Delays can pay if goods are faulty

A LAW designed to give people greater protection can backfire badly.

Reader Sarah discovered this when she returned her new Renault Clio within 10 days of purchase after it failed to start.

The garage said it had been filled with the wrong fuel and was not their issue. Sarah says she did not do this but could not prove it. She ended paying for a repair.

Had she waited a few more days it may have been a very different.

She had fallen foul of a major curve ball in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Wriggle

Sarah is not alone, thousands of consumers have contacted me in the past six years about the act.

It was a big step forward for consumer rights, a single piece of legislation fit for the 21st century that dealt with most everyday consumer issues.

But it is also giving retailers an excuse to wriggle out of claims.

The short-term right to reject says if goods are faulty within the first 30 days of purchase or delivery, the consumer can hand the goods back and demand a refund.

So far, so good. But here’s the hitch. Consumers invoking this right must “prove” the goods are faulty. Without sufficient proof the retailer can simply say no.

But, if you return goods after 30 days and before six months, it is the retailer that must prove the goods are not faulty. If they cannot the consumer is entitled to a remedy. So, had Sarah been able to delay her complaint, the outcome could have been better.

MY ADVICE

If goods turn out to be faulty in the first 30 days, you want a refund (as opposed to replacement) and you have clear evidence that there is a manufacturer fault; and therefore the issue has not been caused by misuse/accidental damage, invoke your short term right to reject. However, if you do not have sufficient evidence, wait until day 31 and then complain.

Downside

This will mean the burden of proof shifts to the retailer.

But there is a downside. The retailer will be able to choose which remedy to invoke – refund, repay or replacement.