Consumer Rights Act 2015? Not worth the paper it written on.

Ron1e

My recent encounter with a retailer and the courts have left me disillusioned and to be honest, concerned in how the justice system works.

A person buys goods to the value of £4056, he pays by debit card and collects the goods in person.
The retailer doesn't have any demonstration facilitates, however, they do invite you try their goods at home, with an 6O day Rock Solid money guarantee so you may buy with confidence.

This marketing material forms part of your decision to buy these goods, however after a few days of ownership you decide they don't meet your expectations and your request a refund.
Much to your surprise a refund is refused and the reasons for refusing a refund are listed below.

” I appreciate you have made the wrong decision and we are unable to meet your demands”

When questioned on this, the retailer then says these goods were made to your precise wishes and we therefore we will not be refunding  you.

These goods were not made to this persons precise wishes, they were commercially available to anyone, as advertised on the company’s Facebook page.
Evidence of this was sent to the court.

Three weeks later the retailer says they have now inspected the goods  and found a fault with them.
This fault requires that the goods need to be re calibrated and there is charge of £500 for making them good. The retailer, then makes an offer of £3500.00 which is refused. It's  £556.00 less than what was paid.

These is no evidence to indicate the goods have been tampered with and in the retailers defence statement to the court this was never mentioned.

The hearing was via video link, unfortunately the claimant didn't receive the link because it went into his junk folder and therefore did not attend the hearing.
An order was made in the claimants absence in favour of the defendant.

 The reason being that the claimant's  failure to attend the hearing did not explain why such sum was inadequate. The defendant was therefore ordered to pay the claimant the sum £3500.00, which had already been offered before the matter was brought before the court..

All the reasons the retailer had put forward in his defence for refusing a full refund were clearly and unambiguously refuted  in the claimant papers sent to the court.

The claimant has since contacted the court and asked  the reason a full refund was not given?
After various exchange of emails the final response was.

“The court found in your favour and the defendant has been ordered to pay you £3500.00”
We will not enter into any further conversation regarding this matter. 

The person who brought this action is at loss to see how the court could say it found in his favour when he is nearly £800 out of pocket and the retailer has his goods back in the same condition as they were supplied and has made £500.00 profit.

During the  exchange of evidence the claimant was sent a copy of the invoice, it's the first time he has had sight of this.

The goods were £4000.00  and separate charge of  £56.00 credit charge fee..


Any thought s anyone ?






 

user1977

It doesn't sound like anything to do with the CRA, it sounds more like a result of one party's failure to attend a court hearing. I'd expect similar results no matter what sort of court action was involved or what the CRA said.

LightFlare

Sounds as if the case was poorly presented

Are you naming the retailer now as you promised In your other thread ?

PHK

Yes, this sound like the claimant not proving their case. 

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

Sorry to hear it turned out this way, sadly with missing the hearing it's likely they only considered the defendants side which was their £3500 offer.

I don't know enough about the court process to say whether you can appeal, I would assume not attending the hearing would unfortunately count against you. 

For background the previous thread was here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6512375/consumer-police-see-if-you-can-get-your-heads-around-this

IIRC OP was relying on a contractual term that permitted 60 days change of mind rather that the CRA or CCRs. 

PHK said:

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

That would relate to the CCRs Bespoke, etc has no bearing on seeking a reedy under the CRA. 

Ron1e

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

Sorry to hear it turned out this way, sadly with missing the hearing it's likely they only considered the defendants side which was their £3500 offer.

I don't know enough about the court process to say whether you can appeal, I would assume not attending the hearing would unfortunately count against you. 

For background the previous thread was here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6512375/consumer-police-see-if-you-can-get-your-heads-around-this

IIRC OP was relying on a contractual term that permitted 60 days change of mind rather that the CRA or CCRs. 

PHK said:

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

That would relate to the CCRs Bespoke, etc has no bearing on seeking a reedy under the CRA. 

PHK said:

Yes, this sound like the claimant not proving their case. 

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

Ok, I can't prove it was not made to my precise wishes, I sent evidence to the court showing the advertisement for these goods. It's there for all the world to see, a commercially  available product for anyone who wishers to purchase it. Also there isn't a shred of  evidence to suggest in anyway  whatsoever that I had any input in it.

So if the claimant can’t prove that goods were not made to his precise wishes and the retailer can't prove that they were, then the court will always find in favour of the retailer?
The puts the consumer in an impossible position. He can't win.
So basically a retailer can say anything he wants and if you can't prove otherwise there is no point pursuing  the matter. You have to an accept what the retailer says?

