Faulty car parts from main dealer

arcon5

Where is it actually leaking from?

neilmcl

AdrianC wrote: »

Which is why they're asking to inspect it.

They don't need the OP's car in to inspect it though.

m0bov

The burden of proof lies with the retailer. Take the item back, if they don't accept it, hand them a LBA.

neilmcl

m0bov wrote: »

The burden of proof lies with the retailer. Take the item back, if they don't accept it, hand them a LBA.

Just to clarify one thing though, the above will only apply if the OP wants a replacement, if he's looking to use his short-term right to reject for a full refund then the burden will lie with the OP.

Having said that I cam see this going on the lines of retailer inspecting part then coming back and claiming it was damaged as a result of poor installation leaving the OP to prove otherwise.

arcon5

neilmcl wrote: »

Just to clarify one thing though, the above will only apply if the OP wants a replacement, if he's looking to use his short-term right to reject for a full refund then the burden will lie with the OP.

Not heard that one before... does legislation really vary burden of proof based on your choice of remedy?

wongataa

neilmcl wrote: »

Just to clarify one thing though, the above will only apply if the OP wants a replacement, if he's looking to use his short-term right to reject for a full refund then the burden will lie with the OP.[/qoute]
I don't think so. For goods up to 6 months old it is assumed that the fault existed at purchase. If the issue is discovered within 30 days of purchase you are entitled to a full refund or replacement Between 30 days and 6 months you are entitled to a repair or refund (supplier's discretion) and if you go for a repair and the fault still exists you are are entitled to a full refund.

After 6 months have elapsed since purchased to customer has to prove the fault existed at the time of purchase to have a refund which will be not be full to account for the use the customer had of the item in the time since purchase.

Issues caused by customer are not covered by this.

neilmcl wrote: »

Having said that I cam see this going on the lines of retailer inspecting part then coming back and claiming it was damaged as a result of poor installation leaving the OP to prove otherwise.

I'm sure if you took a car radiator back the supplier would want to have a look at it to check that the customer didn't damage it themselves which is reasonable. The supplier can't just refuse though, they have to prove any issues are the customers fault before refusing a refund/replacement.

neilmcl

arcon5 wrote: »

Not heard that one before... does legislation really vary burden of proof based on your choice of remedy?

In a short word, yes. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has introduced a short-term right to reject within the first 30 days of purchase but the onus of proof for this lies with the consumer.

neilmcl

wongataa wrote: »

I don't think so.

Then you need to read up on the CRA a bit more.

JohnnyC1969

I offered to take the part to them and told them they could pour a jug of water into it and they'd see it leak.
But... "no, we need the part FITTED TO THE CAR".

I can't post pics, not sure if that's due to my post count or if it's not allowed at all.

The part is leaking at the top, the radiator has plastic edges and corners. The leak in the seam between two parts of plastic.

neilmcl

Just take the radiator in and hand it over to them.