30 Days to Hand the Keys Back: How the Short-Term Right to Reject Really Works

legal updates

Think a new fault lets buyers walk away, no questions asked? Not quite. Discover why the burden of proof is on the consumer, and how dealers can stay one step ahead.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), a consumer has the short-term right to reject goods within 30 days of collection or delivery if the goods fail to conform to the contract. This right entitles the consumer to return the vehicle for a full refund.

However, the burden of proof lies with the consumer to show that the fault existed, or was developing, at the time of collection or delivery. The presumption that the fault existed at delivery if it arises within six months of purchase does not apply to the short-term right to reject, as explained in Section 19 of the CRA 2015. Therefore, anyone wishing to exercise that right must provide evidence that the fault was present or developing at the point of sale.

Although the burden lies with the consumer and the CRA 2015 does not oblige the trader to carry out an inspection or provide a report, it may still be advantageous for the trader to do so. By carrying out the inspection themselves, the trader can control the process, potentially identify whether the fault is due to misuse or external factors, and gather evidence to rebut the consumer’s claim. This approach can help the trader avoid liability if the fault was not present or developing at the point of sale. Additionally, a trader-led inspection may speed up the resolution of any dispute.

If you are grappling with a short-term rejection dispute, call our Lawgistics helpline; our legal team can guide you through the evidence you need.

Ultimately, the burden of proof sits with the consumer when they invoke the short-term right to reject. Traders who obtain their own evidence by conducting inspections or providing reports will be far better placed to defend against such claims.

Octane FinanceFuel Your Finance

Octane Finance is the broker of choice for new and used car dealers nationwide. With our uncompromising service levels and our genuine and professional approach, you and your customers can trust us to deliver.

Nidhi ShahTrainee SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

Can You Claim What You Haven’t Lost? The ‘No Loss’ Principle Meets s19 CRA 2015

A live claim against a member raises a sharp question: if no money has changed hands and only deductions are in dispute, has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss?

To Repair or Not to Repair: that is the question

A customer drops off a car three months after purchase and asks for a refund. You might have a right to repair, but touch a spanner without clear permission and you could turn a winnable case into an unwanted rejection.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Bête noire or useful tool?

Section 19(14) isn’t a magic wand for consumers, and Sections 23 and 24 give traders real leverage. Here’s how to use repairs, disproportionality and usage deductions to keep disputes under control.

Sale or Return: Why “Private Sale” won’t save you from Consumer Rights Act responsibilities

Dealers using Sale or Return cannot hide behind “private sale” labels unless the agency position is made crystal clear from the advert onward. Miss that step and you risk CRA 2015 claims and a DMCCA 2024 breach.

Don’t Get Caught Out: Why Your Car Warranty Won’t Shield You from the Consumer Rights Act

Think a watertight warranty protects you from refund demands? Think again. We explain how the Consumer Rights Act trumps any small print and what dealers must do to stay safe, or risk costly claims.

When no title means no sale

Four years after selling a Range Rover, a trader was hit with a demand for a full refund when the vehicle was seized in Spain.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.