Section 75 Loophole

MartinH67

Will try and keep this simple 
Bought a van engine (described as BRAND NEW)
Only way to get working, on advice of supplier, was to borrow parts from old engine.
Section 75 submitted as goods weren't as described.
Bank now saying having "adapted" the original "NEW" item, Consumer Rights are no longer valid, but are offering a 50% goodwill payment.

Having the van off the road for any length of time, longer than absolutely necessary, was impossible as needed for work.

Anyone had any joy in successfully arguing ?

powerful_Rogue

MartinH67 said:

Will try and keep this simple 
Bought a van engine (described as BRAND NEW)
Only way to get working, on advice of supplier, was to borrow parts from old engine.
Section 75 submitted as goods weren't as described.
Bank now saying having "adapted" the original "NEW" item, Consumer Rights are no longer valid, but are offering a 50% goodwill payment.

Having the van off the road for any length of time, longer than absolutely necessary, was impossible as needed for work.

Anyone had any joy in successfully arguing ?

Sounds reasonable enough.How do they know you haven't broken the engine my your adaptations.

MattMattMattUK

MartinH67 said:

Will try and keep this simple 
Bought a van engine (described as BRAND NEW)
Only way to get working, on advice of supplier, was to borrow parts from old engine.
Section 75 submitted as goods weren't as described.
Bank now saying having "adapted" the original "NEW" item, Consumer Rights are no longer valid, but are offering a 50% goodwill payment.

Having the van off the road for any length of time, longer than absolutely necessary, was impossible as needed for work.

Anyone had any joy in successfully arguing ?

I do not see it as a loophole.

What makes you think your claim is valid as a Section 75 claim when they have stated the reasoning why it is not a valid claim. Why do you feel the goods were not as described? Why are you not claiming against the supplier if you think that they are at fault?

Also if this was a business transaction you do not have Consumer Rights, you have different and far less wide ranging rights.

Sandtree

MartinH67 said:

Having the van off the road for any length of time, longer than absolutely necessary, was impossible as needed for work.

Was it a consumer purchase? Sounds like its a business vehicle 

No way enough detail to know what was in the original ad, what parts were needed and if this in anyway means the item was or wasn't as described. 

On paper if your bank were to accept the claim they'd be entitled to the new engine being sent to them in exchange for the monies. It appears however you initially accepted the proposal of using some original parts and so can no longer return the new engine in its original form. If you are to keep the engine then you aren't entitled to a full refund but less the value of the new engine (if correctly described). If you were to return the engine it'd be less any excessive handling to determine that it wasn't as described.

Given the other potential issue then a 50% refund as long as you retain title to the engine seems a bargain.

mattyprice4004

You’ve altered the engine, so they’re right. 

Your circumstances regarding being able to have it off the road aren’t relevant unfortunately, sorry. 

I’d take the offer. 

Manxman_in_exile

MartinH67 said:

Will try and keep this simple 
Bought a van engine (described as BRAND NEW)
Only way to get working, on advice of supplier, was to borrow parts from old engine.
Section 75 submitted as goods weren't as described.
Bank now saying having "adapted" the original "NEW" item, Consumer Rights are no longer valid, but are offering a 50% goodwill payment.

Having the van off the road for any length of time, longer than absolutely necessary, was impossible as needed for work.

Anyone had any joy in successfully arguing ?

I'm afraid you've kept it so simple it makes no sense...

How do you just buy a "BRAND NEW" van engine?  Did you buy it direct from the engine manufacturer or something?  Has it never been used?

If it didn't work and the supplier said the only way to get it going "was to borrow parts from old engine", why aren't you suing the supplier for selling you something that obviously could not have been "BRAND NEW"?

Of course the bank won't entertain a s75 claim (even if you paid by credit card or on some other linked bank finance) if you have since messed about with it, swapping pieces here and there...

Aylesbury_Duck

Where's the loophole?

MartinH67

MattMattMattUK said:

MartinH67 said:

Will try and keep this simple 
Bought a van engine (described as BRAND NEW)
Only way to get working, on advice of supplier, was to borrow parts from old engine.
Section 75 submitted as goods weren't as described.
Bank now saying having "adapted" the original "NEW" item, Consumer Rights are no longer valid, but are offering a 50% goodwill payment.

Having the van off the road for any length of time, longer than absolutely necessary, was impossible as needed for work.

Anyone had any joy in successfully arguing ?

I do not see it as a loophole.

What makes you think your claim is valid as a Section 75 claim when they have stated the reasoning why it is not a valid claim. Why do you feel the goods were not as described? Why are you not claiming against the supplier if you think that they are at fault?

Also if this was a business transaction you do not have Consumer Rights, you have different and far less wide ranging rights.

Engine was described as BRAND NEW and bought as such. My mechanic and also a Main Dealer pointed out numerous issues that indicated it was a refurbished block e.g. Area where Engine Number should be stamped on a new engine had a metal plate welded over it, various leaking parts that would have been factory sealed on a new unit.

Tried getting assistance from supplier and there reaction was purely to advise my mechanic to use parts from the original engine and wouldn't enter into any further discussion.

The Business transaction is a good point - My Limited Company / My Personal Credit Card (in the hope of ensuring protection)

user1977

MartinH67 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

MartinH67 said:

Will try and keep this simple 
Bought a van engine (described as BRAND NEW)
Only way to get working, on advice of supplier, was to borrow parts from old engine.
Section 75 submitted as goods weren't as described.
Bank now saying having "adapted" the original "NEW" item, Consumer Rights are no longer valid, but are offering a 50% goodwill payment.

Having the van off the road for any length of time, longer than absolutely necessary, was impossible as needed for work.

Anyone had any joy in successfully arguing ?

I do not see it as a loophole.

What makes you think your claim is valid as a Section 75 claim when they have stated the reasoning why it is not a valid claim. Why do you feel the goods were not as described? Why are you not claiming against the supplier if you think that they are at fault?

Also if this was a business transaction you do not have Consumer Rights, you have different and far less wide ranging rights.

The Business transaction is a good point - My Limited Company / My Personal Credit Card (in the hope of ensuring protection)

It's a business purchase, so no consumer rights.

MartinH67

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Where's the loophole?

More about the fact that people may not realise that doing something to a "New Item" in order to get use from it when the supplier is playing "awkward" renders your rights useless.

Manxman_in_exile

MartinH67 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Where's the loophole?

More about the fact that people may not realise that doing something to a "New Item" in order to get use from it when the supplier is playing "awkward" renders your rights useless.

Yeah - but it isn't just doing something to a "New item".  

If you buy any item (eg a used car) and it turns out to be faulty in such a way that a consumer would have a right to a repair or a replacement or a refund, then if you do anything to it to change it from its original condition (eg you get a friendly mechanic to attempt a repair or to fit different parts) then the supplier will argue that it was your interference with the item that has caused the fault, and that they have no liability for it.

And no doubt your credit card provider would argue exactly the same if you tried to pursue a s75 claim.

If you buy a faulty item, your first action is to claim against the seller or, if you get nowhere with them, a s75 claim - if you are eligible for one.  You don't mess about with it trying to fix it yourself or you run the danger of losing whatever legal rights you might have...