Sale of Goods Act 2015...Changes who's heard the news?

[Trident 24]

Hi all, has anyone else heard about the impending changes to the 'Sale and Supply of Goods Act - from 1 October 2015'  it appears to be saying that, we must refund within 30 days if the customer is unhappy with the goods OR if we are unable to affect a repair with the vehicle first time i.e. a recurrent intermittent problem MUST be fixed first time or they are entitled to their money back!?! Also, it seems to state that we will be responsible for the recovery or reimbursement of out of pocket expenses to cover any recovery, anyone else heard about these new regulations, they seem really one sided and arm the consumer even further, don't mind any new legislation, so long as it's fair to everyone, this one will really sort the men from the boys!!!! 

[Ken 10]

Seems fair to me? What are you taking exception to?

[umesh 336]

Bit more on here about it guys if you want to listen to a podcaster http://www.cardealerpodcast.co.uk/episode-8-legal-helpdesk-2/

 

[Max Branning 149]

I wonder what happens if the customer comes back on day 29 after ragging the car about and expects a refund because of some bullshit excuse..?

[Trident 24]

"Seems fair to me? What are you taking exception to?"

so, as I understand it and I could be wrong, if the car develops a fault within the 30 days, we repair, it develops another fault at any point up to 6 months and the customer will be entitled to a refund, so, at present we have a 'no refund' policy and repair under warranty, this deters people simple changing their minds and demanding a refund as has been the case on occasion... Having heard the podcast (thanks Umesh) I feel a bit clearer as it seems to be an 'at point of sale' issue, so we would be covered if we continue with pdi and mot test as we normally do, maybe taking the customer on a test drive upon collection signing to say he confirms it tested all ok would help??? I don't have a problem At all with the idea of ensuring a good product supplied to be fit for purpose, but so often the consumer simply doesn't understand their rights, the times I have been quoted that by law we have to supply a warranty!!!!!!

 Like this

[Steve92 80]

Does this relate to new goods or used goods ?

[Wheelerdealer1 91]

So yet more protection for the customer, but where's the protection for the trader, the guy selling the car in the first place, a big dealer could suck it up and take a car back, write off the loss, but as a small Indy, you get a few come back like these and your looking at the ballifs coming round !

[Trident 24]

Steve92, I'm pretty sure it's second hand goods, would be very reasonable if it was for new...

[Wheelerdealer1 91]

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/865

New rules mean a customer can reject a car within the first 30 days after purchase

 

 

yep it's for used

 

 

 

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 comes into force on 1 October 2015. From that date, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will become largely redundant for all ‘business to consumer’ sales which will then be covered by the new Act. 
 
One of the new rules is the ‘short term right to reject’ covered in Section 22 of the Act.
 
By virtue of this Section, if a consumer complains of a fault with the vehicle in the first 30 days, they will be entitled to bring it back to you for a refund. They can ask for a repair but they are not obliged to accept a repair and can simply insist on a refund which you will be legally obliged to give. 
 
The slight saving grace for dealers is that it is down to the consumer to show there is a fault and that it was present at the time of delivery. 
 
We therefore strongly recommend that dealers take the time before 1 October 2015 to review their Pre Delivery processes to ensure they do all they can to put themselves in a position to argue that any fault was not present at the time of delivery. Putting a new independent MOT on a car can never be a bad idea nor can using one of our Visual Safety Checklist/Estimate pads.  
 
Keep your eye on our updates for more information and tips in preparation for 1 October 2015.

Lawgistics members can get advice on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 from the legal team.

[GreenGiant 287]

There's probably a flaw or two in this, but i'm just thinking out loud:

So, if anyone's interested in one of our cars, we should really just give 'em the keys and let them smoke it for a month with the agreement that if nothing breaks, they can pop back and pay us for the car at the end. If, say, a brake light bulb blows in the meantime, we'll just have the car back and try again with another one.

Saves on invoicing and VAT returns I suppose, so should work perfectly!

