what are my rights re: garage work 6 months on

ILW

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It's either suitable or it isn't. The six month window refers to the onus being on the seller to prove it wasn't an issue at the point of sale.

For example, if a set of shocks are not rated for the weight of a van. How can it be argued after 6 months that they were suitable when fitted?

If that were the case, it would fail the MOT though.

verityboo

What is the exact wording of the advisory?

arcon5

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It's either suitable or it isn't. The six month window refers to the onus being on the seller to prove it wasn't an issue at the point of sale.

For example, if a set of shocks are not rated for the weight of a van. How can it be argued after 6 months that they were suitable when fitted?

Then the onus would be on op to prove they are not rated for the van, thus not fit for purpose... if this was the case obtaining such prove would be easy by contacting the manufacturer.

But a judge would not simply take ops word for it that they are unsuitable! A judge would be looking for the claim to be substantiated.

Chopper_Read

arcon5 wrote: »

Then the onus would be on op to prove they are not rated for the van, thus not fit for purpose... if this was the case obtaining such prove would be easy by contacting the manufacturer.

But a judge would not simply take ops word for it that they are unsuitable! A judge would be looking for the claim to be substantiated.

So why would the six month time limit matter?

arcon5

Chopper_Read wrote: »

So why would the six month time limit matter?

For the reasons already said!

Chopper_Read

arcon5 wrote: »

For the reasons already said!

I'm not getting this.

Ignore the fact the part maybe defective.

If an unsuitable part was fitted it was wrong on day one. Five years later it's still the wrong part is it not? It would be down to the purchaser to provide evidence it was the wrong part no matter which side of the six month mark it was discovered.

Or have I got that wrong?

arcon5

Chopper_Read wrote: »

If an unsuitable part was fitted it was wrong on day one. Five years later it's still the wrong part is it not? It would be down to the purchaser to provide evidence it was the wrong part no matter which side of the six month mark it was discovered.

Or have I got that wrong?

Yes you have.

Within 6 months if it doesn't conform to contract (including implied terms under SOGA) then it is considered inherent unless the retailer can prove otherwise. After 6 months the retailer can request the customer provide such prove.

So in this case where op is stating the part fitted doesn't support the weight of the vehicle... if 6 month mark has passed it would be for op to prove the part isn't fit for purpose, ie it isn't designed to support the weight of the vehicle.

If op went to court over this for example, their claim would be:
'X Garage fitted Y part and on Z vehicle weighing A.A kg. The part is not fit for purpose as it has a weight capacity of < A.A kg.'

The judge wasn't party to this contract and is unlikely to be an expert in motor vehicle technology - so how does the judge know what the op is claiming is true? He would look at the evidence provided. If the 6 months have passed he would be looking to op to demonstrate what he has been told to be true - otherwise how could he possibly make a judgement as to something he knows nothing about? If < 6 months had passed the judge would look to the retailer and want them to demonstrate the claim being made before him to be false.

So bringing this back to the original point, in response to:

The six month window shouldn't matter. If the wrong part was used and is unsuitable it was and will always be unsuitable wouldn't it?

The 6 month window does matter, if the garage decide to argue the contrary that is. They may well act reasonably and negotiate a solution with op, but in case they don't then op now knows what would be expected of him.

Chopper_Read

arcon5 wrote: »

Yes you have.

Within 6 months if it doesn't conform to contract (including implied terms under SOGA) then it is considered inherent unless the retailer can prove otherwise. After 6 months the retailer can request the customer provide such prove.

So in this case where op is stating the part fitted doesn't support the weight of the vehicle... if 6 month mark has passed it would be for op to prove the part isn't fit for purpose, ie it isn't designed to support the weight of the vehicle.

If op went to court over this for example, their claim would be:
'X Garage fitted Y part and on Z vehicle weighing A.A kg. The part is not fit for purpose as it has a weight capacity of < A.A kg.'

The judge wasn't party to this contract and is unlikely to be an expert in motor vehicle technology - so how does the judge know what the op is claiming is true? He would look at the evidence provided. If the 6 months have passed he would be looking to op to demonstrate what he has been told to be true - otherwise how could he possibly make a judgement as to something he knows nothing about? If < 6 months had passed the judge would look to the retailer and want them to demonstrate the claim being made before him to be false.

So bringing this back to the original point, in response to:



The 6 month window does matter, if the garage decide to argue the contrary that is. They may well act reasonably and negotiate a solution with op, but in case they don't then op now knows what would be expected of him.

I think you're over complicating it.

Its either fit for purpose or its not. Evidence would be required to say it's not no matter how long the part had been fitted. I'm not talking about the part failing but the fact it may never have been up to the job. It can't suddenly become unsuitable after a period of time.

arcon5

Chopper_Read wrote: »

I think you're over complicating it.

Its either fit for purpose or its not. Evidence would be required to say it's not no matter how long the part had been fitted. I'm not talking about the part failing but the fact it may never have been up to the job. It can't suddenly become unsuitable after a period of time.

:wall: :wall:

Chopper_Read

arcon5 wrote: »

:wall: :wall:

So if under rated shocks are fitted to a vehicle for 179 days they are wrong but ok after 190 because that's what you're saying.