| Consumer Rights and The Sale of Goods |
| Sunday, 08 July 2007 | |
|
Consumer rights have greatly increased through a major reversal of consumer protection law, and we continue to register an increase in the number of complaints against members, which we are partly attributing to the legislation. Whereas before the regulations came into force the burden was placed upon the consumer to prove that a vehicle was faulty when purchased from a dealer, the position is now the reverse, so that if the consumer complains within six months about vehicles sold or accessories and spare parts fitted, the dealer must prove that these were of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. Inevitably, the most difficult aspect of these disputes is for members to prove that any faults lay not in the vehicle's original condition, but were caused through wear and tear during the six months following purchase. This has been exacerbated particularly by the removal of any financial disincentives previously faced by consumers through the mandatory requirement for experts' reports to prove their case, and has meant quite simply that especially difficult customers have little to lose should they for whatever reason become dissatisfied. The problem has been compounded further since, while under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, consumers had no right to return vehicles of proven defective condition or indeed to demand a replacement or repair if they were "deemed to have accepted them", the regulations now give consumers the right to repair and replacement within six months, with the only exceptions arising when such demands can be proved "disproportionate" or to "cause significant inconvenience" to the dealer. In other words, where the consumer wants a replacement but a repair would be equally effective and cheaper, or if a price reduction is deemed more "appropriate" for minor defects. These regulations also mean that members are liable if a vehicle does not match the publicity of the manufacturer, ie. the press release shows ‘0-60 mph in 8 seconds for the GTI model'. Members are now only able to avoid liability if they can show they neither knew nor could have been aware of the publicity; the statement had been withdrawn; or the statement could not have influenced the customers' decision to purchase. As a result of the above, we would urge members to be particularly scrupulous in highlighting any faults in used vehicles to potential customers, indeed an inventory of faults agreed between seller and buyer at point of purchase would go a long way in avoiding future problems. Members should also contact their appointed lawyers should they require further clarification regarding sale of goods documents. |