Who decides whether or not goods supplied are faulty?

[RobinOakapple]

Let's suppose a firm supplies goods to a private customer, by mail order. Under the current legislation AIUI, the buyer can return the goods for a refund, within time limits, but has to pay the return carriage costs unless the goods are faulty. The customer says the goods are faulty but the supplier says they are not.

How is this situation to be resolved?

[kiethton]

Ultimately a court of law, although sense would say the potential cost would outweigh any benefit.

In reality you need to hope that the customer/supplier are grown-up enough to sort any potential issue honestly

[singlecoil]

I should think any firm that had any sense would pay for the return postage, if it seemed that the customer was going to take it further. As a firm the case would be heard at the customer's local court so they would need to pay for someone to attend it on their behalf, and as it's mail order that suggests that it would be some distance away.

[PurpleMoonlight]

How much postage are we talking about?

[RobinOakapple]

I'm guessing around £25

[grumpyscot]

IIRC, for six months after purchase, the onus is on the supplier to prove goods are NOT faulty. After 6 months, the onus is on the purchaser to prove that the goods ARE faulty. Within the first 6 months, the supplier has to pay for return of goods, After 6 months, the purchaser must pay - and the purchaser must pay for any proof of fault testing!

[Mojooo]

In the 1st 6 months it is up to the supplier to show the fault was not there at the time of sale.

If the fault was found to be at the time of sale then the shop is liable regardless of the amount of time that has passed - of course after 6 months the chances are a repair/repalcemnt or partial refund may be more apropriate then sending the original item back.

If teh consuemr does not agree with the supplier that the item was not faulty at time of sale then it is upto a court to decide.

if paid on card then consuemr may be able to get card company invovled instead of court.

[marshalla]

Mojooo said:

In the 1st 6 months it is up to the supplier to show the fault was not there at the time of sale.

If the fault was found to be at the time of sale then the shop is liable regardless of the amount of time that has passed - of course after 6 months the chances are a repair/repalcemnt or partial refund may be more apropriate then sending the original item back.

If teh consuemr does not agree with the supplier that the item was not faulty at time of sale then it is upto a court to decide.

if paid on card then consuemr may be able to get card company invovled instead of court.

all of which assumes that both parties agree there is a fault.

[Variomatic]

Curiously, I had a problem similar to this today (though no postage involved) which highlighted how difficult it can get to legislate "fairness".

Sold a used (hand wind) watch about a week and a half ago, so covered by the new Consumer Rights regs. The customer returned it today as "it stopped the day after I bought it". As it happens, there was a clear fault of a broken balance staff that could only have been caused by misuse -suggested anyway by the very first thing she said as she came in being "I didn't drop it or anything...". Why are people so bad at lying?

I refunded anyway because it's probably worth more to me as spares (and lack of hassle) than the sale was but (before the fault was seen) it raised a problem:

Had there been an intermittent fault and it was working when returned then I'd be entitled to confirm the fault before acting. Only, I repair watches. It's what I do. So, by leaving it with me to confirm the fault, the customer would never know if I fixed it and determined "no fault, no refund". Which makes a nonsense out of the right to a refund unless the seller is expected to refund purely on the word of the customer.

[rainagain]

Mojooo said:

If the fault was found to be at the time of sale then the shop is liable regardless of the amount of time that has passed - of course after 6 months the chances are a repair/repalcemnt or partial refund may be more apropriate then sending the original item back.

.

One thing I've always wondered about, quite often with cars you will read things like if you buy the model made before 2010 make sure it has the updated widget otherwise the engine will eat itself. The updated widget has a part number ending in XYZ so you can easily check. So the manufacturer has designed a car and discovered that a part is not up to the job and so have made changes to it. If you bought a model of this car made before 2010 and the engine did indeed eat itself would the garage that sold you the car be liable as the fault was there when you bought the car?