Quick questions on Consumer Rights

unholyangel

deethebee wrote: »

Shaun - unholyangel actually only said that the consumer has to prove the fault exists and not that it existed at the time of purchase so saying "As unholyangel said" is not accurate. That sentence you quoted was actually taken directly from the Consumer Rights Act Part 1, Chapter 2, section 20.

As I already explained, the right to reject is not applied to that paragraph because there is no burden of proof in regards to conformity to contract at the time of purchase, only conformity to contract.

Right, a fault can occur due to misuse but that is also covered. So if something has obviously arisen due to misuse then a refund would not be due and a customer is not entitled to claim a refund if they caused the fault.

The other quote about something failing prematurely was something I quoted from Unholy Angel, so take it up with him/her if you don't like it. However, misuse is a separate issue and I already covered. Misusing something does not make it of unsatisfactory quality if it breaks.

I've actually quoted bits from the guidance on the CRA myself which you've obviously paid no attention to and other things I've found in my research, as well as misquoting people so I'm not too sure there's any point arguing with you over it as you clearly don't understand what's being said.

No I didn't. What I actually said was:

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.

An inherent lack of conformity is one which was present at the time of sale. It has always existed.

Shaun knows full well what I mean, it seems to be you who doesn't understand the significance of the word "inherently" in my previous post.

deethebee

unholyangel wrote: »

No I didn't. What I actually said was:


An inherent lack of conformity is one which was present at the time of sale. It has always existed.

Shaun knows full well what I mean, it seems to be you who doesn't understand the significance of the word "inherently" in my previous post.

Inherently does not mean "at the time of purchase" or "from the beginning" so forgive me for misunderstanding what you meant. Jeez. Maybe you should make your language clearer. So you actually believe that the customer has to prove the goods failed to conform to contract "at the time of purchase" if they choose to reject the goods within 30 days? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because everything I have read states this proof about conformity at the time of purchase within the first 6 months only applies to a consumer that wants a repair, replacement or partial refund. This clause does not apply to the short term right to reject as it has its own rules and perhaps you should visit those links above for confirmation of this, as well as having a read of "Consumer Remedies for Faulty Goods" by the Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission for further clarification.

As taken from Longmores Solicitors:

Burden of proof – The onus lies on the consumer to prove that the goods do not conform to the contract if they are exercising their short term right to reject, or if more than six months have passed, the consumer will need to prove that the defect was present at the time of delivery.

See how they separated the onus to prove non-conformity and then later on non-conformity at the time of delivery?

George_Michael

deethebee wrote: »

So you actually believe that the customer has to prove the goods failed to conform to contract "at the time of purchase" if they choose to reject the goods within 30 days?

So are you saying that Trading standards have it wrong, unholyangel has it wrong, Shaun from Africa has it wrong and only you are correct?

From the Trading standards link provided by SFA:

If you exercise your short-term right to reject (that is, to reject the goods within 30 days) then you may have to prove that the goods were faulty at the time they were supplied to you, unless the fault is obvious.

They state "may" have to prove because many retailers do not ask you to do this but this doesn't mean that they don't have the right to do so.

deethebee

George_Michael wrote: »

So are you saying that Trading standards have it wrong, unholyangel has it wrong, Shaun from Africa has it wrong and only you are correct?

From the Trading standards link provided by SFA:


They state "may" have to prove because many retailers do not ask you to do this but this doesn't mean that they don't have the right to do so.

No, it is NOT only me who says that the burden of proof in relation to conformity at the time of purchase is not relevant to the short term right to reject, I also put some links in my post of other places that say the same thing as well as parts from the CRA and the CRA notes and also parts from the "Consumer Remedies for Faulty Goods" by the Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission. In fact, apart from a few people on here, very few places say that the consumer has to prove the fault was present at purchase within 30 days if they choose to reject. But sure, it's only me saying it...and let's not forget that even Trading Standards are only interpreting the law, they don't make it. Additionally, saying "you may have to prove this unless the fault is obvious" is essentially saying you do not have to prove it was there at the time of purchase if the fault is obvious which is not the same as saying the consumer has to prove the fault was there at the time of purchase if they exercise their short term right to reject. So which is it? Do you or don't you? Perhaps you should actually visit a few of the pages I've mentioned in my posts and actually read the quotes take from solicitors instead of making incorrect accusations.