Sounds like this Friday's rant is already sorted.

[SC Derby 259]

So how are the customers going to show that any faults were there at time of delivery?

They really should think about these laws and how they will work in practice.

I think we all need to remember that most customers are quite happy to accept a repair if they aren't messed around and it isn't left for 2 months off road.

[umesh 336]

In reality I don't think we need to worry .. carry on as normal and I'm sure ( but hopefully not ) we may got the 'odd' nutter who will challenge us 'just because' he/she can and he/she knows the law ! AND I think we all know MOST Customers are very reasonable and will accept repairs etc  

Inspect /service the car / mot it - keep a record to show all good at time of delivery/sale - this will prove no faults at delivery /sale. 

 

[Max Branning 149]

"No money back no Guarantee"

Just write this on your receipts and all will be fine 

[Steve92 80]

It's unfair to assume a used car will be in the same mechanical condition as a new car, parts will be subject to wear and tear and some will be nearing the end of there service life.

looking at other links it does seem that you have the right to charge for use, so if a car comes back with an additional 5000 miles on the clock you could argue it was fit for purpose ? I thought the right to reject wasn't a given and that you have the right to repair but the only stipulation is where the cost is disproportionate, so using the brake life as an example a 50p bulb is totally acceptable rather than giving a refund.

[Phil H 124]

So what would happen if you sold a car, put a fresh 12 months mot on it but an advisory was noted that the outer skin on the exhaust was corroded, 3 weeks later the car comes back with a blowing exhaust caused by a tiny pin hole, could you argue that it was an existing fault that was declared to them or would they be entitled to a full refund as it was sold with that fault?

[Steve92 80]

As I see it you would be liable as its a known fault, however it wouldn't make the vehicle unserviceable so would still be fit for purpose IMO.

[Wood235 36]

This seems a rediculous new law, they want us to earn & pay income tax but are making things mor and more difficult for us!

[SC Derby 259]

Something is puzzling me. I've just read a bit more on the new act and it still says that if customer has inspected the vehicle and a fault is obvious or should have been noticed then it is not the responsibility of the trader to rectify (which has always been the case).

But in order for the customer to reject they MUST prove that any fault was present a time of sale.

So lets take an engine light. If it was present at time of sale they would and should have noticed it during test drive and inspection (when they look round the car). 

So for example next month I sell a car and after 2 weeks an engine light pops on, in my eyes there is no legal way this car could be rejected. I am not saying we won't have to sort the problem out as we normally would but they can't reject because if it was there 'at point of sale' they would have clearly noticed it and as such would be deemed to have accepted it as it is a clear & obvious fault (a dashboard warring light)?

Agree or disagree?

[RH Trading 80]

 

Something is puzzling me. I've just read a bit more on the new act and it still says that if customer has inspected the vehicle and a fault is obvious or should have been noticed then it is not the responsibility of the trader to rectify (which has always been the case).

But in order for the customer to reject they MUST prove that any fault was present a time of sale.

So lets take an engine light. If it was present at time of sale they would and should have noticed it during test drive and inspection (when they look round the car). 

So for example next month I sell a car and after 2 weeks an engine light pops on, in my eyes there is no legal way this car could be rejected. I am not saying we won't have to sort the problem out as we normally would but they can't reject because if it was there 'at point of sale' they would have clearly noticed it and as such would be deemed to have accepted it as it is a clear & obvious fault (a dashboard warring light)?

Agree or disagree?

AGREE!

You're absolutely right - Reading the SOGA it says - "There has to be a fault which renders the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, said fault must be proven by the customer to have been present at the point of sale" as long as the customer returns the vehicle or gives the dealer a chance to rectify the fault before rejecting. Trading Standards came to see us a few weeks ago and they said they would deem it unreasonable for a customer rejecting a car out of hand without the opportunity to rectify the fault, also advised to make it clear the customer needs to return it to us rather than collection

[Max Branning 149]

Something is puzzling me. I've just read a bit more on the new act and it still says that if customer has inspected the vehicle and a fault is obvious or should have been noticed then it is not the responsibility of the trader to rectify (which has always been the case).