Same applies to the tampering accusation. This claim was made some three weeks after the goods had been returned. If the retailer claims the goods have been tampered with, and the onus is on consumer to prove otherwise, which is not possible then the retailer would never have to refund anything. They could just say, “Ok, leave it with me” then three weeks later sorry mate, you’ve tampered with these good and we're charging you £500 to make them good and there is nothing you can do about it. What’s the point having consumer law if doesn’t the consumer any protection?


I thought probability played a part in making these judgements.
So in this case the court must have decided on balance of probabilities the the consumer in this couldn’t wait to get the goods home, tamper with them and then ask for a refund.

Hello, lunatic, I think you are correct, if I had attended the hearing I think I would have won my case easily.
However every other email I received from the court was fine, it was just the one with the link that went into my junk folder.
I made the court aware of this and they said I could have the order set aside.

There is a cost to this though, £200 plus to have the order set aside and another £300 plus if  judge decides to go to final hearing. 

That’s sounds fine, but even if you win the case, there no is guarantee you will get your costs back.
At the risk of showing my naivety, in my case  why does it matter if I attended the hearing or not?
There was zero evidence for any of the claims the retailer made, having read the papers why could the judge not ask questions on my behalf.


I was all set to go and there were three questions I going to ask, Which the judge  could have asked on my behalf in my absence. 

Judge,
You market your goods with a Rock Solid 60 Day Money Back guarantee so you may buy with confidence. Yet you say, “ you appreciate the claimant made the wrong decision”
His  decision was based on your marketing, how could that decision be wrong?

Then you say, these good were made to the claimants precise wishes, yet you have not provided any evidence to support this. The claiment has provided pictures from you Facebook page which clearly shows  it's an off the shelf product anyone can buy.

And you also claim that the claimant had tampered with the goods some three weeks after the goods had been in your possession, yet you have not provided any evidence in support of this claim,

I have applied for a transcript of the hearing, which cost £117, not sure it would be worth it though.
I expect he would just have told more lies and I won't get any more money back.

Do you know  what though, like I have previously mentioned, I have spent over 50 years in the retail industry and the behaviour of this retailer has shocked, me.

So the moral of the story is. If you are ever in this position, make sure you attend the hearing because no matter how strong your case, and I thought mine was an open a shut case in my favour.
You will lose.
In this case the retailer got lucky, I missed the hearing through no fault of my own and it went against me.

Like I said, I have been a long time in the retail industry and I didn't know that the onus was on  the consumer to prove anything. So that’s why I think the consumer rights 2015 is not worth the paper it written on.

user1977

Ron1e said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

Sorry to hear it turned out this way, sadly with missing the hearing it's likely they only considered the defendants side which was their £3500 offer.

I don't know enough about the court process to say whether you can appeal, I would assume not attending the hearing would unfortunately count against you. 

For background the previous thread was here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6512375/consumer-police-see-if-you-can-get-your-heads-around-this

IIRC OP was relying on a contractual term that permitted 60 days change of mind rather that the CRA or CCRs. 

PHK said:

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

That would relate to the CCRs Bespoke, etc has no bearing on seeking a reedy under the CRA. 

PHK said:

Yes, this sound like the claimant not proving their case. 

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

Ok, I can't prove it was not made to my precise wishes, I sent evidence to the court showing the advertisement for these goods. It's there for all the world to see, a commercially  available product for anyone who wishers to purchase it. Also there isn't a shred of  evidence to suggest in anyway  whatsoever that I had any input in it.

So if the claimant can’t prove that goods were not made to his precise wishes and the retailer can't prove that they were, then the court will always find in favour of the retailer?
The puts the consumer in an impossible position. He can't win.
So basically a retailer can say anything he wants and if you can't prove otherwise there is no point pursuing  the matter. You have to an accept what the retailer says?

Same applies to the tampering accusation. This claim was made some three weeks after the goods had been returned. If the retailer claims the goods have been tampered with, and the onus is on consumer to prove otherwise, which is not possible then the retailer would never have to refund anything. They could just say, “Ok, leave it with me” then three weeks later sorry mate, you’ve tampered with these good and we're charging you £500 to make them good and there is nothing you can do about it. What’s the point having consumer law if doesn’t the consumer any protection?


