Expensive Jacket from Outlet Store - Faulty

eskbanker

Wongus said:
Nope, according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if a product is found to be faulty within the first 30 days after purchase, the consumer has the right to reject the product and receive a full refund. During this initial 30-day period, the burden of proof is generally on the seller to demonstrate that the product was not faulty at the time of purchase.

This is outlined in Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly sections 19-24, which cover the consumer's rights to reject faulty goods and receive a refund, repair, or replacement.

Also based on what you said, the burden of proof would shift from purchaser to retailed back to purchased?! 

I think the exchange is at cross purposes - the onus is on the customer to show that there is a fault (hence the bolded wording), but if/when that's established, the onus is then on the retailer (within the first six months) to show that it wasn't there at the time of purchase.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

Nope. First 30 days the onus is on the purchaser. 31 days - six months burden is on the retailer.

Nope, reverse burden of proof applies from day 1 to 6 months unless exercising the short term right to reject (which can only be done within the first 30 days)  

So if you opt for your right to a repair/replacement > final reject/price reduction instead of short term rejecting reverse burden of proof still applies within those first 30 days.  

eskbanker said:

I think the exchange is at cross purposes - the onus is on the customer to show that there is a fault (hence the bolded wording), but if/when that's established, the onus is then on the retailer (within the first six months) to show that it wasn't there at the time of purchase.

Sadly the problem with guidance is it can be more confusing than what the regs state which is:

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

(3)(a) is short term right to reject so as above isn't included but (b) & (c)

(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).

if the consumer says "this is "faulty" then it is until established otherwise. 

In this instance because OP is asking for a refund burden of proof is on them if the trader requests such (or they went via small claims) but if they decided to change their mind and opt for a repair or replacement instead then burden of proof would be on the retailer. 

Wongus

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Nope. First 30 days the onus is on the purchaser. 31 days - six months burden is on the retailer.

Nope, reverse burden of proof applies from day 1 to 6 months unless exercising the short term right to reject (which can only be done within the first 30 days)  

So if you opt for your right to a repair/replacement > final reject/price reduction instead of short term rejecting reverse burden of proof still applies within those first 30 days.  

eskbanker said:

I think the exchange is at cross purposes - the onus is on the customer to show that there is a fault (hence the bolded wording), but if/when that's established, the onus is then on the retailer (within the first six months) to show that it wasn't there at the time of purchase.

Sadly the problem with guidance is it can be more confusing than what the regs state which is:

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15)Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract.

(3)(a) is short term right to reject so as above isn't included but (b) & (c)

(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).

if the consumer says "this is "faulty" then it is until established otherwise. 

In this instance because OP is asking for a refund burden of proof is on them if the trader requests such (or they wet via small claims) but they decided to change their mind and opt for a repair or replacement then burden of proof would be on the retailer. 

So as I understand, as I'm rejecting the goods for a refund within 30 days, I need to initiate that there is a fault (i.e. there is a hole in the jacket) then it is up to the retailer to prove that is not due to a fault? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Wongus said:

So as I understand, as I'm rejecting the goods for a refund within 30 days, I need to initiate that there is a fault (i.e. there is a hole in the jacket) then it is up to the retailer to proof that is not due to a fault? 

Hi OP

As you are specifically seeking a refund they can request you show there's a problem (instead of the coat being damaged by misuse for example). 

Effectively you are saying the stitching is not of satisfactory quality with regards to durability, how you would prove either way I really don't know, small claims is balance of probability (i.e 50/50) and AFAIK the person making the claim has that 50/50 burden of proof.

The reverse burden of proof in the CRA is an exception to the norm but only applies if you allow them a chance to repair or replace first (your choice but they can decline one over the other if it's "disproportionate") and if they refused or took too long you can then use the final right to reject rather than short term which also comes with reverse burden of proof.

Apologies if it sounds technical but it's the clearest way I can put it  

I would hope the store has good CS and simply says sorry with a refund. If they do say you have to show, or refuse to refund, then you may be better off with their offer of a repair rather than going via small claims. 

In terms of S75 cover this just places the same liability on the card company as it does the retailer so the situation is the same. 

Wongus

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Wongus said:

So as I understand, as I'm rejecting the goods for a refund within 30 days, I need to initiate that there is a fault (i.e. there is a hole in the jacket) then it is up to the retailer to proof that is not due to a fault? 

Hi OP

As you are specifically seeking a refund they can request you show there's a problem (instead of the coat being damaged by misuse for example). 

Effectively you are saying the stitching is not of satisfactory quality with regards to durability, how you would prove either way I really don't know, small claims is balance of probability (i.e 50/50) and AFAIK the person making the claim has that 50/50 burden of proof.

The reverse burden of proof in the CRA is an exception to the norm but only applies if you allow them a chance to repair or replace first (your choice but they can decline one over the other if it's "disproportionate") and if they refused or took too long you can then use the final right to reject rather than short term which also comes with reverse burden of proof.

