CRA - Conclusive Action Required Legally

[Anglo9 26]

1 hour ago, Mark101 said:

Is it me?

How on earth could anyone think we are only responsible for existing faults?  Surely it is our job to put faults right so that the car leaves fault free (meaning we would be liable for nothing).  I personally consider myself responsible for all faults past, present or future for 6 months (unless I have told the customer and stated on the PDI something like AC not working, customer aware).

I say within 3 months (my warranty period) I will fix everything except wear and tear items (I mean obvious ones like tyres), hoping they agree to that and don't start spouting CRA.

After 3 months, I would dig my heels in but as an honest trader, I genuinely want my customers to come back if they have a fault on their cars within 3 months.  Of course, I hope they don't have the need to but equally I am more than happy to oblige.

I can categorically state that there is not one customer whom wouldn't buy another car from me or recommend me to a friend.

For the avoidance of doubt, Of course we ARE repsonsible for NEW faults except fair wear and tear.

Same

6 hours ago, Frankieola said:

For those of you who are self funding your warranty's, How much do you put aside for each car or do you put aside a certain amount each month?

8 hours ago, mike101 said:

Under the old SGA, faults like this were deemed to be ‘latent’ for the first 6 months and the seller had to prove otherwise. After that the burden of proof reversed and the buyer had to prove. Not sure how this sits within CRA?

As normal a lot will depend how reasonable (or not) the punter is. 

My understanding is it's the same , when you sell a car, basically , hold your breath for 6 months . Difference with cra15 is right to reject within 30 days re major fault . We use an independent RAC approved garage to PDI and have our own warranty fund , sure it's a bummer when you pay out a claim but that's why you tuck some money aside on each sale .

[Arfur Dealy 823]

1 hour ago, Okay dokay said:

 

But the gearbox has lasted longer than 3 months, it’s lasted 14 years and 3 months. The clock doesn’t restart on a part every time a car is sold.

Exactly. We are not offering the same guarantee as the manufacturer. 3 years Max on average from new FFS ! it’s 14 years old, did the buyer  purchase a warranty to specifically cover a gearbox fault on his 14 year old car ? No, so why should you pay for it to be repaired ? 

[Del Boy 76]

14 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Why ? 3k is pocket money. It’s a banger, it cost a 20th if it’s original price. It’s 14 year old. 

Not how a judge will see it though. CRA doesn’t just apply to ‘slightly used cars’. 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

4 hours ago, twerp said:

MSP - are you trying to say that people trading end of life vehicles for profit but offering no value to customers are missing the point ?

Ignorantly aswell. 

[mike101 8]

5 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Why ? 3k is pocket money. It’s a banger, it cost a 20th if it’s original price. It’s 14 year old. 

By the same argument if it’s pocket money just give the bloke a refund?

We both know that’s it’s a ‘reasonable’ amount. You’d certainly be a bit cross if you lost it in the street.

For me a lot would depend on the mileage covered since sale. If it’s a few thousand miles personally I don’t think a Judge would rule in a dealers favour on this one even if you had a PDI, an independent inspection before sale and a letter from your Mum saying you were a nice bloke. 

However it’s all supposition. Sounds like there’s more to this one than any of us know - been to a third party to fix other faults the dealer wasn’t aware of etc etc

[Dealer 54]

Might get to ten pages this! 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

2 hours ago, EPV said:

Ok well you’re golden then. The only thing this thread has done is start a few rows 

This subject always does.... repeatedly  

[EPV 631]

Just now, Arfur Dealy said:

This subject always does.... repeatedly  

The key is to learn from it imo. I have and I suggest others who seem to want to wave their cocks at each other do the same. As humbling as that may be. 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

2 hours ago, EPV said:

You’re still liable to fix faults that develop mate. The argument is whether the fault is down to fair wear and tear. That’s the subjective part. 

There an argument to say anything passed the manufacturer warranty is wear n tear.... if the manufacturer won’t guarantee it why should we..... 

[EPV 631]

Just now, Arfur Dealy said:

There an argument to say anything passed the manufacturer warranty is wear n tear.... if the manufacturer won’t guarantee it why should we..... 

This is where the CRA becomes not fit for purpose in itself. An automotive is made of thousands of individual components. How anyone can apply a black and white law to that is beyond me.

It is what it is, grey, non definitive, no "right" answer. Best you can do is prep cars well, prep your paperwork well, know the time of day and not lose sleep over it.

All said and done, you've got to be some sort of a c*nt to end up in court repeatedly, most of this CRA stuff is basic and simple, the grey area is quite small.

[Arfur Dealy 823]

2 hours ago, MOTORS said:

I'm not missing the point. If you had given the full details and status of the vehicle at the start including the opinion from Lawgistics I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Agreed 

2 hours ago, mike101 said:

You’re only liable if the fault was there at the point of sale. You need to prove it wasn’t. The law deems any faults for the first 6 months were unless you can prove otherwise.

Exactly. 

2 hours ago, Mark101 said:

 

For the avoidance of doubt, Of course we ARE repsonsible for NEW faults except fair wear and tear.

 Nope. If the manufacturer won’t guarantee it then I am not responsible equally. It’s as simple as that. This will breed controversy but I’m of that opinion....  

[Arfur Dealy 823]

2 hours ago, mike101 said:

Consumer Rights

Excerpt

Between 30 days and 6 months

If a fault comes to light after 30 days but before 6 months you’re entitled to a repair, replacement or refund.

