CRA 2015 - Short Term Right to Reject - Waiting time

[moonigan]

Hi folks,

I'm looking for some guidance on how the waiting period is actually interpreted within section 22 (8) of the CRA 2015 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/sectio...

I bought (financed) a brand new car and it had a problem with the bodywork which was pointed out on the day of collection. It was fixed 16 days later after constantly pestering the dealer to sort it.

Six days (day 22 of ownership) later the car developed a major technical fault that was fixed 8 days later (day 30 of ownership) once again after pestering the dealer to sort it.

Five days (day 35 of ownership) after this was fixed the car developed a significant oil leak that was diagnosed as a manufacturing fault. At this point I informed the dealer I was rejecting the car and have subsequently directed this to the finance house.

There has been acceptance that 3 faults have occured but there is some dispute over the interpretation of the waiting time. By my calculations I have accrued additional days with:

1. 16 days accrued between reporting the first fault and it being fixed.
2. 8 days accrued between reporting the second fault and it being fixed.
3. An additional 7 days after the second fault was fixed.

So assuming my interpretation of the waiting period is correct? The oil leak whilst occuring on day 35 of ownership was still within the 30 day short term right to reject period and I'm not obliged to let the dealer have one attempt to repair the car.

Cheers
P

[Mexman]

Both initial faults have been fixed, so no grounds to reject there.
3rd fault is a manufacturing defect, which is why there is a manufacturing warranty in place.
Car is fit for purpose.
Sticky ground possibly?

[Sheepshanks]

moonigan said:

So assuming my interpretation of the waiting period is correct?

Interesting. I've always taken it to relate to the same fault - but at a glance the Act doesn't seem to say that.

Biit of a can of worms - if you're right, buyers could keep reporting random faults and stretch the time out considerably.

[moonigan]

Mexman said:

Both initial faults have been fixed, so no grounds to reject there.
3rd fault is a manufacturing defect, which is why there is a manufacturing warranty in place.
Car is fit for purpose.
Sticky ground possibly?

This is exactly my point and the struggle I face. People in the "trade" appear to interpret the Consumer Rights Act how they see fit. If the car's purpose is to spew oil all over the engine and turbo creating plumes of smoke and rendering it undriveable then I would 100% agree with you. Yes the warranty is there to fix things but that doesnt stop the consumer from being protected and excercising their rights.

[Alucidnation]

What brand ?

[ging84]

moonigan said:

Mexman said:

Both initial faults have been fixed, so no grounds to reject there.
3rd fault is a manufacturing defect, which is why there is a manufacturing warranty in place.
Car is fit for purpose.
Sticky ground possibly?

This is exactly my point and the struggle I face. People in the "trade" appear to interpret the Consumer Rights Act how they see fit. If the car's purpose is to spew oil all over the engine and turbo creating plumes of smoke and rendering it undriveable then I would 100% agree with you. Yes the warranty is there to fix things but that doesnt stop the consumer from being protected and excercising their rights.

Doesn't matter if the car is fit for purpose or not if the issue is regarding satisfactory quality.

Does the 30 days clock get paused while fault has been raised but not rectified? I think it does but not 100% certain

[Sheepshanks]

moonigan said:

People in the "trade" appear to interpret the Consumer Rights Act how they see fit.

The trouble with consumer protection law generally is it's not like you can call the police if the law has been breached. The only way to enforce your position is to sue.

[ging84]

Sheepshanks said:

The trouble with consumer protection law generally is it's not like you can call the police if the law has been breached. The only way to enforce your position is to sue.

You can however take to social media and if you can get even a relatively small amount of attention you can usually get the outcome you want pretty much regardless of the validity of your claim

[Mojooo]

check out page 42
https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/f...

If you are going to reject
1 - make sure you properly, in writing tell them you want to reject the car under CRA
2 - make sure the request goes to the people have a contract with - if it is on finance then send it to them as well.

[Sheepshanks]

ging84 said:

You can however take to social media and if you can get even a relatively small amount of attention you can usually get the outcome you want pretty much regardless of the validity of your claim

Maybe this was the case years ago but not now - many firms’ social media is full of complaints but it doesn’t appear to do them any harm. Others ask you to DM details, fob you along for a bit, then drop it.

Edited by Sheepshanks on Friday 3rd April 08:45

[hutchst]

Faffing about for 16 days about some dents/scratches might come down to a he said/she said argument, particularly if you carried on using the vehicle during those 16 days. I'm not sure if 'waiting period' has been defined by the courts.

Your strongest argument would be the 7 days after you got the car back from the oil leak repair (s.22(7)(a)), provided that you clearly informed the party that you are contracted with during those 7 days of your decision (not intention) to reject and then delivered the vehicle back to the supplier and immediately stopped using it. If you have carried on using the car your case will be significantly weaker.

[moonigan]

Mojooo said:

check out page 42
https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/f...

If you are going to reject
1 - make sure you properly, in writing tell them you want to reject the car under CRA
2 - make sure the request goes to the people have a contract with - if it is on finance then send it to them as well.

That is a really useful document and much easier to understand.

hutchst said:

Faffing about for 16 days about some dents/scratches might come down to a he said/she said argument, particularly if you carried on using the vehicle during those 16 days. I'm not sure if 'waiting period' has been defined by the courts.

