Six Months Burden of Proof - What Counts

eric77

Hi,
I have a laptop that suffered a complete failure (motherboard) after less than 2 years.  The manufacturer has examined it and written that this failure could not have been caused by the user (me).  I had assumed that this would be enough for a successful claim under the Consumer Rights Act and so Section 75 (i.e, if I have not caused the failure then the only other explanation is that the part was not sufficiently durable and so defective). Neither the retailer or credit car company are shifting.  The time frames specified in my 'letters before action' have now just timed out. 

Do any of you have any experience / knowledge of whether my evidence is likely to meet the burden of proof, please? 

theonlywayisup

After the six month period, the onus is on you to prove the fault was inherent.  A report saying the fault was not caused by you doesn't mean it is inherent.  Can you go back to the manufacturer and ask them to be more specific and maybe ask them if they could ascertain if they think the fault is inherent or not.

neilmcl

theonlywayisup said:

After the six month period, the onus is on you to prove the fault was inherent.  A report saying the fault was not caused by you doesn't mean it is inherent.  Can you go back to the manufacturer and ask them to be more specific and maybe ask them if they could ascertain if they think the fault is inherent or not.

A report stating that a fault cannot by user inflicted gives a pretty much strong case on the balance of probabilities that the fault was there when purchased. No report has to actually use the phrase "inherent fault", in fact it's no longer used in the legislation itself.

neilmcl

eric77 said:

Hi,
I have a laptop that suffered a complete failure (motherboard) after less than 2 years.  The manufacturer has examined it and written that this failure could not have been caused by the user (me).  I had assumed that this would be enough for a successful claim under the Consumer Rights Act and so Section 75 (i.e, if I have not caused the failure then the only other explanation is that the part was not sufficiently durable and so defective). Neither the retailer or credit car company are shifting.  The time frames specified in my 'letters before action' have now just timed out. 

Do any of you have any experience / knowledge of whether my evidence is likely to meet the burden of proof, please? 

Did they actually state what the fault was?

In my opinion if you have a report stating that the failure wasn't down to the user then you have a pretty strong case based on the balance of probabilities for a remedy under the CRA, however you would have to take your chance down the small claims route. Nothing ventured and all that.

mattyprice4004

The report sounds like enough to me - I would issue an LBA giving the retailer 14 days to resolve, then lodge a small claim.  

Jenni_D

Bear in mind that the retailer's liability (if you win) is to:

1) Reimburse the reasonable cost of the report
2) Reimburse your costs of bringing the action
3) Provide a remedy per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, such remedy being a Repair, a Replacement (with a laptop of the same specification and age, not a brand new one), or a Refund where said refund can be reduced to account for the ~2 years of usage you have had

wesleyad

The report is certainly very helpful and I would have thought will help you, but there is a difference between a fault being inherent (covered in the CRA)  and a fault not caused by the user (as here)

An inherent fault has to exist at time of sale. Things like poorly placed fans eventually causing the laptop to overheat and break. 

But other faults might not count, for example if the hard drive fails and they find its from wear, even though its not the users fault, it wont be inherent and wont come under the CRA.

theonlywayisup

neilmcl said:

theonlywayisup said:

After the six month period, the onus is on you to prove the fault was inherent.  A report saying the fault was not caused by you doesn't mean it is inherent.  Can you go back to the manufacturer and ask them to be more specific and maybe ask them if they could ascertain if they think the fault is inherent or not.

A report stating that a fault cannot by user inflicted gives a pretty much strong case on the balance of probabilities that the fault was there when purchased. No report has to actually use the phrase "inherent fault", in fact it's no longer used in the legislation itself.

I agree the report is helpful but  I do not see the report gives any evidence that the fault was inherent.   I did not say the report had to contain the phrase 'inherent fault' but I said the OP should go back and ask them if they can "be more specific" and even ascertain if it was inherent (ie there at the time of purchase).   

As per the post above mine - there are a multitude of faults that may not be down to the user but that does not prove they were there at time of purchase.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

As Neil correctly points out the term inherent doesn't appear in the CRA which instead covers the goods conforming to the contract under a range of criteria including that the goods must be of satisfactory quality under which they must be durable. 

Should the goods fail and it's established they haven't been damaged or misused then by default they weren't durable (or have passed their expended lifespan). 

Whilst the lack of durability is an aspect that would be present from the beginning and for all intents and purposes is the same as inherent, without mention of the relevant criteria it leads to misunderstanding such as: 

wesleyad said:

But other faults might not count, for example if the hard drive fails and they find its from wear, even though its not the users fault, it wont be inherent and wont come under the CRA.

which is an example of something that is effectively inherent (if we're using that term) and would certainly be covered by the CRA. 

A report isn't specifically required, ultimately evidence is required to demonstrate on the balance of probability, in the OP's case the retailer or card company would need counter evidence to show either 2 years is reasonable for the goods to last or perhaps they were used excessively compared to what is common and as such the owner received reasonable use from the goods. 

neilmcl

wesleyad said:

The report is certainly very helpful and I would have thought will help you, but there is a difference between a fault being inherent (covered in the CRA)  and a fault not caused by the user (as here)

An inherent fault has to exist at time of sale. Things like poorly placed fans eventually causing the laptop to overheat and break. 

But other faults might not count, for example if the hard drive fails and they find its from wear, even though its not the users fault, it wont be inherent and wont come under the CRA.

How can it be from wear and it not being the user's "fault". They've either used it excessively causing it to "wear" out quicker than normal or they haven't. If they haven't then it's failed prematurely and the CRA would apply.

neilmcl

theonlywayisup said:

neilmcl said:

theonlywayisup said:

After the six month period, the onus is on you to prove the fault was inherent.  A report saying the fault was not caused by you doesn't mean it is inherent.  Can you go back to the manufacturer and ask them to be more specific and maybe ask them if they could ascertain if they think the fault is inherent or not.

A report stating that a fault cannot by user inflicted gives a pretty much strong case on the balance of probabilities that the fault was there when purchased. No report has to actually use the phrase "inherent fault", in fact it's no longer used in the legislation itself.

I agree the report is helpful but  I do not see the report gives any evidence that the fault was inherent.   I did not say the report had to contain the phrase 'inherent fault' but I said the OP should go back and ask them if they can "be more specific" and even ascertain if it was inherent (ie there at the time of purchase).   

As per the post above mine - there are a multitude of faults that may not be down to the user but that does not prove they were there at time of purchase.  

This was a motherboard fault. If there's no evidence that the user has had any influence on that, which is backed up by the report, then how else does it fail other than via a fault that was "inherent", or there at the time of the sale.