Technote

Agree. Well, with CRA faults within 6m are considered faults at point of sale unless dealer can prove otherwise, so there is certainly some overlap for a failure in February to be "legally" at pos even if its only outed itself 4m after customer buys in October. That's probably why it reads I'm confusing both, because they are naturally interlinked. There's that blur. I think it's complicated by the variety in advertising too. So on a personal level we have a 1986 Sierra Cosworth (personal car, not selling it). It has never failed an MOT and has done sub 100k miles. But if I was selling it things like "excellent condition for age" read differently to different people. To me that reads "for a Sierra Cosworth, it's fab. Don't cancel your RAC cover or take it somewhere you actually need to get to, like the hospital with your wife in labour, but if you're going to a shop a mile away you'll probably be alright. Tow bar supplied foc with car".

I think we've cross posted. I'm more talking about aftersales and how you determine whether you are footing the Bill (not just on the basis of goodwill, as you can do that if item is cheap and customer is nice regardless) than selling something you know is dodgy (or could have known, with a PDI, for those who don't do them).

Oh of course pointing it out if you know at point of sale. That's different. They know about it. They've taken an informed decision. But what if they buy it on Saturday, then try and put all their shopping in it a few weeks later and the boot won't open. So customer calls you from the car park, surrounded cheek to cheek in the drivers seat with bread and orange juice. What then? That's where wear and tear or not comes in. If the item is faulty, I need to repair it. If i think its fair wear and tear, I can argue they shouldn't have expected an everlasting boot and should find their own mechanic with a speciality in boots.

Really interesting. I was expecting a range of views so I'm glad that's what's coming out thus far. I get the point some of you make re obtaining a fresh MOT and fixing advisories, but what if your problem item isn't part of the MOT test list? Obviously that approach works well when considering e.g. brakes. Do you do anything else or act differently if the MOT passes that item by? I don't know, let's say the boot not opening correctly, or a broken CD player. In regard to the Consumer Rights Act, it doesn't explicitly use the words wear and tear (or just wear) anywhere on its face. Nor do the explanatory notes prepared with the Bill talk about it as something to consider. So any existence of that term must be implied onto the other terms which are themselves implied into contracts with consumers. It's why I'm here asking the question in all honesty. To get a bit of a barometer of thoughts.

Discussion regarding wear and tear items. Now, for me I would say that wear and tear items are those which can do just that, they are impacted upon by use and gradually lose functionality to one degree or another until they finally cease to function. So the obvious, brakes, tyres, clutch, gearbox. But what of the less obvious items...the runner/handle that the seats move along...a cabriolet roof (read the previous thread as a lurker), a boot opening/closing properly, central locking, electric windows, air conditioning functionality, electrics such as the lights (not the bulb), satellite navigation, the CD player, the radio. Do you consider these wear and tear items? Where do those sit in your consideration of what is wear and tear? Im not specifically talking about what you would fix (clearly if you give a no quibble 6 month gearbox warranty then you are fixing it whether it's wear and tear or not). But I'm curious about what you consider to be wear and tear and what you consider to be a fault (whether or not it's a fault needing rectification).