Quick questions on Consumer Rights

deethebee

unholyangel wrote: »

Technically if you opt for a refund then its up to you to prove it inherently failed to conform to contract.

Where if you opt for a repair or replacement, then the assumption is that it inherently fails to conform to contract (remind the shop that your rights don't just cover manufacturing defects) and its for the retailer to prove otherwise.

Actually according to the new rules, customers have 30 days to reject an item that is defective and demand a full refund. Outside of 30 days you don't have the automatic right to a refund as the retailer can offer a repair or replacement but the burden of proof still lies with them within the first 6 months. It doesn't really matter whether it's a manufacturing defect or not. A member of staff may have accidentally damaged it and either way they still have to offer a remedy.

LilElvis

deethebee wrote: »

Actually according to the new rules, customers have 30 days to reject an item that is defective and demand a full refund. Outside of 30 days you don't have the automatic right to a refund as the retailer can offer a repair or replacement but the burden of proof still lies with them within the first 6 months. It doesn't really matter whether it's a manufacturing defect or not. A member of staff may have accidentally damaged it and either way they still have to offer a remedy.

Unholyangel is correct - in the first 30 days it is up to the buyer to prove that the item was supplied to them in a faulty state if they wish to have a refund. It is only in months two to six that the onus moves to the seller to prove that the item wasn't sold in a defective state.

deethebee

LilElvis wrote: »

Unholyangel is correct - in the first 30 days it is up to the buyer to prove that the item was supplied to them in a faulty state if they wish to have a refund. It is only in months two to six that the onus moves to the seller to prove that the item wasn't sold in a defective state.

Sorry where do you get this information from? The Consumer Rights Act states that within the first 6 months the onus is on the seller and after that it is on the buyer to prove. I don't see anywhere that states the first month is ignored. The first 30 days are when the buyer has the MOST protection!

LilElvis

deethebee wrote: »

Sorry where do you get this information from? The Consumer Rights Act states that within the first 6 months the onus is on the seller and after that it is on the buyer to prove. I don't see anywhere that states the first month is ignored. The first 30 days are when the buyer has the MOST protection!

From the Consumer Rights Act. What you are referring to is in section 19 and relates to the rights to a repair, replacement, price reduction and the final right to reject. It doesn't cover the short term right to reject.

Perhaps unholyangel will return and provide you with a more detailed answer. She is the foremost poster regarding the Act and is far more adept at citing all the relevant sections and subsections of the Act than I am.

deethebee

LilElvis wrote: »

From the Consumer Rights Act. What you are referring to is in section 19 and relates to the rights to a repair, replacement, price reduction and the final right to reject. It doesn't cover the short term right to reject.

Perhaps unholyangel will return and provide you with a more detailed answer. She is the foremost poster regarding the Act and is far more adept at citing all the relevant sections and subsections of the Act than I am.

The Consumer Rights Act does not state that the burden of proof is on the consumer within the first 30 days, nor that the burden of proof moves to the seller from month 2-6. In the first 30 days the buyer has the right to a full refund and to reject goods that are not as described, fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality. After this 30 days the consumer has to accept a repair or replacement first. Section 19 covers to the short term right to reject as well at 19.3.

LilElvis

deethebee wrote: »

The Consumer Rights Act does not state that the burden of proof is on the consumer within the first 30 days, nor that the burden of proof moves to the seller from month 2-6. In the first 30 days the buyer has the right to a full refund and to reject goods that are not as described, fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality. After this 30 days the consumer has to accept a repair or replacement first. Section 19 covers to the short term right to reject as well at 19.3.

Read further down. 19.14 refers to proof of conformity in the first 6 months, but does not relate to the short term right to reject.

deethebee

LilElvis wrote: »

Read further down. 19.14 refers to proof of conformity in the first 6 months, but does not relate to the short term right to reject.

Right, and where does it say that the burden of proof is on the consumer within the first 30 days? All it actually says is that within the first 30 days the customer has a right to reject any item that does not meet the requirements (quality, as described, fit for purpose) and receive a full refund.

DoaM

The clarification comes in guidance notes, but needs some interpretation:

97. Subsections (14) and (15) provide that, if a breach of the statutory rights – for example a fault - arises in the first 6 months from delivery, it is presumed to have been present at the time of delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the particular breach or fault. This applies where the consumer exercises their right to a repair or replacement or their right to a price reduction or the final right to reject. This does not apply where the consumer exercises the short-term right to reject. These subsections correspond to section 48A(3) and (4) of the SGA and section 11M(3) and (4) of the SGSA.

LilElvis

deethebee wrote: »

Right, and where does it say that the burden of proof is on the consumer within the first 30 days? All it actually says is that within the first 30 days the customer has a right to reject any item that does not meet the requirements (quality, as described, fit for purpose) and receive a full refund.

It doesnt. The Act says:

14) 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.

It does not refer to subsection 3 a (short term right to reject). If it doesn't confer the automatic assumption of lack of conformity to the short term right to reject (because it omits reference to 3 a) then where does the burden of proof lie? That would be the buyer.

deethebee

LilElvis wrote: »

It doesnt. The Act says:

14) 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.

It does not refer to subsection 3 a (short term right to reject). If it doesn't confer the automatic assumption of lack of conformity to the short term right to reject (because it omits reference to 3 a) then where does the burden of proof lie? That would be the buyer.

So because it doesn't mention the burden of proof in regards to the 30 day right to reject that means that it's on the buyer? That does not make sense. It essentially says that if the consumer doesn't exercise their right to reject within 30 days and instead exercises their right to a repair, refund or final right to reject within 6 months of purchase then it is assumed that the defect was there at the time of purchase. It doesn't actually mention anything about burden of proof. So you're suggesting that within 6 months it's assumed the defect was there at the time of purchase, but if a consumer rejects goods then it's NOT assumed the defect was there at the time of purchase? Do you see how non-sensical that is? Have you considered that the reason the 30 day right to reject is excluded from 14 is because no one has to prove anything and it doesn't matter whether the defect/fault was there at the time of purchase or not? So within 30 days if you have a faulty product your right is to take it back to the retailer for an immediate refund and there's no burden of proof on either side because that is within the buyer's right - to reject the item if it isn't up to standard and the trader has to take their word for it. The trader can confirm the fault or defect exists, but they can't force the consumer to prove that it was present at purchase. The whole reason this right to reject exists is to give the consumer more confidence and make it easier to get their money back for poor quality items that they've only had a short time. It would serve no benefit to the consumer if they had to prove the defect was present at the time of purchase.