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

Jumblebumble

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.

The judge may take what I think is a perfectly reasonable view that the defendant does not actually want to be going to court and so it is up to the claimant who is involviing an unwilling defendant to do the running around.

user1977

Jumblebumble said:

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.

The judge may take what I think is a perfectly reasonable view that the defendant does not actually want to be going to court and so it is up to the claimant who is involviing an unwilling defendant to do the running around.

Indeed, I'd have a bit more sympathy for a defendant who didn't realise there was a court case ongoing, than for the person who actually started the thing...

born_again

Ron1e said:

Thank you for your input Mr Beans, you have been very helpful, I wish I had contacted you from the start.

Look, I'm moving on from this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80657257/#Comment_80657257

They did in your other thread about this..