John Lewis Refused to Cover Cost Of Inherent Fault,Engineers Report

Al_Ross

They are refusing to budge on their initial offer.

They say they are not liable for the cost of report, if item over 6 months old.

If I bring a Small Court Claims action and loose,could I be held liable for their costs if they defend the case?

Manxman_in_exile

Al_Ross said:

They are refusing to budge on their initial offer.

They say they are not liable for the cost of report, if item over 6 months old.

If I bring a Small Court Claims action and loose,could I be held liable for their costs if they defend the case?

So to answer the question raised by the OP above, what is the provision (if any) that states in the Consumer Rights Act that the retailer must refund the cost of any report saying the goods had an inherent or latent fault at time of purchase?

sheramber

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-do-if-i-have-a-faulty-product-aTTEK2g0YuEy

After the first six months

If the fault developed after the first six months of you owning the product, the onus is on you to prove the fault was present at the time you took ownership of it.

So, you should expect to pay for any reasonable steps and delivery costs to prove the fault was present at the time of purchase.

It’s always best to notify the retailer that you will be claiming any such costs back from the retailer in the event that the goods are found to be faulty.

If you manage to prove this, you can contact the retailer and ask them to reimburse you these delivery costs, plus any costs charged for inspecting the goods.

It’s always best to agree the approach the retailer will use to establish whether or not the goods are faulty.

If you don’t want to go down the route the retailer has suggested, make sure you’ve agreed a new approach with the retailer beforehand. This includes making sure costs are reasonable.

Manxman_in_exile

So I've read many threads on this board where the OP is advised that after six months they need to get a report that a fault is inherent (or whatever) and so far as I can recall, they are advised that if a fault is found then the retailer must refund them the cost of the report.

Are we saying here that that is not the case - that the retailer is not obliged to refund the cost of any report, and that it's up to the consumer to agree or negotiate that with the retailer, preferably before commissioning any report?

'Cos that might put a slightly different complexion on returning some things... 

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile said:

Al_Ross said:

They are refusing to budge on their initial offer.

They say they are not liable for the cost of report, if item over 6 months old.

If I bring a Small Court Claims action and loose,could I be held liable for their costs if they defend the case?

So to answer the question raised by the OP above, what is the provision (if any) that states in the Consumer Rights Act that the retailer must refund the cost of any report saying the goods had an inherent or latent fault at time of purchase?

None. It's determined by common law principles of breach of contract - that the party in breach are liable for losses incurred as a result of the breach (subject to normal rules on mitigation and under the two recoverable limbs of course). 

MobileSaver

Sandtree said:

VAT registration is a matter of turnover and the fact an expert is turning over less than £85,000 in revenue a year doesn't undermine his qualifications...

Just for clarity, this is incorrect; anyone can register for VAT regardless of how big or small their turnover is (unless absolutely everything they sell is VAT exempt.)

However, it is of course entirely correct that VAT registration has absolutely no relevance to whether someone is qualified or not.

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

what is the provision (if any) that states in the Consumer Rights Act that the retailer must refund the cost of any report saying the goods had an inherent or latent fault at time of purchase?

None. It's determined by common law principles of breach of contract - that the party in breach are liable for losses incurred as a result of the breach

Even more so when as in this case it was the retailer who asked the OP to commission the report.