I thought probability played a part in making these judgements.
So in this case the court must have decided on balance of probabilities the the consumer in this couldn’t wait to get the goods home, tamper with them and then ask for a refund.

why could the judge not ask questions on my behalf.

Because it's not the job of the judge to fill in on behalf of a party who hasn't turned up.

That's how courts work, it's nothing to do with the CRA.

Hoenir

Change your provider if important emails are directed into your junk folder. I'd find that concerning myself. 

Ron1e

user1977 said:

Ron1e said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

Sorry to hear it turned out this way, sadly with missing the hearing it's likely they only considered the defendants side which was their £3500 offer.

I don't know enough about the court process to say whether you can appeal, I would assume not attending the hearing would unfortunately count against you. 

For background the previous thread was here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6512375/consumer-police-see-if-you-can-get-your-heads-around-this

IIRC OP was relying on a contractual term that permitted 60 days change of mind rather that the CRA or CCRs. 

PHK said:

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

That would relate to the CCRs Bespoke, etc has no bearing on seeking a reedy under the CRA. 

PHK said:

Yes, this sound like the claimant not proving their case. 

If good are returned under the CRA, the seller is entitled to reduce the amount paid by the cost of any damage or fault caused by the buyer. It would he for the claimant to prove otherwise. 

If the seller was maintaining the good were made to order or bespoke  then they would need to prove that and if so could deduct reasonable losses. 

Ok, I can't prove it was not made to my precise wishes, I sent evidence to the court showing the advertisement for these goods. It's there for all the world to see, a commercially  available product for anyone who wishers to purchase it. Also there isn't a shred of  evidence to suggest in anyway  whatsoever that I had any input in it.

So if the claimant can’t prove that goods were not made to his precise wishes and the retailer can't prove that they were, then the court will always find in favour of the retailer?
The puts the consumer in an impossible position. He can't win.
So basically a retailer can say anything he wants and if you can't prove otherwise there is no point pursuing  the matter. You have to an accept what the retailer says?

Same applies to the tampering accusation. This claim was made some three weeks after the goods had been returned. If the retailer claims the goods have been tampered with, and the onus is on consumer to prove otherwise, which is not possible then the retailer would never have to refund anything. They could just say, “Ok, leave it with me” then three weeks later sorry mate, you’ve tampered with these good and we're charging you £500 to make them good and there is nothing you can do about it. What’s the point having consumer law if doesn’t the consumer any protection?


I thought probability played a part in making these judgements.
So in this case the court must have decided on balance of probabilities the the consumer in this couldn’t wait to get the goods home, tamper with them and then ask for a refund.

why could the judge not ask questions on my behalf.

Because it's not the job of the judge to fill in on behalf of a party who hasn't turned up.

That's how courts work, it's nothing to do with the CRA.

Ok, fair enough, but even if I had been present at the hearing I would have only said what I said in my written statements.  Having said that, from what I am reading here it seems like I would have lost the case anyway. There is no way I could prove I had not  tampered with the goods, so if the onus is the consumer, the retailer's can say anything they want. They could smash it to bits with a hammer, take a picture of it and say it was like this when they opened the box.  If the consumer can't prove otherwise where does that leave him?

What upsets me about this are the lies that were told and the fact that the retailer did not provide a shred of evidence to support any of the claims he made.

I have asked the court what was the reason, and basically it's what’s been said on here. If you don't turn up you lose the case, more or less by default.
Personally I don't think that’s right, but if that’s the way it is so be it.

I still think if the onus is on the consumer  to prove something, that from the consumers point of view is not possible then the CRA is fundamentally flawed in favour of retailer. 

And bear in mind, I am a retailer and I thought was the other way round.

If you are dealing with a reputable retailers it would never be a problem, but when your not. Well you just don't deal with them again.

I'm not bothered about the money, maybe he got lucky when the link went into my junk folder and maybe the way  CRA works he would have won anyway because I couldn’t disprove any of the claims he made.
I would like to know which of defendants excuses was the deciding factor though.
Thats what the court won't tell me and that’s frustrating.

  

lincroft1710

The fact you lost has nothing to do with CRA. You failed to attend the hearing and as with many courts and tribunals when there is non attendance by the appellant, you lost your case.

Ron1e

lincroft1710 said:

The fact you lost has nothing to do with CRA. You failed to attend the hearing and as with many courts and tribunals when there is non attendance by the appellant, you lost your case.

Yes, you say that, but if the onus is on the claimant to prove or disprove something that he can't do, where does that leave them?