Am I covered by consumer rights?

Sandtree

That clause basically says if the item has a problem that manifests in the first 6 months the law will assume the problem to have always have been there unless the merchant can show otherwise.IE merchant must show the customer's fault.

In the absence of trigger that clause then it is the consumers job to prove their case however its a big presumption to say that because of clause 19.14 talks about on the date of delivery that the customer must also prove any later issues were there on day one. 

neilmcl

Sandtree said:

That clause basically says if the item has a problem that manifests in the first 6 months the law will assume the problem to have always have been there unless the merchant can show otherwise.IE merchant must show the customer's fault.

In the absence of trigger that clause then it is the consumers job to prove their case however its a big presumption to say that because of clause 19.14 talks about on the date of delivery that the customer must also prove any later issues were there on day one. 

It isn't a presumption, that's exactly what the law implies, as has been documented widely. If the goods fail to conform to contract after 6 months then the onus is on the buyer to show that the underlying reason for this was there at the time of purchase. What don't you get about that?

Why are your trying to go down the rabbit hole with this. The law is straightforward, there's no ambiguity. A fault within 6 months is assumed to be there at the time of purchase, unless the seller can show otherwise. Outside of 6 months then the seller can insist the buyer proves the that the underlying cause of the fault existed at the time of purchase. It's a simple as that. Nothing more to be said, I'm out.

Sandtree

neilmcl said:

It isn't a presumption, that's exactly what the law implies, as has been documented widely. If the goods fail to conform to contract after 6 months then the onus is on the buyer to show that the underlying reason for this was there at the time of purchase. What don't you get about that?

Why are your trying to go down the rabbit hole with this. The law is straightforward, there's no ambiguity. A fault within 6 months is assumed to be there at the time of purchase, unless the seller can show otherwise. Outside of 6 months then the seller can insist the buyer proves the that the underlying cause of the fault existed at the time of purchase. It's a simple as that. Nothing more to be said, I'm out.

I am not sure why you keep trying to widen the area of disagreement? The only area of disagreement is the requirement for it to be proven that on the date of delivery the issue exists after 6 months.

This would be an exceptional major thing for the law to only imply rather than be explicitly state. It would also be very lax drafting to explicitly state the fact for cases of under 6 months and only rely on implication or presumption for cases over 6 months. 

You only need to look at FOS decisions that their interpretation also doesnt require such proof to be given, it is equally odd that there isnt uproar if the the FOS is taking a non-standard interpretation to what the law requires.
EG:
Decision Reference DRN5045888 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk) :
Mr H had a phone which had stopped working and circumstantial evidence which pointed to it being an inherent fault.
My final decision is that I uphold this complaint

Decision Reference DRN9501516 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

I find, on balance, that the issues that needed to be repaired in January 2019 were due to faults that were present or developing at the point of supply.
My final decision is that I uphold this complaint

There are hundreds more cases where the customer has not proven that the fault is inherent but the ombudsman has ruled that their claim under the CRA against the merchant was valid and therefore under CCA S75 against their credit company is liable.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:

It isn't a presumption, that's exactly what the law implies, as has been documented widely. If the goods fail to conform to contract after 6 months then the onus is on the buyer to show that the underlying reason for this was there at the time of purchase. What don't you get about that?

Why are your trying to go down the rabbit hole with this. The law is straightforward, there's no ambiguity. A fault within 6 months is assumed to be there at the time of purchase, unless the seller can show otherwise. Outside of 6 months then the seller can insist the buyer proves the that the underlying cause of the fault existed at the time of purchase. It's a simple as that. Nothing more to be said, I'm out.

I am not sure why you keep trying to widen the area of disagreement? The only area of disagreement is the requirement for it to be proven that on the date of delivery the issue exists after 6 months.

This would be an exceptional major thing for the law to only imply rather than be explicitly state. It would also be very lax drafting to explicitly state the fact for cases of under 6 months and only rely on implication or presumption for cases over 6 months. 

You only need to look at FOS decisions that their interpretation also doesnt require such proof to be given, it is equally odd that there isnt uproar if the the FOS is taking a non-standard interpretation to what the law requires.
EG:
Decision Reference DRN5045888 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk) :
Mr H had a phone which had stopped working and circumstantial evidence which pointed to it being an inherent fault.
My final decision is that I uphold this complaint

Decision Reference DRN9501516 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

I find, on balance, that the issues that needed to be repaired in January 2019 were due to faults that were present or developing at the point of supply.
My final decision is that I uphold this complaint

There are hundreds more cases where the customer has not proven that the fault is inherent but the ombudsman has ruled that their claim under the CRA against the merchant was valid and therefore under CCA S75 against their credit company is liable.

Devil is in the detail, in the first case it's noted "I believe that in the circumstances Mr H had supplied sufficient information to allow the claim to be upheld."

So although he didn't have a report (which is discussed in length detailing that the manufacturer refused to provide one, the retailer required one specifically from the manufacturer who had already refused and Amex provided confusing information as to who the report must come from) the FOS deemed the consumer gathered enough evidence to demonstrate there was known issues with the product and that it had completely failed before the manufacturers stated life span.  

