Problem with 2006 Toyota Verso semiautomatic car

[Chuffnut]

On 19/04/2019 at 17:08, BankFodder said:

 

Also, without wishing too much to wake up this discussion once again, the above quote is quite wrong. It would be correct if it said:-

 

 

 

So to summarise, the burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the defect was not there – certainly within the first six months. Furthermore, if there is a defect, than the quality/severity of the defect is not relevant. It entitles you to your right to reject within 30 days or your right to reject after a failed repair during six months.

Only after six months do the normal common law rules of contract come in play. But even then, it is not a question of proving or disproving a defect. It is simply a question of showing that you have not had satisfactory service/quality from the item for a reasonably expected period of time.

I would certainly agree that these are very heavy burdens/responsibilities for any dealer. But this is what consumer-facing legislation is all about. It's all about consumer protection and the reason for it is that if you place the burden upon the dealer then it creates a huge incentive upon the dealer to be careful or if the dealer has to source his goods from a manufacturer then it puts pressure on the dealer to put pressure on the manufacturer to make sure that goods are of a sufficient quality.

As far as I'm concerned, this is good social planning – and we all benefit – including the car dealer when that car dealer goes off to buy other things such as computers, telephones, music systems, televisions, and even their own vehicle.

It encourages quality control at source – and this is highly desirable and is only achievable by having this kind of consumer legislation.

 

The part that I have highlighted in bold, I think it's not quite right.

 

I don't believe that if a consumer took a dealer to court, with the defect being a blown bulb, 25 days after taking ownership, they would win. Or else, people could just decide they didn't like the car anymore, put a knackered bulb in the car and reject it.

 

The severity of the defect does matter.

 

It needs to render the car not fit for purpose, not as described, or not of satisfactory quality. That's what defines whether a defect is really a defect or  not. Small but subtle point that needs to be clear to people reading the forum I think. Otherwise, people may think they can take a car back for any old reason.

 

 

[Chuffnut]

14 hours ago, BankFodder said:

On one hand what you say sounds quite logical. However, you are inventing words into the statute.

Have you looked at the statute? Have you seen anything in the statute which supports what you say?

What you are saying is that the effect of the statue is vulnerable to manipulation by a dishonest customer. I think you're right.

Erm, I don't think I'm inventing words into the statute, in the CRA 2015 under chapter 2, section 9,10 and 11 it specifically mentions the terms "fit for purpose, as described and satisfactory quality" albeit I am shortening the exact wording for the purpose of writing a post in here.

 

I think what you are saying is correct and I haven't conveyed myself properly. You are correct that there is no severity when it comes to a defect, it's either a defect or it isn't.

 

What I was trying to point out, for the good of people coming here and seeking advice, is that it isn't as simple as demanding a repair or refund under the CRA for any old thing.

 

A defect has to first be confirmed as a defect, the only person who can do this with authority is of course a judge but I think people need to be aware when reading these kind of threads is that in all probability, a blown light bulb on a used vehicle isn't going to be classed as a defect in the first place.  A faulty windscreen wash motor on a 15 year old car, with 100,000 miles on, 4 months into ownership, isn't going to be a defect. A failed gearbox on a 4 year old vehicle with 50,000 miles on, will be.

 

Unless of course you consider that a 15 year old vehicle with 100,000 miles on, bought for £1000 has the same consideration under the CRA as a 2 year old vehicle with 20,000 miles on, bought for £15,000. If you do believe that, well, I'll wrap up and leave it there. I will just say though that the terms "fit for purpose, of satisfactory quality and as described" are written into the CRA for (among other things) the purposes of defining the difference between an old banger and nearly new car. The only person who can decide what constitutes a defect is the judge, on the day. 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Chuffnut

[Chuffnut]

Thank you for your candid post and it just shows that we all learn, every day. 

 

The bottom line is exactly as you have stated, it's down to the judge, on the day because "a reasonable person" can only be the person that makes the decision and that, ultimately, is the judge. However, I think most people could come to the conclusion that it's unreasonable to expect certain faults to render a car of unsatisfactory quality, logic and common sense would tell most people to not take a supplier to court over something so trivial as a blown light bulb on a used car.

 

You have also hit the nail on the head that a new car, or expensive used car, with expensive components (£200k 1 year old Ferrari's for example) would be of unsatisfactory quality on some faults that a 10 year old, £2000 car would not. Hence the statement in the statue under "goods of satisfactory quality" that refers to price paid. The price paid (and as such, age and mileage of vehicle) will reflect a judges decision on whether a fault, is actually really a fault, or just something to be expected of the nature of the goods.

 

With regards to the burden of proof, Reasonable Ron posted somewhere recently that the burden of proof always existed, it was present in the outgoing SOGA. If a customer wanted to return something, they had to prove the goods were faulty. This obviously protected the retailer from people buying something, making use of it, then returning it for no good reason. It also protected the consumer from goods being defective and the retailer washing his hands of the situation.

 

The reverse burden of proof exists in the CRA that the retailer has to prove the goods did conform to the contract, on the day of purchase. As cited in section 19, subsection 14 and 15 which states;

 

For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

 

There is a nuance to the 30 day short term right to reject. As it is such a powerful ally to the consumer, the reverse burden of proof does not exist under the short term right to reject. Should a consumer wish to reject the goods for a full refund they must prove the fault existed at the point the contract was made. This is to ensure fair play for the retailer so that the consumer could not just reject say a car, for a full refund, just because a light bulb blew. However if a gearbox went pop within 30 days it would be safe to say the fault existed at the time the contract was made, gearboxes rarely just let go.

 

So to summarise, the burden of proof rests with the consumer, it always has I believe. There is a reverse burden of proof in the event of a repair/price reduction where the onus is on the retailer, which exists for 6 months, as clarified in the statute above. The burden of proof then again rests with the consumer thereafter the 6 months, up to 6 years I believe.

 

Again, all of this is subject to ascertaining if the fault is actually a fault. Consumers cannot reject a vehicle for any old reason, or, more specifically, they can try but if it goes before a judge, it seems unlikely that the judge would consider a trivial matter such as a lightbulb popping (or indeed a tyre puncturing, a wiper blade smearing, a small thimble full of oil leaking every month) on a car of a certain age, mileage and price point, as grounds for rejection.

[Chuffnut]

It's just my opinion of course, however I'd say any reasonable person would expect a gearbox to last longer than 6 months, never mind 6 hours, on a car with low mileage and a price of £4k.

 

You haven't bought new but you haven't exactly bought an old banger either.

 

I'd agree with Bankfodder's assessment way back at the start of the thread that you have a better than 95% chance of being successful. It wouldn't take a lot to convince a judge that the fault was present when you bought the car. Good luck.