Consumer Rights Act & Related Rights

Tuesday, 26. July 2016

I have read on many lawyer’s web sites that following the biggest change to the all inclusive Consumer Rights Act 2015, the ability to return goods that do not conform to the conditions laid down in the new Act, that consumers have confused this with the terms of the Distance Selling Act.

The new Consumer Rights Act replaces many old acts such as the Sale of Goods Act (last revision 2006) Unfair Terms In Consumer Regulations and the Supply of Goods & Services Act along with other minor acts. But not totally as I will explain in a moment.

In the new act you have 30 days, during which, if the goods are, in simple terms, Faulty, Not As Described or Unfit For Purpose you can claim a refund. You don’t have to give the seller the opportunity to repair the item and you certainly don’t need to go to court to claim your money back.

A word with your local Trading Standards Office or Citizen’s Advice Bureau should do the trick. If you choose the Court route you will probably be offered the free Small Claims Court Mediation Service once the other party has filed a defence. Well worth considering.

 

First let me deal with the confusion. You have 30 days to return goods or claim on services that do not meet the conditions of the Consumer Rights Act and claim your money back. Not to be confused with the 14 days you have under the Distance Selling Act when you buy goods or services that you haven’t been able to inspect before paying for them.

In this case you have the right to return goods to the seller within 14 days and claim your money back simply because you don’t like the colour or design of the goods whereas items returned under the Consumer Rights Act must be faulty, not as described or not fit for purpose.

But cases have been going to small claims courts citing the Consumer Rights Act when the consumer didn’t have a leg to stand on because he simply didn’t want the goods after getting them home. So don’t be confused, you can’t return goods under the Consumer Rights Act just because you changed your mind.

 

30 Day, 6 Month & 6 Year Rules: The 30 day rule is the period during which you can simply ask for your money back if the goods or service don’t conform to the Consumer Rights Act. You can allow the seller to repair or replace the goods but if you allow for a repair and it doesn’t fix the fault you still have the right to claim your money back.

And the onus is not on you to prove that the goods or service are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act it is down to the supplier to prove that they aren’t. This brings me to the 6 month rule. You must allow the supplier to remedy the fault with a repair or replacement after 30 days but within 6 months.

Again, you don’t have to prove that the fault existed when you bought the goods the supplier must prove that it didn’t. After 6 months but up to 6 years you can still exercise your rights if the Consumer Rights Act has been breached but after 6 months the onus is on you to prove that the fault existed.

 

Car Warranty: I think that it is worth mentioning at this point your legal position when it comes to a faulty car and its manufacturer’s warranty. Apologies if you have read this before as it is something that I bang on about quite regularly. Most new cars come with a transferable 3 year warranty, some more but most with 3 years.

Whenever you read a complaint in the National press, specialist motoring press or popular blogs about a car fault the warranty is considered to be the ultimate redress when things go wrong. It isn’t, it is there to add to the customers’ legal protection but just because the warranty ends on the car it doesn’t mean that the car falls off a cliff and every part on the car is expected to fail.

Outside of fair wear and tear I would expect most components on a car to last at least 8 years of average mileage provided the car has been properly serviced. The ultimate redress is not the warranty, it is legislation, in this case the Consumer Rights Act.

So when a major item such as a gearbox goes faulty after 3 years and 1 month and the manufacturer refuses to accept liability as you are now outside the warranty revert to your rights within the Consumer Rights Act and take the dealer and the manufacturer to court.

 

What is a Consumer?: The Consumer Credit Act 2006 defines an individual to include a sole trader, small partnership (3 partners or less) or an unincorporated association. As I understand it (and I have read conflicting information) the Consumer Rights Act defines a consumer as  “an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession”.

Not sure how you would determine how much of the use of a laptop computer is for business and how much for personal use. But I have seen suggestions that the ‘spirit’ of the CRA should also apply to SME’s so whilst they may not have the same statutory right of rejection within the first 30 days a court may use as a test of reasonableness the terms laid down in the CRA. The situation is made even more unclear by the scope of control exercised by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

The FOS deals with complaints from consumers relating to Finance and Insurance Products with consumers being defined as above by the Consumer Credit Act. Now the CCA completely ignores ‘Unincorporated Associations’, i.e. Limited Companies but if you go onto the FOS website you will see that they also offer their services to Micro Enterprises as defined by the EU, which is a business that employs less than 10 people and a turnover or balance sheet net worth of less than 2 million Euros. And of course this can apply to limited companies So where is the consistency?

 

Financial Ombudsman Service: The little understood fact is that the FOS acts outside the law. It will use the law as its basis for coming to a ruling, which is legally binding on both sides, but the Ombudsman will consider such common sense things such as ‘was the customer treated fairly?’

The FOS can make an emotional decision compared to a judge who must base his decision on the letter of the law so I always recommend that you consider the FOS before court action. And bear in mind you don’t have to accept the FOS ruling, you can still exercise your right to go to court. And whilst you may run a Micro Enterprise and your complaint would normally fall outside the CCA you can still make your complaint to the FOS and you will be listened to.

By Graham Hill

Rejecting A Car That Is Not Fit For Purpose

Tuesday, 25. October 2011

I love talking and studying the law, much to the annoyance of many who think they’re above it and try it on, especially with my clients. As a result I read a lot of legal papers and study case histories. Years ago I wrote a piece about the responsibility of dealers and brokers with regard to vehicles being fit for purpose and the importance of everyone Read more »

A Massive Benefit Of Hire Purchase Over Cash Or Loan

Monday, 19. July 2010

Over the years I have put forward many reasons why you should opt for Dealer HP over a personal loan (contrary to all advice given in the media). Your legal rights are so much greater when you take HP. If you have read my book An Insider Guide To Car Finance, or been a regular reader of my newsletter, you would know the reasons that I put forward. However, I have just uncovered a new one that you may Read more »

Government To Introduce New Sales Guidlines To Car Dealers

Friday, 12. February 2010

It would seem that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is about to clean up the act of used car dealers (fat chance). It will be issuing new guidelines later this year when consultations are completed on 12th March. The action has been taken as a result of used car complaints topping the list of complaints received over the past 3 years by Consumer Direct, the Government’s independent advice service. In 2008 Read more »

Rejecting A New Or Used Car Months Or Years After Delivery

Wednesday, 22. July 2009

Over the years I have put forward many reasons why you should opt for Dealer HP over a personal loan (contrary to all advice given in the media). Your legal rights are so much greater when you take HP. If you have read my book An Insider Guide To Car Finance, or been a regular reader of my newsletter, you would know the reasons that I put forward. However, I have just uncovered a new one that you may find useful if you, or a friend/relation ever find yourself in this situation. If you are a consumer (can also be a sole trader) and you purchase a vehicle outright you are deemed to have accepted the goods if you have had a reasonable time to inspect the goods and not rejected them. After this time your remedy for defects is restricted to Read more »

Legal Redress If Car Is Misrepresented Including Fuel Consumption

Monday, 14. July 2008

In my book ‘An Insider Guide To Car Finance’ I provide a great deal of legal advice, obviously if you find yourself in a dispute you should consult a qualified solicitor. However, by way of advice, in these times of high fuel costs suddenly the advertised MPG figures become all important. So what happens when the figures provided by the manufacturer/dealer are incorrect? I often receive complaints about this subject but as the cost of fuel was under reasonable control no one seemed willing to enforce their legal position, however that may well start to change. So in order to clarify your position I would suggest the following. Read more »