The CRA doesn't state the consumer must undertake a report, it is typically suggested as the easiest and most defining way to demonstrate the goods did not conform, these things are decided on the balance of probability and the person making the decision felt the evidence was sufficient to show the underlying issue was present originally. That's my understanding of it all anyway. 

If I'm reading correctly, in the second case the consumer first reported a fault only a month after purchase and a second fault an additional month later and the costly repairs in dispute were done 3 months after purchase. 

neilmcl

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:

It isn't a presumption, that's exactly what the law implies, as has been documented widely. If the goods fail to conform to contract after 6 months then the onus is on the buyer to show that the underlying reason for this was there at the time of purchase. What don't you get about that?

Why are your trying to go down the rabbit hole with this. The law is straightforward, there's no ambiguity. A fault within 6 months is assumed to be there at the time of purchase, unless the seller can show otherwise. Outside of 6 months then the seller can insist the buyer proves the that the underlying cause of the fault existed at the time of purchase. It's a simple as that. Nothing more to be said, I'm out.

I am not sure why you keep trying to widen the area of disagreement? The only area of disagreement is the requirement for it to be proven that on the date of delivery the issue exists after 6 months.

This would be an exceptional major thing for the law to only imply rather than be explicitly state. It would also be very lax drafting to explicitly state the fact for cases of under 6 months and only rely on implication or presumption for cases over 6 months. 

You only need to look at FOS decisions that their interpretation also doesnt require such proof to be given, it is equally odd that there isnt uproar if the the FOS is taking a non-standard interpretation to what the law requires.
EG:
Decision Reference DRN5045888 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk) :
Mr H had a phone which had stopped working and circumstantial evidence which pointed to it being an inherent fault.
My final decision is that I uphold this complaint

Decision Reference DRN9501516 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

I find, on balance, that the issues that needed to be repaired in January 2019 were due to faults that were present or developing at the point of supply.
My final decision is that I uphold this complaint

There are hundreds more cases where the customer has not proven that the fault is inherent but the ombudsman has ruled that their claim under the CRA against the merchant was valid and therefore under CCA S75 against their credit company is liable.

Not sure why you're turning this into a disagreement in the first place. The law is clear, you are wrong (in my opinion) and playing with semantics doesn't change that.

George_Michael

There are plenty of websites (both official government ones as well as private sites) that refer to the 6 month switchover for proving an inherent fault.

Consumer Rights Act: Goods - Guidance for Business - Business Companion

Because the fault was discovered 5 months after delivery, the assumption is that the fault was present at the time of delivery unless this does not make sense in the circumstances. It is therefore up to the trader to prove that the seal was damaged by misuse.
On the other hand, if the same fault had manifested more than 6 months after delivery it would be for the consumer to prove that the machine had a latent fault rather than the damage being caused by their misuse of the machine.

https://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/122483/14/684/d

If more than six months have passed, the consumer has to prove the defect was there at the time of delivery. They must also prove the defect was there at the time of delivery if they exercise the short-term right to reject goods

https://www.mygov.scot/consumer-rights/

If you find the fault more than 6 months after you bought it, you have to prove it was faulty when you got it. Otherwise the shop doesn't have to give you a refund. 

unholyangel

The default position in law is that it is for the party alleging breach (of contract, tort etc) to prove their claim.

The CRA makes an exception to that rule that if the goods don't conform to contract in the first 6 months, it is assumed the lack of conformity was inherent. 

If it's after 6 months there's no such assumption and it's back to the party alleging breach, to prove there has been a breach. In other words, they need to prove the goods inherently failed to conform.

Manxman_in_exile

Isn't this debate really just about different usages and meanings of the words "proof" and "prove" in relation to post-6 months faults?

Although I do agree with the_lunatic that some responses on these boards regarding the "after 6 months" problem are sometimes - no doubt unintentionally - a bit unclear and confusing.  Even though I'm sure the meaning is perfectly clear to the author!

neilmcl

unholyangel said:

The default position in law is that it is for the party alleging breach (of contract, tort etc) to prove their claim.

The CRA makes an exception to that rule that if the goods don't conform to contract in the first 6 months, it is assumed the lack of conformity was inherent. 

If it's after 6 months there's no such assumption and it's back to the party alleging breach, to prove there has been a breach. In other words, they need to prove the goods inherently failed to conform.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Manxman_in_exile

neilmcl said:

unholyangel said:

The default position in law is that it is for the party alleging breach (of contract, tort etc) to prove their claim.

The CRA makes an exception to that rule that if the goods don't conform to contract in the first 6 months, it is assumed the lack of conformity was inherent. 

If it's after 6 months there's no such assumption and it's back to the party alleging breach, to prove there has been a breach. In other words, they need to prove the goods inherently failed to conform.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But isn't part of the issue to do with "to prove"? 

I may well be completely mistaken - probably am - but isn't Sandtree arguing that the use of "to prove" puts many people off because many people take it to mean to prove with certainty.  Wouldn't it be clearer to say "to show (or to demonstrate) that the cause of the fault was more likely than not present at purchase"?

And that "the cause of the fault" might be something as ordinary as an insufficiently durable component which might work OK for 6 months and then wear out too quickly or break?