CRA 2015 . Does the clock start again after an item is replaced ?

[Buckman]

As I cannot find the answer anywhere I have contacted Which Legal Services for an answer. Probably only get an answer late next week.

 

[Buckman]

Surprise, surprise! I already have an answer as below;

You are correct that your contribution towards the repair work would have given rise to the repair work forming a new and separate contract. Therefore, you would have 6 years to issue Court proceedings for a breach of contract claim (such as one under CRA 2015) in relation to any issues arising from the repair. The 6 year limitation period would commence from the date the new contract was entered (i.e. the date you agreed to contribute to the repairs).

Liability for any other inherent issues with the caravan would fall back to the original purchase contract and therefore the limitation period for such claims would be 6 years from the date the caravan was purchased.

If the repairs had been carried out at no cost to you, this would simply be a resolution of the previous breach of contract and would therefore not have formed a new contract. Accordingly, the 6 year limitation period would have continued running from the original date of purchase of the caravan.

This is the reason we sometimes suggest contributing to repairs or paying towards an upgrade where limitation is about to expire - to effectively buy the consumer more time in case the repairs don't work.

Our front panel repair is covered for another 5 years as a year has passed as we made a small contribution.

 

[Dustydog]

There is no clear guidance in these circumstances. Obviously the terms of the warranty which are specific to the manufacturer may limit or allow it - read the warrant details or contact the company involved.

I suspect the ongoing liability under the CRA will very much depend on the individual circumstances of the claim.

We both know this about the Dealer. If they replace the faulty goods under CRA does the clock start again.? Let‘s leave manufacturers out of it. That was never in the original question. CRA isn’t really about manufacturers.
Buckman is very close in his last post . However I can’t see anything that says yes or no . Thus nine the wiser so far🤔🤔

 

[otherclive]

I think the manufacturer would only warranty the replacement for the balance of their warranty. But crucially you purchased it from a seller and your contract is with them. So by giving you a replacement they have effectively accepted the original item was faulty. If the replacement should fail in an unreasonable timescale I think you would have a legitimate case under CRA2015 against the Seller even though you did not make any payments for the replacement. So your timeline would be based on the original contract date. How you would pursue it though against a recalcitrant Seller who have already supplied one replacement could be interesting. They would doubtless reject your claim and probably point the finger at the installation or useage. Keep fingers crossed that the replacement works as intended with a decent lifetime.

 

[Hutch]

For an item less than £50, I wouldn't be bothered about all the faff, trying to chase up the seller, I would probably have thrown away the receipt anyway.

 

[otherclive]

For an item less than £50, I wouldn't be bothered about all the faff, trying to chase up the seller, I would probably have thrown away the receipt anyway.

Most receipts fade well before a warranty expires so I always scan them and store in the cloud.

 

[ProfJohnL]

We both know this about the Dealer. If they replace the faulty goods under CRA does the clock start again.? Let‘s leave manufacturers out of it. That was never in the original question. CRA isn’t really about manufacturers.
Buckman is very close in his last post . However I can’t see anything that says yes or no . Thus nine the wiser so far🤔

I'm sorry Dusty but you effectively included the manufacture in your opening post when yo referred to the 12 Month warranty. I was merely clarifying the difference

 

[Buckman]

I think the manufacturer would only warranty the replacement for the balance of their warranty. But crucially you purchased it from a seller and your contract is with them. So by giving you a replacement they have effectively accepted the original item was faulty. If the replacement should fail in an unreasonable timescale I think you would have a legitimate case under CRA2015 against the Seller even though you did not make any payments for the replacement. So your timeline would be based on the original contract date. How you would pursue it though against a recalcitrant Seller who have already supplied one replacement could be interesting. They would doubtless reject your claim and probably point the finger at the installation or useage. Keep fingers crossed that the replacement works as intended with a decent lifetime.

The CRA 2015 is also governed by the Limitations Act as per my post. If the item is repaired or replaced at no charge, no new contract is formed therefore at the expiration of the contract which is generally 6 years in England you will not be able to claim as no breach of contract. However the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault existed at time of purchase.

However if you made a contribution towards the repair, a new contract is formed and CRA 2016 is valid for another 6 years for the repair or replacement, but the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault was there prior to the contract starting again.

 

[Dustydog]

I'm sorry Dusty but you effectively included the manufacture in your opening post when yo referred to the 12 Month warranty. I was merely clarifying the difference

Actually it is a double edged sword question and yes I guess my reference to manufacturer does have relevance, Now almost answered by Buckman. Ie the replacement of the failed goods is not the start of a new contract with the Dealer. Yet in my case the new shower had to be registered with the manufacturer to secure their five year warranty.

