New faulty car parts supplied, who pays for refit labour?

rapidon

This issue has been raised a few times online, but I'm not totally convinced the bottom has been reached.
So the scenario is: new car parts have been purchased from a parts seller by the consumer and handed to a mechanic to fit. The part couldn't reasonably be expected to be tested beforehand and appear new, as sold. No relevant terms are specified by seller at time of purchase. The fitment process is long and costly and upon completion, the part proves to be faulty. A replacement part is of course expected, but who pays for removal and refitting? Clearly the mechanic is not responsible as the consumer has supplied the part.
So lots of threads have lots of posts telling the consumer that they should only use parts supplied by the mechanic and that their gamble hasn't paid off, without any kind of legal explanation to back this up. However, my mechanic seems incredibly confident that he can claim the second labour bill from the parts supplier. So I was wondering where the law stands on this.
There are a couple of posts on this subject around, which imply the parts supplier could be liable. What I've seen quoted relates to whether the 'consequential damages' were 'reasonably foreseeable'. Whether or not this is actually relevant I don't know, but if it is the case it would seem to be reasonably foreseeable that if a part supplied was faulty that this would consequentially cause damages to the consumer to the sum of the cost of refitting a replacement part.
Any informed responses would be much appreciated. 

zoob

Technically your responsible to pay your mechanic as you give him a faulty part to fit, you bought the part and opted to pay someone to fit it so it's your issue.
If the mechanic had bought and fitted the part it would have being his responsibility to refit a new part.

wealdroam

Section 23 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says (amongst other things):

23 Right to repair or replacement
(1) This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).
(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—
(a) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and
(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

Para (2)(b) is the pertinent part. 

rapidon

zoob said:

Technically your responsible to pay your mechanic as you give him a faulty part to fit, you bought the part and opted to pay someone to fit it so it's your issue.
If the mechanic had bought and fitted the part it would have being his responsibility to refit a new part.

As stated, I would certainly not hold the mechanic liable (assuming the mechanic fitted the part correctly without causing damage). This is between the consumer (me) and the merchant (part seller). Although I appreciate your response, you've stated a position without any backing as I have stated many have done before on the topic.

I find it reasonable, that if a merchant sells a faulty part as new and fully working, they bare responsibility for the direct expenses incurred by the consumer for the part in fact being not as described, i.e. faulty.

wealdroam said:

Section 23 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says (amongst other things):

23 Right to repair or replacement
(1) This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).
(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—
(a) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and
(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

Para (2)(b) is the pertinent part. 

Quoting acts is much more the kind of response I was hoping for and appears to bolster my position. How confident would you be that this is applicable to the circumstances outlined. I see it also refers to section 19. point (5) states:

If the trader is in breach of a term that section 12 requires to be treated as included in the contract, the consumer has the right to recover from the trader the amount of any costs incurred by the consumer as a result of the breach, up to the amount of the price paid or the value of other consideration given for the goods.

This would seem to suggest that the consumer could only claim damages up to the price paid for the original goods, would that be a correct interpretation? It seems fitting to some circumstances (e.g. buying a complete product) but not so much this situation (buying parts).

ComicGeek

I had a new radiator installed recently, supplied and fitted through a company - when it was found to be faulty, and the replacement was also faulty, the company gave me a full refund and claimed their costs from the radiator supplier. However, the supplier applied it as a 'goodwill' payment rather than anything else - that's a commercial decision by the supplier to keep the fitting company (in this case a bathroom store who sells a lot of these products) happy.

There would be a B2B contract between the supplier and fitting company in my situation above which I'm sure would identify what liability, if any, exists - where the fitting company doesn't actually purchase the goods themselves there is no contract between them and the supplier, so I don't see how the fitting company has any claim.

rapidon

Yes, this would be a bit different as fitter didn't supply parts in my case. So rather than any specific terms in a contract I am looking at default consumer purchase rights. If there are any rights to consequential losses, I would assume I would have the entitlement rather than the fitter (mechanic), although the mechanic claims he will sort it out for me.

wealdroam

rapidon said:

wealdroam said:

Section 23 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says (amongst other things):

23 Right to repair or replacement
(1) This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).
(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—
(a) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and
(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

Para (2)(b) is the pertinent part. 

Quoting acts is much more the kind of response I was hoping for and appears to bolster my position. How confident would you be that this is applicable to the circumstances outlined.

Very confident.

Have you read the Explanatory Note:

Section 23: Right to repair or replacement
132. This section details a consumer’s right to insist on repair or replacement of faulty goods, the cost of which must be borne by the trader. This includes the trader bearing any costs involved in the removal of an installed item and reinstallation of a replacement. 

rapidon said:

I see it also refers to section 19. point (5) states:

If the trader is in breach of a term that section 12 requires to be treated as included in the contract, the consumer has the right to recover from the trader the amount of any costs incurred by the consumer as a result of the breach, up to the amount of the price paid or the value of other consideration given for the goods.

This would seem to suggest that the consumer could only claim damages up to the price paid for the original goods, would that be a correct interpretation? It seems fitting to some circumstances (e.g. buying a complete product) but not so much this situation (buying parts).

I don't see S19(5) as being relevant.

unholyangel

I agree with wealdroam, s19(5) isn't relevant. It relates solely to breaches under s12, which relates to pre-contractual information supplied under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. 

What s19 says about breaches under s9 (satisfactory quality - which I presume is the section you'd be looking for under the generic sense of "faulty") is:

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—
(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);
(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and
(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

However, I'd also note that s19 makes clear:

(9)This Chapter does not prevent the consumer seeking other remedies—
(a)for a breach of a term that this Chapter requires to be treated as included in the contract,
(b)on the grounds that, under section 15 or 16, goods do not conform to the contract, or
(c)for a breach of a requirement stated in the contract.

(10)Those other remedies may be ones—
(a)in addition to a remedy referred to in subsections (3) to (6) (but not so as to recover twice for the same loss), or
(b)instead of such a remedy, or
(c)where no such remedy is provided for.

(11)Those other remedies include any of the following that is open to the consumer in the circumstances—
(a)claiming damages;
(b)seeking specific performance;
(c)seeking an order for specific implement;
(d)relying on the breach against a claim by the trader for the price;
(e)for breach of an express term, exercising a right to treat the contract as at an end.

But explanatory note for s19(5) spells it out in laymans terms by saying:

Subsection (5) makes clear that if the trader is in breach of any pre-contract information required to be treated as part of the contract by section 12, the consumer has the right to recover any costs which they incurred as a result of the breach. The consumer can recover the amount of these costs up to the full price of the goods (so they could receive a full refund), or the full amount they already paid (if they had only paid in part for the goods). This applies equally where there is other consideration given instead of a price – the cap on the recoverable costs would be the value of that consideration. If the consumer incurs costs or losses above this amount, they may be able to seek damages for breach of contract (see subsection (9)).

rapidon

Thanks guys. Unfortunately the situation has escalated for now. Perhaps you would glance over my thread in motoring in case you can offer any further advice:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6218607/stood-up-by-mechanic-after-unsuccessful-fix-and-now-being-ignored/p1?new=1