide they didn't like the car anymore, put a knackered bulb in the car and reject it.

 

The severity of the defect does matter.

 

It needs to render the car not fit for purpose, not as described, or not of satisfactory quality. That's what defines whether a defect is really a defect or  not. Small but subtle point that needs to be clear to people reading the forum I think. Otherwise, people may think they can take a car back for any old reason.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand what you say sounds quite logical. However, you are inventing words into the statute.

Have you looked at the statute? Have you seen anything in the statute which supports what you say?

What you are saying is that the effect of the statue is vulnerable to manipulation by a dishonest customer. I think you're right.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Chuffnut is saying seems reasonable. I cannot imagine any judge upholding a consumer's right to return a car because of a minor fault. If that had been the case with me I would have happily accepted a repair by the dealer as the most of the car is in A1 condition but a major fault (subsequently discovered to be inherent in the design of the semiautomatic transmission system) in the auto gearbox is quite a different ball game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the strict wording of the statute, I don't think that a judge would have any choice.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...