But in order for the customer to reject they MUST prove that any fault was present a time of sale.

So lets take an engine light. If it was present at time of sale they would and should have noticed it during test drive and inspection (when they look round the car). 

So for example next month I sell a car and after 2 weeks an engine light pops on, in my eyes there is no legal way this car could be rejected. I am not saying we won't have to sort the problem out as we normally would but they can't reject because if it was there 'at point of sale' they would have clearly noticed it and as such would be deemed to have accepted it as it is a clear & obvious fault (a dashboard warring light)?

Agree or disagree?

These are exactly the sort of situations that are going to cause problems, warning lights coming on the dash must be one of our biggest comebacks. Usually its nothing but a sensor but buyers tend to panic at the first sight of a warning light. 

In this situation i would just offer to fix the issue, if they start saying they want to reject the car then i would refuse. If they decide to take it further then thats up to them but i very much doubt they would have a case.

 

 

[SC Derby 259]

anyone had to take one back yet 

[Cornish Guy 45]

I feel the bigger issue is after 30 days. The customer has a right to reject if a second fault occurs after you have repaired a first fault. This could be 4 months after the sale.

[Trident 24]

Ok, im going to ask for opinions on the below paragraph i intend to enter on our warranty form, any one see any problems with it???

We confirm the vehicle supplied to you will be of satisfactory quality and is fit for it’s intended purpose.  By signing below you confirm you have inspected the vehicle and you are happy it matches any description, as advertised.  Should the vehicle be returned under the short term right to reject of the Sale & Supply of Goods Act – 1 October 2015, you agree to a full refund less the deduction of a £495 restocking fee to cover the cost of vehicle depreciation through additional keeper, together with 50 pence per mile travelled.  Furthermore, should the vehicle require remedial action under this agreement, you confirm your acceptance that one OR MORE repairs may be required per claim.  PLEASE CONFIRM BY SIGNATURE BELOW YOU UNDERSTAND THIS WILL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD SUPERCEDE YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE Sale & Supply of Goods Act – 1 October 2015

in answer to your question See Cars Derby YES!!!!!!! someone bought a car from us in December last year, they had a problem rectified by us (or so we thought) in february got some parts replaced on said vehicle by another gge in August and guess what.....today... yes.... today... have got in touch to complain quoting Trading Standards to us!!!! gawd bless them....they will get an a4 page comprehensive response which could be shrunk to a two word reply!! or is that a bit harsh...

[SC Derby 259]

Trident, as far as I'm aware you are not allowed to take away the consumers legal rights, so it would probably not stand up in court. Infact I think it's an offence to do so (i.e. writing 'sold as seen')

It's a shame two parties can't just come to their own agreements on these things without all this crap. Especially with the amount of 'experts/mechanics' that get brought down to inspect vehicles, they should should some responsibility!

[Trident 24]

Lawgistics recommend… that every vehicle is sold with a warranty and that every repair is carried out under that warranty, with the customer’s agreement. By offering the vehicle with a warranty and completing any repair under that warranty then the customers statutory rights are not being used and therefore the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act are not being relied on. Whilst any warranty can be used, if you provide your own warranty you will have more flexibility to authorise repairs and make goodwill gestures. Multiple repairs can be made under the warranty providing you with the best option to increase the right to repair without invoking the right to reject.

So, the above is from lawgistics, I think the paragraph follows their recommendation probably apart from the word 'supercede' we are surely within our right to charge for additional keeper and useage and really this is simply a tool to deter the would be customer scammers, anyone genuine would not have an issue with repairing and resort to using any of the act, so with the above in mind do you still consider it an unreasonable paragraph? im trying to cover our ass like everyone will be and think a warranty form whilst it won't remove their statutory rights will provide some protection as lawgistic says..