CRA. A very intresting read.....

[Arfur Dealy 823]

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491352-Your-rights-to-reject-under-the-Consumer-Rights-Act-2015

[D&M 66]

Quite a good thread - that Chuffnut seems to get it.

I like his response highlighting the trouble with armchair legal experts posting on forums

" it gives people a sense of entitlement they are not necessarily entitled to. A lot of the time people don't want to hear the other side of the coin because it doesn't suit them to listen"

[Arfur Dealy 823]

1 minute ago, D&M said:

Quite a good thread - that Chuffnut seems to get it.

I like his response highlighting the trouble with armchair legal experts posting on forums

" it gives people a sense of entitlement they are not necessarily entitled to. A lot of the time people don't want to hear the other side of the coin because it doesn't suit them to listen"

Agreed, but this is a GAG giving advice like they its gospel when its a distorted, extreme, mis-guided interpretation of the CRA. They advise the billies completely ignorantly. 

[BHM 994]

AD, do you read their shite for fun? 

I’ve had a scan through - imagine dealing with Surfer01. He’s out to sort out every car dealer. The worst thing you could do is give a man like that an ear. Sack him off & threaten him if necessary. 

[D&M 66]

3 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Agreed, but this is a GAG giving advice like they its gospel when its a distorted, extreme, mis-guided interpretation of the CRA. They advise the billies completely ignorantly. 

The worst kind of customer is the internet educated one. They only read the posts they want to hear.

From what we've read, its the same as when these billies visit Citizens Advice - They get told that they are entitled to a full and immediate refund because they have told the staff a story to get the answer they want.

In reality, if they would just call and deal with dealers politely and plainly first - most cases, it'll be resolved without any problems. More often than not, I think the billy has other stuff going on that they are just venting.

We've only had 1 customer shouting about a refund... He had been to a tyre place who's eBay diagnostics couldn't talk to the car so they told him that only BMW would be able to diagnose the fault. He was irate on the phone so told him to end the call and have a 10 min walk around the block and we will deal with it properly. Called him back 10 mins later, got the car booked it. £12 part and a couple of hours of our own labour and it was sorted. Didn't get a bloody thank you though, but that is hardly suprising.

A bit like googling your symptoms... I've got a headache, google says I'll be dead within 24 hours.

[Arfur Dealy 823]

14 minutes ago, BHM said:

AD, do you read their shite for fun? 

I’ve had a scan through - imagine dealing with Surfer01. He’s out to sort out every car dealer. The worst thing you could do is give a man like that an ear. Sack him off & threaten him if necessary. 

Yes. You have to understand the ignorant enemy. 

[stockedup! 63]

2 hours ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Yes. You have to understand the ignorant enemy. 

They are convinced we are twats...………. deal with them as such AD!!

[Mark101 536]

I want chuffnut as a customer

[Arfur Dealy 823]

17 minutes ago, Mark101 said:

I want chuffnut as a customer

Like.

 

[justlooking 48]

Great post AD.

I've found some CRA2015 Guidance notes from .GOV - https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/files/CRA-Goods-Guidance-for-Business-Sep-2015.pdf

Interesting that in regards to customers claiming for damages, "nor can the consumer recover for loss which they could reasonably have acted to limit or mitigate."

Going off on a tangent here, but I would personally interpret this as customers not being able to claim for a blown engine had its oil pressure light on for 400 miles, that said, could you prove this, are high-level diag tools clever enough to clock such mileage/date?

[trade vet 704]

However you interpret CRA, the bottom line is that if you end up in the Small Claims Court defending a case brought by a retail punter,you are most likely to lose.I have yet to see anyone on this forum describe the details of a case where they have successfully defended themselves.I have been involved in several non motor trade small claims cases which we have won,however the two we have lost were with retail punters ( where I thought we had an excellent defence).I don’t think Small Claims judges follow CRA.You can complain about it,but unless things have changed,you cannot appeal.

[EPV 631]

2 minutes ago, trade vet said:

However you interpret CRA, the bottom line is that if you end up in the Small Claims Court defending a case brought by a retail punter,you are most likely to lose.I have yet to see anyone on this forum describe the details of a case where they have successfully defended themselves.I have been involved in several non motor trade small claims cases which we have won,however the two we have lost were with retail punters ( where I thought we had an excellent defence).I don’t think Small Claims judges follow CRA.You can complain about it,but unless things have changed,you cannot appeal.

I believe both AD and Rory have been to court and successfully defended themselves. I didn’t ask the details, I wasn’t overly bothered about knowing them but they did tell me they have had their day in court and won. Also I think Boring Dave may also have defended himself successfully. 

[Mark101 536]

4 minutes ago, trade vet said:

However you interpret CRA, the bottom line is that if you end up in the Small Claims Court defending a case brought by a retail punter,you are most likely to lose.I have yet to see anyone on this forum describe the details of a case where they have successfully defended themselves.I have been involved in several non motor trade small claims cases which we have won,however the two we have lost were with retail punters ( where I thought we had an excellent defence).I don’t think Small Claims judges follow CRA.You can complain about it,but unless things have changed,you cannot appeal.

