Consumer Rights Act 2015

[bcars 0]

Within 30 days we all know that a customer can claim a fault and then demand a full refund, however who establishes and verifies the fault?

Any seasoned advice welcome.

[trade vet 702]

24 minutes ago, bcars said:

Within 30 days we all know that a customer can claim a fault and then demand a full refund, however who establishes and verifies the fault?

Any seasoned advice welcome.

I think we need a description of the vehicle,age ,price ,mileage etc .......and the fault. ?

[bcars 0]

2016 Golf, 1 private senior owner, full VW history, still a boat load of manufacturers warranty left on it. RAC Multi-point checked before sale, test driven with no faults. Customer saying it has a couple of faults.

[justina3 518]

who verifies the faults ? the seller or am i missing something bit of an odd question 

[bcars 0]

sorry, can a customer just say it has faults and that's their right to get a refund?

[EPV 631]

20 minutes ago, bcars said:

sorry, can a customer just say it has faults and that's their right to get a refund?

My understanding is they can only do that if they can prove the fault existed at the point of sale. 

[bcars 0]

16 minutes ago, EPV said:

My understanding is they can only do that if they can prove the fault existed at the point of sale. 

Presumably there is some protocol where they would have to prove a fault via a recognised third party inspector or any customer could just attempt to get a refund.

[have a word with the wife 299]

On 22/02/2018 at 8:18 PM, EPV said:

My understanding is they can only do that if they can prove the fault existed at the point of sale. 

unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, 30 days .

6 month, you have one shot at repairing it RIGHT. fault is assumed to be present at time of sale unless you can prove otherwise.

 6 month it is the seller who has to prove fault not present at time of sale, not the consumer, the work is put on our shoulders, thats why we have to, as, respected motor traders, know the cra .

On 22/02/2018 at 8:37 PM, bcars said:

Presumably there is some protocol where they would have to prove a fault via a recognised third party inspector or any customer could just attempt to get a refund.

or 29 days free car hire 

Edited February 23, 2018 by have a word with the wife

[Mojo121 229]

15 minutes ago, bcars said:

Presumably there is some protocol where they would have to prove a fault via a recognised third party inspector or any customer could just attempt to get a refund.

There's no independent third party, who would pay for them? Anyone can attempt to get a refund. It's between you and your customer to resolve things. If they feel the resolution you offer is unfair they take you to court.

With regard to protocol, for example: If you bought a TV from the local independent TV shop and a week later it gets a white line down the screen so you take it back to the shop do you think they'd plug it in and see for themselves? Get the car back and have a look. Let the customer demonstrate the faults if need be.

[bcars 0]

6 minutes ago, have a word with the wife said:

unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, 30 days .

6 month, you have one shot at repairing it RIGHT. fault is assumed to be present at time of sale unless you can prove otherwise.

both 30 days and 6 month it is the seller who has to prove fault not present at time of sale, not the consumer, the work is put on our shoulders, thats why we have to, as, respected motor traders, know the cra .

or 29 days free car hire 

good point, regarding free car hire

[justlooking 48]

Don’t they have to give us one chance to repair before demanding a refund?

[EPV 631]

3 hours ago, have a word with the wife said:

unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, 30 days .

6 month, you have one shot at repairing it RIGHT. fault is assumed to be present at time of sale unless you can prove otherwise.

both 30 days and 6 month it is the seller who has to prove fault not present at time of sale, not the consumer, the work is put on our shoulders, thats why we have to, as, respected motor traders, know the cra .

or 29 days free car hire 

They have the right to reject the car for a refund but in order to exercise this right they have to prove the fault was there when they purchased the car which if you have done your job correctly, they would find it very hard to do. The fault cannot be assumed to be present at the time of sale if you have a PDI signed by the customer as you have proven that the fault was not there and they have agreed it wasn't by signing to say so, if your PDI is worded correctly.

The reality of this is that anyone taking this seriously and had a desire to build a good reputation would just sort the issue out for the customer. But if they start to get all shitty and demand a refund they have to prove the fault was present at the point of sale.

