Urgent Advice Needed

johnpacker

forgotmyname wrote: »

If he fixed it himself then its the parts that are worth the money to him. An hours wasted labour is probably not so much of an issue.

He didn't fit it himself - he isn't a mechanic. He sent it to someone that does it for him.

patman99

This pleb isn't based on the outskirts of Colchester by any chance is he ?.

muckybutt

Long winded but relates to your case - taken from the SOGA Hub http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained :

Faulty goods that have been accepted

If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty ) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance.

If either a repair or replacement is not possible, or the cost is greater than the value of the item ( disproportionately costly ), or the customer claims either option is taking an unreasonable amount of time or is causing unreasonable inconvenience, the customer is then entitled to

• keep the goods and claim a price reduction from the retailer to compensate them for the fault in the goods - this would be the difference between the value of the product in perfect condition and the value of the product in the faulty condition, or
• return the goods and rescind the contract . This would mean that the customer returns the goods and you provide a partial refund, calculated to reflect the benefit the customer has received from the product.

Where a customer is entitled to repair or replacement because they have accepted the goods, they can claim price reduction or partial refund if the repair or replacement is

• taking an unreasonable time, or
• causing an unreasonable inconvenience, or
• if the repair or replacement is not satisfactory when they receive it.

Requesting a repair or replacement

If a customer has accepted the goods and is requesting a repair or replacement because the goods are faulty, the onus on who is required to prove the problem depends on how long ago they purchased the item.

Under six months - the customer does not have to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If you disagree it is up to you, the retailer, to prove the item did conform to contract (or that the fault did not exist) at the time of sale.

Over six months - you are entitled to ask the customer to prove the item was faulty when they bought it from you. If they are able to do this they are entitled to a repair or replacement.

Consequential loss

If a customer suffers personally because of a problem with an item, they may be able to claim damages (money to make up for it). This is called consequential loss . One example would be if a customer had to pay out more money (perhaps to hire another item) because of a faulty item that you sold them.

A more serious example would be if they suffered injury or damage because of a faulty item.

A customer who claimed damages for consequential loss would be expected to have tried to resolve the issue with the retailer first.

Claims for consequential loss do not normally cover distress, inconvenience or disappointment.

arcon5

You keep mentioning the Sales of Goods Act, but you have bought used goods - goods that are 7 years old and have covered 75,000 miles -- so the problems mentioned COULD well be down to wear and tear. Especially if as mentioned the fault c odes relate to the TPS and a couple of other sensors.

I don't think he's been completely unreasonable. He offered a courtesy car, despite stating he doesn't agree the problems are down to a fault he didn't wash his hands of it.

The problem with posting quotes from TS and like is it offers general advice covering the whole of market, and simply cannot cover every possible scenario. So use it to understand the law, certainly don't take it out of context.