After the Magna Carta, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA 2015’) is possibly the most notable piece of legislation that people treat as if it were holy writ. Particularly Section 19(14), which, like the start of the First World War, seems to have crowds cheering in the streets. Except that, in 1914, sizeable portions of those crowds were dead by the end of the year. Still, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is perceived as being on the consumers’ side rather than dealers’.
Not surprising, you might say, for something with the word Consumer in its name. Still, it’s worth remembering that, just as those Lords at Runnymede in 1215 were thinking of themselves and not the peasants, so the law did not set out to place consumers on a pedestal. So, while Section 19(14) does talk of a working presumption that any fault that develops within the first six months after purchase was there at the time of sale, it is a defence under Section 19(15)(a) of the CRA 2015 to show that the car, van or motorbike you sold conformed to the terms of the contract at the time of sale. After all, there are any number of reasons why problems develop with vehicles, from wear and tear to driving styles to people making more extensive use of a vehicle in a few months than it has been used in its entire life prior to sale. The law recognises this in the precedent of Bartlett v Sidney Marcus [1965] 1 WLR 1013, with the understanding that second-hand vehicles develop problems sooner or later (precedent can be a useful supplement to statute where the law is concerned, even with cases much older than this one).
Similarly, take Section 23. While Section 23(2)(a) says repairs must be carried out within a reasonable time and without undue inconvenience to the customer, this can support an argument for using readily available parts, even where they aren’t brand new or from a vehicle’s manufacturer. Section 23(3)(b) allows the trader to refuse a repair where it would be a disproportionate remedy (for example, where the cost of repair exceeds what the customer paid for the vehicle). Section 23(6), meanwhile, locks in customers who ask for repairs to be carried out, requiring them to see the process through. Until the repairs are completed, the customer cannot suddenly change their mind and ask to reject a vehicle. This potentially includes scenarios where customers have been booked in for repairs but do not turn up (though a lot of wrangling is likely to be involved).
Finally, Section 24(8) and Section 24(10)(a) of the CRA 2015 allow dealers to make deductions based on how a customer’s use of a vehicle has reduced its value relative to the point of sale. Where mileage is excessive, this can allow for a decent portion of the purchase sum to be retained. Though bear in mind that, while there is no limit to the amount that can be applied per mile, the courts tend to set a rate between 10 pence and 25 pence per mile, and even HMRC refers to 45 pence. So if you’re trying to set a larger rate, be prepared that the customer is more likely to reject or challenge it.
All in all, the CRA 2015 contains many useful provisions for dealers. At Lawgistics, we’re always happy to talk them through with you and provide advice about how to respond when customers quote the CRA 2015’s provisions as if they’re a done deal. If you have had the same issue or a similar problem, call our legal team at Lawgistics. Our telephone helpline and casework service can help.
On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.
What can I do?
Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?
If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.