• It’s assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise.
• Unless you’ve agreed otherwise, the seller (dealer) has only one opportunity to repair (or replace) the faulty vehicle after which, if they fail to repair it, you’re entitled to a refund.
• In the event of a refund following a failed attempt at repair during the first six months the seller may make a 'reasonable' adjustment to the amount refunded to take account of the use that you’ve had of the vehicle.

You miss the bit which excludes wear commensurate... blah

2 hours ago, Mark101 said:

I'm going to open a can of worms again and say.

This is one Topic which should be in the Secret Room.

Google CRA and customer may land here

No. Let the public watch

[Arfur Dealy 823]

1 hour ago, Del Boy said:

Not how a judge will see it though. CRA doesn’t just apply to ‘slightly used cars’. 

I agree, it applies reasonably. A 14 year old banger won’t have the same coverage as a 5 year old car.

When you have been to court and won, and had numerous battles defending yourself you learn. Until you have been to court you simply don’t know.

It all depends on the Magistrate. 

[trade vet 702]

This is going on and on.The bottom line is it is asking for trouble retailing older heavy stuff.If you end up in the small claims court the chances are you will lose with whatever defence you may have.With old stuff,stick to bread and butter stock,less agro and better punters.  Incidently has anyone on here  successfully defended a case brought against them in the small claims court by a punter.

 

[Okay dokay 3]

9 minutes ago, trade vet said:

This is going on and on.The bottom line is it is asking for trouble retailing older heavy stuff.If you end up in the small claims court the chances are you will lose with whatever defence you may have.With old stuff,stick to bread and butter stock,less agro and better punters.  Incidently has anyone on here  successfully defended a case brought against them in the small claims court by a punter.

 

There are known cases dealers have won, Lawgistics publicise them in their “news” section often.

We don’t make a habit of retailing bangers, but some are worthy of retail (obviously without the benefit of hindsight when they go kaboom)

Edited August 26, 2018 by Okay dokay

[Arfur Dealy 823]

2 minutes ago, trade vet said:

This is going on and on.The bottom line is it is asking for trouble retailing older heavy stuff.If you end up in the small claims court the chances are you will lose with whatever defence you may have.With old stuff,stick to bread and butter stock,less agro and better punters.  Incidently has anyone on here  successfully defended a case brought against them in the small claims court by a punter.

 

Yes, I stood my ground and won. Until you’ve wasted a year of your lifecycle you simply won’t appreciate how it takes over. It’s made me so much more wiser. Not scared to say no.....

[It's me 615]

8 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Yes, I stood my ground and won. Until you’ve wasted a year of your lifecycle you simply won’t appreciate how it takes over. It’s made me so much more wiser. Not scared to say no.....

absolutely

for me it wasn't about the money

its the principle

[XFS 70]

3 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Yes, I stood my ground and won. Until you’ve wasted a year of your lifecycle you simply won’t appreciate how it takes over. It’s made me so much more wiser. Not scared to say no.....

I have no fear of the courts or customers. But then I feel that I have always been honest and fair.

You cannot be weak. You can and should be fair and reasonable, but if you are weak you will get shafted.

If you feel you are right stand your ground. Most people will back off.

[Arfur Dealy 823]

5 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Yes, I stood my ground and won. Until you’ve wasted a year of your lifecycle you simply won’t appreciate how it takes over. It’s made me so much more wiser. Not scared to say no.....

This is why I take the stance I do. My cars are right when they go out. I cover my ass and protect it. I’m ultimately fair, no more no less. 

2 minutes ago, boring dave said:

absolutely

for me it wasn't about the money

its the principle

4 minutes ago, XFS said:

I have no fear of the courts or customers. But then I feel that I have always been honest and fair.

You cannot be weak. You can and should be fair and reasonable, but if you are weak you will get shafted.

If you feel you are right stand your ground. Most people will back off.

Absolutely. 

[trade vet 702]

4 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Yes, I stood my ground and won. Until you’ve wasted a year of your lifecycle you simply won’t appreciate how it takes over. It’s made me so much more wiser. Not scared to say no.....

I would like to know the details of the case, there is no hurry.I have found that the judges or recorders ( they are not Magistrates) in the small claims court are deliberately awkward with us guys.Yet I have won cases personally against architects and a builder when car dealer was never mentioned.I am not including our BCA /leaseplan case as that was a walkover.

[Arfur Dealy 823]

3 minutes ago, trade vet said:

I would like to know the details of the case, there is no hurry.I have found that the judges or recorders ( they are not Magistrates) in the small claims court are deliberately awkward with us guys.Yet I have won cases personally against architects and a builder when car dealer was never mentioned.I am not including our BCA /leaseplan case as that was a walkover.

TV I’ve mentioned it a few times on here in various depths from memory  

[have a word with the wife 299]

am i right in the reading of this thread because its gone a bit off track that claimant is [a] still driving car ? with fault? another garage has worked on it ?[c] seller not given opportunity to examine car ?

if so.................

Edited August 26, 2018 by have a word with the wife

[Arfur Dealy 823]

What the judge did was confirm the car was right when it went out..

 

[trade vet 702]

7 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

TV I’ve mentioned it a few times on here in various depths from memory  

OK

[have a word with the wife 299]

2 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

What the judge did was confirm the car was right when it went out..

 

fault not present at time of sale