The consumer did not have to prove this under the Sale of Goods Act and yet the only thing that has changed is that the short term right to reject has been given a set period of time, whereas before it was just "a reasonable amount of time".

Your last sentence is laughable..."may have to prove" does not exist in law. Laws are very clear about what you can and can't do or do have to and don't have to do. "You will have to prove if requested" would be the correct interpretation but they can't say that because they are unsure.

hollydays

I'm very confused.
Laws are very clear/ vs. interpretation!
Beware of Greeks offering gifts.

deethebee

hollydays wrote: »

I'm very confused.
Laws are very clear/ vs. interpretation!

Well, laws are black and white. They aren't ambiguous, like they don't say: "Murder might be a crime" - it either is or isn't. They can be confusing to interpret when there is a lack of clarity around them, but generally if you say "The state may have to prove you're guilty, unless it's obvious that the person is dead" this is a bad interpretation and a bit non-sensical. It would be more accurate to say, "they will have to prove your guilt if you plead not guilty". So you also can't say, "You MAY have to prove the goods were faulty at the time you purchased them, unless it's obvious they are faulty" because the one does not relate to the other. The fact that they are obviously faulty does not prove they were faulty at the time of purchase.

Hermione_Granger

deethebee wrote: »

Inherently does not mean "at the time of purchase" or "from the beginning"

That is exactly what an inherent fault is, one that was there from the time of purchase.

Department of Trade and Industry
Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate
The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002
A Brief Introduction – Full Version

If an item has a fault that is present at the time of sale (sometimes referred to in this guidance as a “latent” or “inherent” fault), the consumer can complain once it is discovered.

If a central heating system stopped working – because of its pump failing - four years after the sale, having had average usage, then it might not be due to an inherent fault (latently there on the day of the sale)

Indeed, goods might not conform to contract if they failed to work later, even after a number of years, due to an inherent fault – i.e. one that could be said to exist at the time of sale

http://www.secola.org/db/2_12/gb_noteslong.pdf

deethebee

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

That is exactly what an inherent fault is, one that was there from the time of purchase.



http://www.secola.org/db/2_12/gb_noteslong.pdf

Ok, thanks for clarifying again, I wasn't aware.

Bermonia

Your limited understanding and failing to grasp consumer law is what discredits you... you really don’t need my help there

deethebee

Bermonia wrote: »

Your limited understanding and failing to grasp consumer law is what discredits you... you really don’t need my help there

All I’ve actually done is exactly what everyone else here has done and all anyone can do, which is to interpret the law and, unlike others, I have presented evidence to back up what I’ve said. Who are you to tell me that I have no basic understanding of Consumer Law? No one here has offered anything constructive in response to the evidence I’ve presented and what YOU fail to grasp is that I’m here to try and help people, not try to show off and throw around legal jargon that a lay person would not understand. Someone comes here to ask for help with a faulty item and she is told that if she wants a refund she must prove it was faulty at the time of purchase which I believe to be wholly untrue and makes the consumer feel like they have NO rights when in fact the law was created to give the consumer MORE rights, not less! The sale of goods act did not require consumers to prove fault at the time of purchase when exercising the right to reject, but somehow they’ve updated the law to make it so they DO have to? How does this help the consumer more exactly?? It’s far more beneficial to the trader as the average person would not know where to start to try to prove something is faulty at the time of purchase. It’s called The Consumer Rights Act, not The Traders Rights Act and I can tell you that in the 4 or so years this act has been around, I have not once had a trader ask me to prove either that an item is faulty OR that it was faulty at the time of purchase – even the ones very familiar with the CRA. Even this website you are posting on has an article dedicated to the CRA that makes no mention of this alleged stipulation on the consumer, much like many other websites dedicated to helping the average Joe understand their consumer rights and the law.

People like you are not worth arguing with because you offer nothing of value. You highjack a thread purely to insult someone that you consider to have a limited knowledge of Consumer Law when you know nothing about me and who exactly are YOU to accuse me of such? And I wouldn’t care what your credentials were if you had any anyway, you’ve served no purpose on this thread but to try and discredit me based on what exactly? That I’m offering an alternative point of view? Maybe you should consider spending your time trying to help others rather than hi-jacking a thread to feed your own ego as I can see this is a regular pass-time of yours. I mean it seems your go-to response is one of sarcasm and rudeness. How sad. You must have some anger issues and have obviously been the victim of regular put-downs.:kisses3: Poor dear.