Happy to be corrected but that is my understanding of the situation.

[BHM 994]

See TRADEX’s posting “Are Golf owners wired differently?” 

[EPV 631]

1 hour ago, tradex said:

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

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/865#sthash.kxx08vCH.dpbs

 

[MSP Motors 39]

I think a lot of emphasis gets put on a pdi. Don't get me wrong, I do a pdi, I just don't believe it acts as proof as there being no fault present at point of sale. How can a customer sign to state there was no fault present at point of sale?

Maybe I'm different to everyone else, my pdi gets done as soon as I get a vehicle....... It can be months before I sell the car. I never give customers a copy of a pdi as I deem it irrelevant. 

Within the first 30 days I will break it down like this......

Is there a significant fault with the car? If so then offer to repair under warranty or refund...

If there is a minor fault with the car? (98%) offer to put right and no offer of refund. It is always up to the customer which route to take, but I am not prepared to take back a car with another owner because there is a knocking noise coming from the suspension, the airbag light has come on after 7 days, the starter motor has stopped working, etc. These issues are just normal day to day issues that happen on cars. That's why there are thousands upon thousands of garages.... It's a small issue, I'll gladly help you out but if you choose to go the other way than so be it.

[EPV 631]

12 hours ago, bcars said:

Presumably there is some protocol where they would have to prove a fault via a recognised third party inspector or any customer could just attempt to get a refund.

If you have done your dillegence in your prep a customer would find it very hard to prove the fault was there at the point of sale. As I said though, the reality is that as a business you would be doing all you could to remedy the situation, offering to fix the fault etc. It’s only when you were on the end of an unreasonable customer who refused to let you carry out a repair and demanded a refund would you reluctantly stand your ground and get all contractual. Others may see this differently but I personally don’t want the aggro or the bad rep. That said i’d stand my ground if a customer was trying to drum up a reason to get a refund because of buyers remorse or some other unrelated reason. 

1 hour ago, MSP Motors said:

I think a lot of emphasis gets put on a pdi. Don't get me wrong, I do a pdi, I just don't believe it acts as proof as there being no fault present at point of sale. How can a customer sign to state there was no fault present at point of sale?

Maybe I'm different to everyone else, my pdi gets done as soon as I get a vehicle....... It can be months before I sell the car. I never give customers a copy of a pdi as I deem it irrelevant. 

Within the first 30 days I will break it down like this......

Is there a significant fault with the car? If so then offer to repair under warranty or refund...

If there is a minor fault with the car? (98%) offer to put right and no offer of refund. It is always up to the customer which route to take, but I am not prepared to take back a car with another owner because there is a knocking noise coming from the suspension, the airbag light has come on after 7 days, the starter motor has stopped working, etc. These issues are just normal day to day issues that happen on cars. That's why there are thousands upon thousands of garages.... It's a small issue, I'll gladly help you out but if you choose to go the other way than so be it.

On your pdi form. If you use a pdi form that is comprehensive, states that everything is working as it should and the customer signs the sheet below the carefully worded statement “this car is bloody perfect” (or words to that effect) then that is proof that the fault didn’t exist at the point of sale. It’s up to the customer to prove it did exist, assuming they want a refund. 

 

[MSP Motors 39]

But a customer is exactly that, a customer. He's not an engineer. Pdi is good for tyre depth, locking wheel nut location, etc, but you can't expect it to save your ass if a serious fault happens with the first 30 days. I just can't see a pdi saving you when sat in front of a judge.

[BHM 994]

2 minutes ago, MSP Motors said:

But a customer is exactly that, a customer. He's not an engineer. Pdi is good for tyre depth, locking wheel nut location, etc, but you can't expect it to save your ass if a serious fault happens with the first 30 days. I just can't see a pdi saving you when sat in front of a judge.

Correct.

If you don’t want the slim chance of ending up before the judge then do not retail anything to retail consumers.

