Sign in to follow this  
Okay dokay

CRA - Conclusive Action Required Legally

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Okay dokay said:

Ah, but there’s the rub - apparently we are still obliged to repair new faults even if not present at POS!

But the gearbox has lasted longer than 3 months, it’s lasted 14 years and 3 months. The clock doesn’t restart on a part every time a car is sold.

That’s the point - the clock starts for you when the sale takes place. 

Faults that take place within the first 6 months are latent faults and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. He’s had an independent garage do work on the car since sale who presumably didn’t identify a gearbox fault at that time. Therefore it’s reasonable to conclude the fault has developed since ownership.

You might still have some liability but I’d be putting that message across first if it were me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mike101 said:

That’s the point - the clock starts for you when the sale takes place. 

Faults that take place within the first 6 months are latent faults and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. He’s had an independent garage do work on the car since sale who presumably didn’t identify a gearbox fault at that time. Therefore it’s reasonable to conclude the fault has developed since ownership.

You might still have some liability but I’d be putting that message across first if it were me. 

You’re still liable to fix faults that develop mate. The argument is whether the fault is down to fair wear and tear. That’s the subjective part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Okay dokay said:

Lawgistics from what we/they know yes. But they are not jury and judge on these things, a claim can be filed in court regardless of what Lawgistics think - you are missing the point.

I'm not missing the point. If you had given the full details and status of the vehicle at the start including the opinion from Lawgistics I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EPV said:

You’re still liable to fix faults that develop mate. The argument is whether the fault is down to fair wear and tear. That’s the subjective part. 

You’re only liable if the fault was there at the point of sale. You need to prove it wasn’t. The law deems any faults for the first 6 months were unless you can prove otherwise.

Edited by mike101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EPV said:

You’re still liable to fix faults that develop mate. The argument is whether the fault is down to fair wear and tear. That’s the subjective part. 

That’s fair enough. 

 

If we were talking about a 2013 car with 40k it would be a lot harder to argue wear and tear. But 14 years old and 120K miles?

I guess a judge would have to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OD..You would struggle to get a bid on an 04 up north.Where do you get them you ask.How many do you want.Metpol are flogging off plenty at WOMA.62 plate unmarked full spec ex top brass 80 to 100k fsh ( cracking cars ) about £7500.63 plate ex patrol cars fsh needing paintwork I think are £5500.Brightwells do them also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MOTORS said:

I'm not missing the point. If you had given the full details and status of the vehicle at the start including the opinion from Lawgistics I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Feel free to leave the thread, plenty of good input from others. Your self importance and time management is of less concern to traders on here than the subject matter of the topic being discussed.

The status of the vehicle is unknown fully, Lawgistics can only work with what we have, we are not preparing legal defence yet - it’s too soon.

The idea of the thread was to identify what the law requires conclusively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mike101 said:

You’re only liable if you can’t prove it wasn’t there at the point of sale. 

Sorry that’s not correct. 

If you sell someone a car and a fault develops 4 months later than renders the goods not fit for purpose then you’re in the chair, assuming the fault isn’t due to user error or wear and tear. And that’s the grey area.  

In the OP’s case it’s reasonable to expect a 14 year old gearbox with 120,000 miles to have suffered fair wear and tear. A 6 year old car with 60,000 miles, not so. Who decides that? The judge I expect! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Okay dokay said:

Feel free to leave the thread, plenty of good input from others. Your self importance and time management is of less concern to traders on here than the subject matter of the topic being discussed.

The status of the vehicle is unknown fully, Lawgistics can only work with what we have, we are not preparing legal defence yet - it’s too soon.

The idea of the thread was to identify what the law requires conclusively.

LEFT. Gone to wash cars in the rain in the dark. More useful.

Edited by MOTORS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mike101 said:

You’re only liable if you can’t prove it wasn’t there at the point of sale. 

This was my understanding Mike, until yesterday and the replies to this thread indicated otherwise. Only wear and tear absolves us, new faults are still on us.

Edited by Okay dokay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me?

How on earth could anyone think we are only responsible for existing faults?  Surely it is our job to put faults right so that the car leaves fault free (meaning we would be liable for nothing).  I personally consider myself responsible for all faults past, present or future for 6 months (unless I have told the customer and stated on the PDI something like AC not working, customer aware).

I say within 3 months (my warranty period) I will fix everything except wear and tear items (I mean obvious ones like tyres), hoping they agree to that and don't start spouting CRA.

After 3 months, I would dig my heels in but as an honest trader, I genuinely want my customers to come back if they have a fault on their cars within 3 months.  Of course, I hope they don't have the need to but equally I am more than happy to oblige.

I can categorically state that there is not one customer whom wouldn't buy another car from me or recommend me to a friend.

For the avoidance of doubt, Of course we ARE repsonsible for NEW faults except fair wear and tear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Okay dokay said:

This was my understanding Mike, until yesterday and the replies to this thread indicated otherwise. Only wear and tear absolves us, new faults are still on us.

Personally I think it does - whys the fault arisen? Wear and tear. Nothing failed - it still runs.

I might be wrong but I’m sure the reverse burden of proof still exists under CRA. 

If an independent has checked the car since sale and didn’t identify the gearbox fault then it wasnt faulty at that time and it’s happened since sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, like me and I daresay most on here, Rory has already stated this, we would do all we could to help a customer assuming they are playing the game. 