Apologies if it sounds technical but it's the clearest way I can put it  

I would hope the store has good CS and simply says sorry with a refund. If they do say you have to show, or refuse to refund, then you may be better off with their offer of a repair rather than going via small claims. 

In terms of S75 cover this just places the same liability on the card company as it does the retailer so the situation is the same. 

Thanks, that's very helpful. The store have now requested the jacket be sent to them so they can inspect and they will send a courier to collect. 

Let's see what happens, however if it comes down to it, I'll take my chances via small court/Section 75. I've been burnt in the past when accepting a repair only for further damage to occur down the line. I have an expensive sweater, where I have probably spent more money on repairs than the original cost! 

RefluentBeans

I agree with people saying you’ve jumped the gun. The letter before action is the final ‘I’m going to sue you’ - in the same way if a company sent you that letter you’ll (likely) either pay or think ‘well I’m not going to engage if they’re threatening to sue me - they’ll either sue me or they’re bluffing’. It is, inherently, a hostile act. 

Ultimately, you need to see what the jacket was sold for vs the RRP. In retail, it’s not uncommon to have seconds that are ‘sold as seen’. Whilst this doesn’t prevent you from claiming your consumer rights, it can be harder to claim them. For example, a jumper costing £100 being sold for £30 due to it being put on a mannequin - although the jumper may not be faulty; if I find that it wears out faster than I’d like, I’d likely have a harder time to show that. In your case, you have a very expensive jacket still. You should compare the price of the jacket to the RRP and potentially even similar products. We are all aware that brand names often inflate the price of products without offering much actual benefit. 

The next step could be to contact the bank to start a S75 claim. Again, I think this will depend if the store is clearing out dead stock or if the jacket was sold as seen (and thus faulty). 

Failing that, filing the court action will be your next step. Unfortunately you can’t expect them to come back to the table to negotiate once you’ve threatened to sue them. 

FWIW - I agree with lunatic - I was under the impression that the burden of proof is reversed and the fault is assumed to be present when purchasing, unless the retailer can prove otherwise. I think the issue will be if the jacket was sold as seen, with the fault described. You’ll have to double check the receipts etc. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

The next step could be to contact the bank to start a S75 claim. Again, I think this will depend if the store is clearing out dead stock or if the jacket was sold as seen (and thus faulty). 

A concept of sold as seen would automatically be blacklisted as unfair as it excludes liability under the CRA that can not be excluded.

Instead with regards to satisfactory quality the CRA has the following as an exemption to the norm:

(4)The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—

(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made,

(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or

(c)in the case of a contract to supply goods by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.

 
Ignoring (c) as it doesn't apply here, with regards to (a) if you purchase a jacket and the shop staff, price label, website info says there is a button missing you can't seek a remedy for that reason.
 
With regards to (b) it could be debated (I don't wish to ) whether you ought to see a missing button but if we take a more basic example of a tin of beans with a large dent you can't then seek a remedy it because it's got a large dent. 

The difference between that and sold as seen is whilst you can't seek a remedy with the jacket because of the button you can seek a remedy for any other aspect in which the goods do not conform, same with the beans.

RefluentBeans said:

Ultimately, you need to see what the jacket was sold for vs the RRP. In retail, it’s not uncommon to have seconds that are ‘sold as seen’. Whilst this doesn’t prevent you from claiming your consumer rights, it can be harder to claim them. For example, a jumper costing £100 being sold for £30 due to it being put on a mannequin - although the jumper may not be faulty; if I find that it wears out faster than I’d like, I’d likely have a harder time to show that. In your case, you have a very expensive jacket still. You should compare the price of the jacket to the RRP and potentially even similar products. We are all aware that brand names often inflate the price of products without offering much actual benefit. 

Price is a consideration for satisfactory quality by the standards of a reasonable person, rather than the comparison to the RRP (for the reason you mention) it would probably be more apt to compare to the typical price the goods would be sold it but ultimately regardless of the price, unless really rock bottom, I think, putting aside user damage, if you said to a reasonable person the stitching on a coat has come undone within less than a month most would say that's not satisfactory as a coat should typically be a more hardy outer garment that should withstand wear from typical daily use. 

Wongus

Update - I returned the jacket via courier for inspection, the tracking indicated that the jacket was received, I never heard anything, so I followed up to confirm receipt which they did, and they would respond with the outcome. It has been a week now and still no follow up, how long would be a reasonable timeframe to allow for an inspection and for them to respond? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

As they appear to be replying I would ask them for a timeframe and see what they say, that way if it takes longer than they state you can start to nudge them a bit.

Wongus

They responded that they have a requested a refund, which will be processed by their finance department once approved. 

Thanks for all the responses, it was a broad range of views, which was very interesting in itself!