 

[Buckman]

Actually it is a double edged sword question and yes I guess my reference to manufacturer does have relevance, Now almost answered by Buckman. Ie the replacement of the failed goods is not the start of a new contract with the Dealer. Yet in my case the new shower had to be registered with the manufacturer to secure their five year warranty.

If the new shower goes faulty within the next 5 years and within the remainder of the original contract, you could still use CRA 2015 i.e. you have had the shower 4 years and they replaced it, then only 2 years remaining within the Limitations Act being able to use CRA 2015. After that you have to rely on the goodwill of the manufacturer.

 

[RogerL]

Actually it is a double edged sword question and yes I guess my reference to manufacturer does have relevance, Now almost answered by Buckman. Ie the replacement of the failed goods is not the start of a new contract with the Dealer. Yet in my case the new shower had to be registered with the manufacturer to secure their five year warranty.

Depending on the dates, the new shower's 5-year manufacturer warranty may still be in place after the original CRA 6-year provision ends - that's good!

 

[Raywood]

The CRA 2015 is also governed by the Limitations Act as per my post. If the item is repaired or replaced at no charge, no new contract is formed therefore at the expiration of the contract which is generally 6 years in England you will not be able to claim as no breach of contract. However the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault existed at time of purchase.

However if you made a contribution towards the repair, a new contract is formed and CRA 2016 is valid for another 6 years for the repair or replacement, but the onus is on the consumer to prove that the fault was there prior to the contract starting again.

It is probably academic but the limitation for commencing proceedings does not have to start from the day the new part was fitted. In practice time runs from the date the claimant might reasonably have known of the problem. If a replacement part or repair fails after six months then time runs from that date. To be fair you are unlikely to leave things that long, but it does happen.
In Scotland the time limit is five years and the proceedings have to be served within that period.

 

[Buckman]

It is probably academic but the limitation for commencing proceedings does not have to start from the day the new part was fitted. In practice time runs from the date the claimant might reasonably have known of the problem. If a replacement part or repair fails after six months then time runs from that date. To be fair you are unlikely to leave things that long, but it does happen.
In Scotland the time limit is five years and the proceedings have to be served within that period.

Nothing to do with when the part was fitted, the Limitations Act is aligned to the start of the original contract.

 

[Raywood]

I dealt with the claims against solicitors and this was the case. In practice the difference made no difference except in a few larger cases as very few dragged on that long.

 

[Buckman]

I dealt with the claims against solicitors and this was the case. In practice the difference made no difference except in a few larger cases as very few dragged on that long.

Was that before or after CRA 2015 was introduced?

 

[Raywood]

Yes. English courts often overturn time limit defences particularly if they feel the solicitor is at fault, although in Scotland they are far tougher.

 

[Buckman]

Yes. English courts often overturn time limit defences particularly if they feel the solicitor is at fault, although in Scotland they are far tougher.

Sorry your reply is very ambiguous and confusing?

 

[Raywood]

The situation is that the English courts have allowed late cases through where they consider it is justified to do so. These range from failure by a solicitor to advise or raise proceedings in time, to others where they have accepted the claimants excuse for not getting legal help in time, often because they convinced the court that there was a good reason to allow it.
Scottish courts have taken harder line particularly where a solicitor is at fault and rejected late applications.

 

[otherclive]

The situation is that the English courts have allowed late cases through where they consider it is justified to do so. These range from failure by a solicitor to advise or raise proceedings in time, to others where they have accepted the claimants excuse for not getting legal help in time, often because they convinced the court that there was a good reason to allow it.
Scottish courts have taken harder line particularly where a solicitor is at fault and rejected late applications.

That encompasses some of the claims allowed to go ahead for the Duke of Sussex. Helps the papers keep their sales up and pay the damages too.

 

[Buckman]

The situation is that the English courts have allowed late cases through where they consider it is justified to do so. These range from failure by a solicitor to advise or raise proceedings in time, to others where they have accepted the claimants excuse for not getting legal help in time, often because they convinced the court that there was a good reason to allow it.
Scottish courts have taken harder line particularly where a solicitor is at fault and rejected late applications.

However probably nothing to do with the Limitations Act if the action was originally started within the original time limit.

 

[Raywood]

I believe the answer is that the evidence of the activity did not come to light for some years and time then runs from when the Duke could reasonably have learned about it.