Retailer asking for independent report in line with SAD FART

Okell

RefluentBeans said:

 

... Looking at the balance of probabilities, if the bag is in good condition, and the only point of failure is the clasp, then I think it’s fair to say that the clasp was faulty...

This ^^^^^.

RefluentBeans said:

... Where do we draw the line of requiring a report for clearly faulty products? A jacket where the zip has come away from the material? Shoes where the glue has failed and the whole bottom sole has come apart from the shoe? Whilst I appreciate a report is good to prove the fault, I don’t think for obvious faults it should be required. And in fact, the CRA only says there needs to be evidence of fault. The evidence can just be a faulty product. Of course, this changes for more complex products but clothing isn’t one of those categories, generally. 

And this ^^^^

There is the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or "the thing speaks for itself".

There are some product faults or failures that even if they manifest themselves after 6 months that - because they are so blatant - should not need to be proven to have been present at the time of purchase.

I think it would be perfectly acceptable for the claimant to say in evidence that the clasp on a £400 handbag should not fail within 14 months and having been worn only three times.  The fact that it happened at all is evidence that the product is faulty.  That should be sufficient in itself to satisfy the claimant's initial burden of proof, which should then switch to the respondent to rebut and to explain why it's not unreasonable for a product they sold for £400 to fail within 14 months.

Of course it would be easier if the OP had an independent report, but I think Flannels are misleading the OP by telling them they must provide an independent report.

And of course if the OP does reach the stage of suing Flannels, nothing is certain.

[Edit:  so far as I'm aware nowhere in the CRA does it say anything about a consumer needing an independent report after 6 months.  What it says is that within 6 months there is a statutory presumption that a faulty item must have been faulty at the time of purchse - unless the seller can establish otherwise.  This "reverse burden of proof" reverses the usual situation in civil litigation where the claimant must prove their case.  But there is no requirement usually for a claimant to rely on an independent report if they can prove their case by other means.  Some faults are so blatant even after 6 months that requiring a claimant to provide an independent report to prove them would be ludicrous]