I think in this instance the OP is asking what he HAS to do, not what he COULD do. 

Personally i’d be digging my heels in on this one. A car half the age and mileage i’d be less sure of taking my chances through the courts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer Rights

Excerpt

Between 30 days and 6 months

If a fault comes to light after 30 days but before 6 months you’re entitled to a repair, replacement or refund.

  • It’s assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise.
  • Unless you’ve agreed otherwise, the seller (dealer) has only one opportunity to repair (or replace) the faulty vehicle after which, if they fail to repair it, you’re entitled to a refund.
  • In the event of a refund following a failed attempt at repair during the first six months the seller may make a 'reasonable' adjustment to the amount refunded to take account of the use that you’ve had of the vehicle.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mike101 said:

Personally I think it does - whys the fault arisen? Wear and tear. Nothing failed - it still runs.

I might be wrong but I’m sure the reverse burden of proof still exists under CRA. 

If an independent has checked the car since sale and didn’t identify the gearbox fault then it wasnt faulty at that time and it’s happened since sale.

In this example yes. But it’s not a carte Blanche one size fits all case of “if the fault wasn’t there at the POS and it’s developed we don’t have to fix it”

it depends on the purchase price, age of vehicle, mileage and so on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to open a can of worms again and say.

This is one Topic which should be in the Secret Room.

Google CRA and customer may land here

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mark101 said:

 

For the avoidance of doubt, Of course we ARE repsonsible for NEW faults except fair wear and tear.

Let me play devils advocate here...could you give an example of a fault that it couldn’t be argued is wear and tear - on a 14 year old car with 120k?

Total engine failure perhaps? But engine failure will happen at a point in a vehicles life span at some point no? And where would that point be assumed to be on a petrol engine of this age and miles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EPV said:

In this example yes. But it’s not a carte Blanche one size fits all case of “if the fault wasn’t there at the POS and it’s developed we don’t have to fix it”

it depends on the purchase price, age of vehicle, mileage and so on. 

It depends if you can prove it wasn’t there as the point of sale. If you can’t, it’s definitely your problem unless there are other mitigating factors - eg it was 500 quid etc etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark101 said:

I'm going to open a can of worms again and say.

This is one Topic which should be in the Secret Room.

Google CRA and customer may land here

Probably but no one will get a definitive answer, just opinion. At the end of the day if it went all the way to court the judge will decide. It’s up to the trader (with the experience of someone like Lawgistics) and the consumer if they want to take their chances. Pick your battles and all that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EPV said:

Mark, like me and I daresay most on here, Rory has already stated this, we would do all we could to help a customer assuming they are playing the game. 

I think in this instance the OP is asking what he HAS to do, not what he COULD do. 

Personally i’d be digging my heels in on this one. A car half the age and mileage i’d be less sure of taking my chances through the courts. 

Exactly this.

Also, surely a buyer should apply common sense when buying, at the same price point a much newer more reliable vehicle could have been sort, buying an old lumpy German whip with lots more to go wrong naturally poses more element of risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mike101 said:

It depends if you can prove it wasn’t there as the point of sale. If you can’t, it’s definitely your problem unless there are other mitigating factors - eg it was 500 quid etc etc

 

No, it doesn’t depend. 

If you can’t prove it wasn’t there at the POS the consumer has a strong case but it doesn’t mean you have to replace a gearbox on a car worth less than the gearbox itself. 

Again, this is a grey area made so because the CRA is meant to be a black and white law and it’s applied to something that has thousands of different components. It’s bollocks, frankly but there you go. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EPV said:

No, it doesn’t depend. 

If you can’t prove it wasn’t there at the POS the consumer has a strong case but it doesn’t mean you have to replace a gearbox on a car worth less than the gearbox itself. 

Again, this is a grey area made so because the CRA is meant to be a black and white law and it’s applied to something that has thousands of different components. It’s bollocks, frankly but there you go. 

I was talking more generally than this specific case about the reverse burden of proof. Of course he wouldn’t be liable for a new gearbox if it was the value of the car but he could well be entitled to a second hand one so it would still be your problem. The CRA does have specific advice relating to second hand goods as in the link above.

if it were me I’d be trying to speak to the customer. Nobody wants to go to court so you try and find the best way out that’s fair and reasonable.  Sometimes it costs you big money and you don’t feel like it was reasonable at all - chalk it down to experience and move on is my advice. Hopefully you win more than you lose!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mark101 said:

This is one Topic which should be in the Secret Room.

 

1000% agree! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zest said:

 

1000% agree! 

2000% disagree

joe bloggs can see that there is no clear answer and lawgistics have apparently made it clear ****reject*****

the public need to see this because otherwise they think its just a mere formality filling in the small claims forms in online and paying with a card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, boring dave said:

2000% disagree

joe bloggs can see that there is no clear answer and lawgistics have apparently made it clear ****reject*****

the public need to see this because otherwise they think its just a mere formality filling in the small claims forms in online and paying with a card

Kind of agree with this. 

I’ve read plenty of the CAG forum and some of the advice on there is abysmal. Basically telling someone to reject the car for any reason and to dump it on the traders premises etc. 

If anyone read this they would actually realise it’s a complex issue. But there again, it would probably blunt their attack and in that case they’d bury their heads and ignore it as it wouldn’t give them the warm fuzzy feeling the CAG forum does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this