Section 75 labour costs

Mishomeister

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

eskbanker

Section 75 gives you the same rights against the creditor that you have against the merchant, so if your claim is based on a faulty part requiring replacement then this should be covered by section 23 of the Consumer Rights Act:

(2) If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23

MattMattMattUK

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

Have the lender refunded the original installation cost? If effect they will refund the cost of one installation, not both.

Why are you taking the S75 route rather than getting the retailer to sort it? 

dumpster_fire2025

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

You probably need to start by explaining what the car part was, who sold it and who fitted it.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

dumpster_fire2025 said:

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

You probably need to start by explaining what the car part was, who sold it and who fitted it.

What difference does it make? 

If the goods do not conform, the answer is under consumer rights OP is entitled to a repair or replacement with costs such as labour covered.

If retailer/bank doesn’t repair or replace then OP is entitled to reject (or seek a price reduction). CRA doesn’t mention labour in such an instance so alternative route is general damages for breach of contract, typically the cost of removing first part, cost of buying a second part, cost of installing second part (with bank/trader retaining original payment).

If not happy with bank’s response to Section 75 raise official complaint with bank. 

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

You probably need to start by explaining what the car part was, who sold it and who fitted it.

What difference does it make? 

If the goods do not conform, the answer is under consumer rights OP is entitled to a repair or replacement with costs such as labour covered.

If retailer/bank doesn’t repair or replace then OP is entitled to reject (or seek a price reduction). CRA doesn’t mention labour in such an instance so alternative route is general damages for breach of contract, typically the cost of removing first part, cost of buying a second part, cost of installing second part (with bank/trader retaining original payment).

If not happy with bank’s response to Section 75 raise official complaint with bank. 

OP could have installed it themselves, several years ago & are now going to get someone else to install it.

It's just like someone posting " I bought X, what are my consumer rights"

OP best talk to your bank. Where they will ask the pertinent questions covering your claim. To asses if S75 or chargeback is the way forward.

dumpster_fire2025

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

You probably need to start by explaining what the car part was, who sold it and who fitted it.

What difference does it make? 

If the goods do not conform, the answer is under consumer rights OP is entitled to a repair or replacement with costs such as labour covered.

If retailer/bank doesn’t repair or replace then OP is entitled to reject (or seek a price reduction). CRA doesn’t mention labour in such an instance so alternative route is general damages for breach of contract, typically the cost of removing first part, cost of buying a second part, cost of installing second part (with bank/trader retaining original payment).

If not happy with bank’s response to Section 75 raise official complaint with bank. 

It matters because of liability. You need to stop being so impulsive when you respond to people.

If the OP purchased a car part and asked a third party to install it, I don't think the third party is at fault and thus I don't think the OP can claim S75 for labour. There is an argument of consequential loss but that's not easy to prove, especially if the tradesperson is qualified. Even then is depends upon the part and the nature of the fault. It's not really excusable for a qualified tradesperson to fit an exhaust with an obvious hole in it, it might be more acceptable if there is a crack in the welding that isn't obvious to the naked eye but shows up on a subsequent pressure test.

If the OP bought it with fitting then I don't see how they would possibly pose the question that they have. If the part and fitting were by the same entity, would they not be connected? It would be absurd to say "well the part we sold you was duff but it took us an hour to fit it so you owe us an hours labour."

Okell

dumpster_fire2025 said:

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

You probably need to start by explaining what the car part was, who sold it and who fitted it.

dumpster_fire2025 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

You probably need to start by explaining what the car part was, who sold it and who fitted it.

What difference does it make? 

If the goods do not conform, the answer is under consumer rights OP is entitled to a repair or replacement with costs such as labour covered.

If retailer/bank doesn’t repair or replace then OP is entitled to reject (or seek a price reduction). CRA doesn’t mention labour in such an instance so alternative route is general damages for breach of contract, typically the cost of removing first part, cost of buying a second part, cost of installing second part (with bank/trader retaining original payment).

If not happy with bank’s response to Section 75 raise official complaint with bank. 

It matters because of liability. You need to stop being so impulsive when you respond to people.

If the OP purchased a car part and asked a third party to install it, I don't think the third party is at fault and thus I don't think the OP can claim S75 for labour. There is an argument of consequential loss but that's not easy to prove, especially if the tradesperson is qualified.

If the OP bought it with fitting then I don't see how they would possibly pose the question that they have. If the part and fitting were by the same entity, would they not be connected? It would be absurd to say "well the part we sold you was duff but it took us an hour to fit it so you owe us an hours labour."

Is any of that relevant to the question the OP asked?

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?...

As @Eskbanker has already pointed out, s23(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says:

"(2)  If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must— ...

... (b) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage)"

and explanatory note 132 clearly says:

"This section details a consumer’s right to insist on repair or replacement of faulty goods, the cost of which must be borne by the trader. This includes the trader bearing any costs involved in the removal of an installed item and reinstallation of a replacement..."

So doesn't that simply mean that the trader is liable to pay any reinstallation costs incurred by the OP, and that they would therefore be recoverable (if necessary) under s75?

What does it matter what the part is or who fitted it?

Grumpy_chap

dumpster_fire2025 said:

If the OP purchased a car part and asked a third party to install it, I don't think the third party is at fault 

Is there a possibility that the part is fine and it was the manner in which the part was installed that created the "fault"?

Is that a line of defence that the retailer / finance provider might use and which the OP needs to be able to respond to place the liability with the parts supplier?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

dumpster_fire2025 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

Mishomeister said:

As a part of a Section 75 claim, can I also claim for the labour costs of installing the new car part or only for the car part purchase cost itself?

Many thanks

You probably need to start by explaining what the car part was, who sold it and who fitted it.

What difference does it make? 

If the goods do not conform, the answer is under consumer rights OP is entitled to a repair or replacement with costs such as labour covered.

If retailer/bank doesn’t repair or replace then OP is entitled to reject (or seek a price reduction). CRA doesn’t mention labour in such an instance so alternative route is general damages for breach of contract, typically the cost of removing first part, cost of buying a second part, cost of installing second part (with bank/trader retaining original payment).

If not happy with bank’s response to Section 75 raise official complaint with bank. 

It matters because of liability. You need to stop being so impulsive when you respond to people.

If the OP purchased a car part and asked a third party to install it, I don't think the third party is at fault and thus I don't think the OP can claim S75 for labour. There is an argument of consequential loss but that's not easy to prove, especially if the tradesperson is qualified. Even then is depends upon the part and the nature of the fault. It's not really excusable for a qualified tradesperson to fit an exhaust with an obvious hole in it, it might be more acceptable if there is a crack in the welding that isn't obvious to the naked eye but shows up on a subsequent pressure test.

If the OP bought it with fitting then I don't see how they would possibly pose the question that they have. If the part and fitting were by the same entity, would they not be connected? It would be absurd to say "well the part we sold you was duff but it took us an hour to fit it so you owe us an hours labour."

Just don’t see any of it matters, if the goods do not conform that is a breach of contract, damages that stem from the breach and are foreseeable can be sought. 

Seems pretty straightforward to me that if a consumer buys a car part then they are going to pay someone to fit it, so part only or part and fitting the costs of removal, second purchase and refitting are a valid claim.

The point raise by born_again, that if this was years ago there would presumably be some kind of pro rota calculation applied to account for the benefit the OP derived from the part and original fitting, is valid but I’d expect the bank to be on the ball with that regard as it reduces their liability.