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.

HowdenCompetitive, comprehensive, quick

One of the largest independent specialist motor trade brokers in the UK. Our extensive history of supplying insurance to the motor trade means we understand your business needs. By partnering with a specialist insurance broker like us, you get exactly what you need to protect your business.

Nidhi ShahTrainee SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Car Trouble Years Later: Who’s to Blame, the Customer or the Trader?

When a fault surfaces years after a sale, who carries the burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? Here’s the quick guide traders need to protect their position and respond confidently.

Rejection Rights Aren’t ‘Refund on Demand’: What the CRA 2015 Really Expects

A vociferous rejection doesn’t trump the trader’s right to inspect or make a fair deduction for use. We unpack what “agreement” really means under the CRA 2015.

Experts vs. “Garage Reports”: The evidence edge that could win your case

Garage reports can help, but only CPR Part 35 expert evidence tends to swing a dispute. Before costs spiral, here’s how and when to use experts to protect your position with consumers, businesses, and finance companies.

“Running Well”: Two words that cost a consumer £3,300

The judge found our member’s repairs were sound and ruled the email undercut the later allegations, dismissing the claim and awarding expenses.

The photo you didn’t take could cost you thousands

Proving a vehicle’s condition at handover is the difference between recovering costs and footing the bill.

They Broke It, You Don’t Pay: Intervening Acts that defend dealer claims

When damage stems from what a customer did after purchase, you may not be on the hook.

Is the legislative framework outdated or misunderstood?

A claimant mixed pre-2015 laws with a post-2015 car purchase and the result was, frankly, embarrassing.

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.