I tend to agree with you unfortunately.

The best we can hope for is that we can "convince" a customer they don't have a case by at least understanding the CRA.  But....I'm with you, if they pursue it rightly or wrongly, they will more than likely win.

[andymc1973 199]

I have just refunded someone (after a hefty chip) and they've held onto the documents, my mistake (thought the driver had them).

[trade vet 704]

11 minutes ago, andymc1973 said:

I have just refunded someone (after a hefty chip) and they've held onto the documents, my mistake (thought the driver had them).

Oh dear......he has probably lost them by now.....hope not.

[andymc1973 199]

yup, the twat 

[NOACROSS 414]

56 minutes ago, EPV said:

I believe both AD and Rory have been to court and successfully defended themselves. I didn’t ask the details, I wasn’t overly bothered about knowing them but they did tell me they have had their day in court and won. Also I think Boring Dave may also have defended himself successfully. 

Over the years a have won one, lost one and drawn one (I only had to pay a token £100).  It's really not pleasant though, and a waste of a morning or afternoon, and no matter how cool and experienced/armed you are, it's still a worry and stress leading up to it.

Unfortunately its unavoidable in the long run.  No matter how well you do the job.

I have one in the pipeline that'll no doubt get that far as the punter is insane.

[grant8064 219]

1 minute ago, NOACROSS said:

I have one in the pipeline that'll no doubt get that far as the punter is insane.

Can't be as insane as the one we have. Six months and 10k into ownership and he'll see us in court because his tyres and brakes have worn...couldn't make it up!

[andymc1973 199]

life was simpler setting the dog on them

[NOACROSS 414]

1 minute ago, grant8064 said:

Can't be as insane as the one we have. Six months and 10k into ownership and he'll see us in court because his tyres and brakes have worn...couldn't make it up!

That is Premier League nuts!

Ours is a 15 year old PX to clear Discovery, 149k at time of sale, new no-advisory MOT and two independent garage PDi's/reports that all OK, plus a year later, their own MOT station has past it, with only one advisory for a twisted brake hose (plus rear seats removed weirdly).  They say car is not fit for purpose as a main dealer has noted signs of wear and tear.

 

[grant8064 219]

30 minutes ago, NOACROSS said:

That is Premier League nuts!

Ours is a 15 year old PX to clear Discovery, 149k at time of sale, new no-advisory MOT and two independent garage PDi's/reports that all OK, plus a year later, their own MOT station has past it, with only one advisory for a twisted brake hose (plus rear seats removed weirdly).  They say car is not fit for purpose as a main dealer has noted signs of wear and tear.

 

I think we're both winners in this competition!

[trade vet 704]

I would like to hear about actual cases,what was on the charge sheet,what the plaintiff said to the judge and how it was defended,what the judge said etc.......just interested.

[Mark101 536]

53 minutes ago, trade vet said:

I would like to hear about actual cases,what was on the charge sheet,what the plaintiff said to the judge and how it was defended,what the judge said etc.......just interested.

Every time I hear Plaintiff - I think Judge Judy 

[BHM 994]

23 hours ago, trade vet said:

I would like to hear about actual cases,what was on the charge sheet,what the plaintiff said to the judge and how it was defended,what the judge said etc.......just interested.

I’m with you on this & the treatment of claims in court. Unless the plaintiff is a complete idiot making wildly unreasonable claims (i.e. like the Land Rover man mentioned above) then I think in a small claims court scenario the defendant is on the back foot, assuming plaintiff is Johnny Public & the defendant is Retail.

[Arfur Dealy 823]

Ok. Mine was pre CRA.

I'll explain it very quickly, sold a A6 3.0 TDI S Line Avant for 6k. Billy a (snotty nurse) travelled 60 miles to buy, after about 5/6 weeks she complained about a leak in the boot, explained to her ok no problem return it and I'll look at it. She refused and insisted she take it Audi and I pay, I refused and repeatedly asked her to return it to me (all by RD). Few months later I get a LBA which I respond to again asking her to return, she never returned it. Summonds comes through a few months later claiming a full refund saying I sold her a unsafe faulty car, full MMI system had now failed, blah, blah, blah.  

The big day came and the Magistrate found out all the facts from both of us and dismissed her case (and refused her the option to appeal). The crux was basically I had been more than reasonable and she hadn't, she had also continued to drive th said "dangerous" car for 6k+ until she had killed the MMI in the boot.

I wasn't expecting to win and the Magistrate even asked me for my costs ! I was so flabergasted I didn't even consider my costs. Anyway, I bounced out of court like Tigger with my head in the air..... It still makes me smile now and gives me the confidence to continue to be firm but fair...... Give an inch.....