[EPV 631]

6 minutes ago, MSP Motors said:

But a customer is exactly that, a customer. He's not an engineer. Pdi is good for tyre depth, locking wheel nut location, etc, but you can't expect it to save your ass if a serious fault happens with the first 30 days. I just can't see a pdi saving you when sat in front of a judge.

He doesn't need to be an engineer. He knows there is a fault with the car, it's xyz. He wants to reject the car for a refund but to do so he has to prove the fault was there at the point of sale.

[grant8064 219]

Has there been a daytime TV programme about the CRA recently?

We've had four this month claiming various stuff...never known it to be so bad.

The latest one is from a solicitor in a ten year old hatchback claiming we've breached the sales of goods act through misrepresentation because it only does 33mpg and not the 40.1 the manufacturer states 

[BHM 994]

7 minutes ago, EPV said:

He doesn't need to be an engineer. He knows there is a fault with the car, it's xyz. He wants to reject the car for a refund but to do so he has to prove the fault was there at the point of sale.

WRONG. You have to prove the fault wasn’t there at the point of sale - very different. Whether or not you refund is up to you but in theory all they have to allege is a specified fault & reject.

The best thing I’ve found is to f*** them off - it works 99% of the time.

[EPV 631]

Just now, BHM said:

WRONG. You have to prove the fault wasn’t there at the point of sale - very different. Whether or not you refund is up to you but in theory all they have to allege is a specified fault & reject.

The best thing I’ve found is to f*** them off - it works 99% of the time.

Sorry but I beg to differ. In order for the customer to exercise their right to a refund they have to prove the fault was present at the point of sale. If you have not done your job properly this will be easy, the customer will just say "yeah there was a fault with the EML, the dealer told me it was nothing to worry about" or some other excuse.

If however, you have done your job properly and the customer wants a refund because the EML is on, they can't have a refund unless the can prove the EML was on at the point of sale.

18 minutes ago, grant8064 said:

Has there been a daytime TV programme about the CRA recently?

We've had four this month claiming various stuff...never known it to be so bad.

The latest one is from a solicitor in a ten year old hatchback claiming we've breached the sales of goods act through misrepresentation because it only does 33mpg and not the 40.1 the manufacturer states 

Bloody hell. I can't believe someone would actually get a solicitor in for that! I assume it's a no win no fee jobby, surely the solicitor must realise that for their claim to have any weight at all, the car would have to be calibrated, manufacturer test conditions recreated etc? 

[grant8064 219]

3 minutes ago, EPV said:

 

Bloody hell. I can't believe someone would actually get a solicitor in for that! I assume it's a no win no fee jobby, surely the solicitor must realise that for their claim to have any weight at all, the car would have to be calibrated, manufacturer test conditions recreated etc? 

No the customer is the solicitor!

You'd think they'd know better and understand that a ten year old vehicle won't achieve the same MPG as a brand new one tested in lab conditions but hey ho. Given the complaint and a couple of other spurious claims it's a simple refund and resell. Sometimes it's just not worth investing time in these 'people'

[Ocsltd 133]

30 minutes ago, grant8064 said:

Has there been a daytime TV programme about the CRA recently?

We've had four this month claiming various stuff...never known it to be so bad.

The latest one is from a solicitor in a ten year old hatchback claiming we've breached the sales of goods act through misrepresentation because it only does 33mpg and not the 40.1 the manufacturer states 

Jesus Christ!!

Dear Mr Customer,

You should have bought a brand new car....!!

[grant8064 219]

Just now, Ocsltd said:

Jesus Christ!!

Dear Mr Customer,

You should have bought a brand new car....!!

I know...it's ones like this though that there's no sense in fighting because logic clearly doesn't apply. 

Car was only in stock for a few hours, £500 too cheap and even if we sorted the MPG issue they'd be moaning the AC is too cold or the blue paint is too blue.

Bring it back, do your money on the tax and insurance and we'll resell it to someone realistic.