Your strongest argument would be the 7 days after you got the car back from the oil leak repair (s.22(7)(a)), provided that you clearly informed the party that you are contracted with during those 7 days of your decision (not intention) to reject and then delivered the vehicle back to the supplier and immediately stopped using it. If you have carried on using the car your case will be significantly weaker.

I agree that my strongest argument is the 7 day extension after the car was repaired for the second time because there doesnt appear to be any ambiguity in how this is applied.

I called the finance house and followed it up with an e-mail stating that I am rejecting the car as its not fit for purpose during the 7 days. Car is currently sat on my drive and is undrivable and the only time its moved is when it was recovered to another dealer for inspection to confirm root cause of the oil leak.

I've spent the last 20+ days being bounced between dealer, manufacturer and finance house like a hot potato.

[Sheepshanks]

Did you have a firm idea of what you were going to do at the end of the finance?

[Mexman]

moonigan said:

This is exactly my point and the struggle I face. People in the "trade" appear to interpret the Consumer Rights Act how they see fit. If the car's purpose is to spew oil all over the engine and turbo creating plumes of smoke and rendering it undriveable then I would 100% agree with you. Yes the warranty is there to fix things but that doesnt stop the consumer from being protected and excercising their rights.

Customers are just as at fault as 'people in the trade' as you put it, interpreting CRA as they see fit also.
It's not a one way law, it's there to protect the dealer also.
If it is a Manufacturing defect, then it's not a fault of the dealer, nor the financier, it's the manufacturers problem.
I'm not saying you can't attempt to reject it, that's up to you, but the whole idea of a manufacturing warranty is to protect you against unforeseen issues such as this, otherwise, what's the point of the manufacturers warranty in the first place?

[kestral]

moonigan said:

Hi folks,

I'm looking for some guidance on how the waiting period is actually interpreted within section 22 (8) of the CRA 2015 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/sectio...

I bought (financed) a brand new car and it had a problem with the bodywork which was pointed out on the day of collection. It was fixed 16 days later after constantly pestering the dealer to sort it.

Six days (day 22 of ownership) later the car developed a major technical fault that was fixed 8 days later (day 30 of ownership) once again after pestering the dealer to sort it.

Five days (day 35 of ownership) after this was fixed the car developed a significant oil leak that was diagnosed as a manufacturing fault. At this point I informed the dealer I was rejecting the car and have subsequently directed this to the finance house.

There has been acceptance that 3 faults have occured but there is some dispute over the interpretation of the waiting time. By my calculations I have accrued additional days with:

1. 16 days accrued between reporting the first fault and it being fixed.
2. 8 days accrued between reporting the second fault and it being fixed.
3. An additional 7 days after the second fault was fixed.

So assuming my interpretation of the waiting period is correct? The oil leak whilst occuring on day 35 of ownership was still within the 30 day short term right to reject period and I'm not obliged to let the dealer have one attempt to repair the car.

Cheers
P

Have you done the calculation correctly?

As I understand it in simple terms you have 30 days in which to reject.

That means 30 days clear, any repair day time is not counted. The repair time has no relevance on the 30 days because the clock stops.

The "waiting time" is the time used up as repair time and has nothing to do with the 30 day rejection limit.

Or have I missed something!

[moonigan]

Sheepshanks said:

Did you have a firm idea of what you were going to do at the end of the finance?

Difficult to say that date is years away. Would depend on a number of factors at the time. Why?

kestral said:

Have you done the calculation correctly?

As I understand it in simple terms you have 30 days in which to reject.

That means 30 days clear, any repair day time is not counted. The repair time has no relevance on the 30 days because the clock stops.

The "waiting time" is the time used up as repair time and has nothing to do with the 30 day rejection limit.

Or have I missed something!

Nope it definitley stops. The article that was linked above explains it well.

Consumer Rights Act said:

If within the first 30 days, the consumer requests a repair or replacement (whether they or you propose this remedy), a waiting period is entered into during which time the 30 day period stops running. The waiting period begins on the day the consumer asks for a repair or replacement, and ends with the day the consumer receives the goods back from you. On return of the goods, the consumer then has the remainder of the 30 day period, or 7 days (whichever is the longer period of time) still to exercise their short-time right to reject, if the goods still do not meet the requirements of the Act, either because of the same or a further issue.

[Sheepshanks]

moonigan said:

Sheepshanks said:

Did you have a firm idea of what you were going to do at the end of the finance?

Difficult to say that date is years away. Would depend on a number of factors at the time. Why?

Only that it might be somewhat less distressing if you were set on returning it so could treat it as a three year rental.

Different kettle of fish if you'd been hoping to keep it long term.

moonigan said:

Nope it definitley stops. The article that was linked above explains it well.

You seem to already know the answer to the question you asked?

[kestral]

moonigan said:

I am sorry I don't understand your answer.

From the way you have written the original post you include the repair time rather than concentrating on the period of time(days) you had the car. Forget repair tme.

The point is did you have the car for 30 days at your disposel?

[mcpoot]

kestral said:

moonigan said:

I am sorry I don't understand your answer.

From the way you have written the original post you include the repair time rather than concentrating on the period of time(days) you had the car. Forget repair tme.

The point is did you have the car for 30 days at your disposel?

Moonigan has worked it out as per CRA, You have 30 days from date of purchase in which you can use your short term right to reject and any time during that period that the car is off the road for repair the clock is stopped and the days are added on to the 30 days.

I think you are effectively saying the same thing when you say 30 days at your disposal unless I have misunderstood you.