Judge Rinder and a Motorhome case

[camel]

Anyone seen the Judge Rinder programme today when one of the cases on there was between a Motorhome trader and a unhappy customer, and it all came down to the Sale of Goods act, which the customer won, so hopefully when I trade in next year I hope to be fully clued up on consumer law,

 

[ProfJohnL]

Not if you read up on the Sale of Goods Act. That ceased to control new contracts in October 2015. It was superseded by the Consumer Rights Act, which has greater scope and clarity than the older SoGA.

 

[Dustydog]

Just watched it on catch up.
The CRA is a very powerful instrument. The Judge made it clear when the 30 day money back no quibble date starts. Not from the date of signing the purchase agreement but the date actual delivery / possession takes place.
Also there is nothing that says the seller has a legal right to do repairs in lieu of refund within the 30 day period.
The plaintiff won . If you want to see the CRA used as intended do like Camel and watch the programme.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Having seen the thread I watched the programme.

I have always understood the point of sale as used in the Act was the time and place where the contract is completed/fulfilled, not where it is initially agreed.

Judge Rinder's explained his authority limited the award his judgement could make to only £5K, but in fact if the plaintiff had taken the matter to the normal small claims court whose limit is £10K, she would have got the full £6500, and it should also have covered the additional costs of parts she had to buy, and the cost of recovering the vehicle back to the seller.

It also proves the the CRA is effective on second hand goods. In this case it was a reasonable assumption the catalogue of faults found by the plaintiffs mechanic, was a reasonable probability that some or all of them must have been present at the point of sale, and thus rendered the vehicle not as a described as being roadworthy.

I am glad the plaintif won her case as that is the law, and it should send a strong message to sellers to beware of selling faulty goods.

It also goes to show that if such high standards are applicable to secondhand goods, where there has to be some consideration given to the used nature of teh goods, how much more exacting sellers of brand new goods should be - Like caravan dealers.

It may be considered unreasonable to reject a car or caravan because a bulb is not working, legally the CRA does raise that possibility for brand new goods - they should be perfect.

 

[Dustydog]

No longer can you be fobbed off by a Dealer who says you are outside the 30 day period. This point is particularly relevant to people who purchase at a show and get fobbed off by the dealer on dates of contract signing as opposed to actual date of taking delivery / possession.

Let's hope Prof that more people make use of this piece of Consumer Law whish is there to help them.

 

[camel]

Prof,
I do apologise for my error in my original post, I was only trying to draw attention to this particular case which was on this TV show and could be of some help to fellow caravanners/motorhome owners in the future,

 

[ProfJohnL]

Prof,
I do apologise for my error in my original post, I was only trying to draw attention to this particular case which was on this TV show and could be of some help to fellow caravanners/motorhome owners in the future,

No apology needed, as my comment was more of a tongue in cheek one, just to raise awareness of the change in the relevant legislation. The change was pointed out in the programme, and it was significant and highly relevant to this case. If the matter was prior to Oct 2015 the case law would be under "Sale of Goods Act", and the outcome could easily have been different. But this was post Oct 205 and falls under the CRA, as do all new contracts being made now.

I actually suspect the seller knew exactly the reality of the situation, but he was hoping his customer was not legally savvy, and tried to bamboozle her into accepting his version of the law.

By using phrases like "the Sale of Goods Act", !I'm only required to" it it was designed to give the customer the impression the seller knew what his law was, and that what followed could be trusted to be the true legal position.

He was hoping that she would accept that she had no case for a refund becasue the "reasonable time" allowed under SoGA for such claims to be made had expired.

He also knew about the CRA 30 day limit but did not mention it, but to boot strap his argument he claimed the point of sale was when the monies had been paid which was prior to the hand over, which meant the claim was made after the 30 days had expired. These dates were a critical point of the case.

In point of fact the Point of Sale has always been the point where the contract is completed and goods/service are accepted by the customer, note when they are ordered or only part paid for (except where a finance package is used)

If he hadn't know these facts why would he have tried to use these tactics? If he genuinely did not know about the CRA, he could have justifiably argued 30 days is too long for a customer to reject a secondhand vehicle for a full refund, which could well have been accepted under SoGA, and teh case dismessed.

Whilst I do not condone his apparent subterfuge, I do have some sympathy for him. Clearly the customer was tardy in making the complaint known to the seller. Leaving the matter to the last few days to report them when the problems had started to appear much earlier, certainly smacks of trying to play the system. But the systems is there and you are required to abide by the the CRA.

 

[Dustydog]

I fully agree about her tardiness Prof.
Her slow inaction should be a lesson for all purchasers to ensure their new caravan is everything they hoped for within days of possession.
My main concern is a dealer taking ages to remedy a minor fault and the poor purchaser discovering major faults later on outside the 30 days. Thereafter the CRA will still be your champion but there are a few more hurdles to go through.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I fully agree about her tardiness Prof.
Her slow inaction should be a lesson for all purchasers to ensure their new caravan is everything they hoped for within days of possession.
My main concern is a dealer taking ages to remedy a minor fault and the poor purchaser discovering major faults later on outside the 30 days. Thereafter the CRA will still be your champion but there are a few more hurdles to go through.

That's an interesting point Dusty, but how about this:

If a customer takes possession of the goods, and within the first 30 day discovers and reports a genuine fault, then the goods were not to contract which means the original point of sale is not the point where the contract was completed.

Now the customer has the legal right to ask for a refund, but at the customers discretion they might opt to accept repairs. Technically the contract will only be concluded when the repaired goods (conforming to contract) are returned to the customer, so the 30 Day period should be reset. The question is would that argument stand up in court? At this stage I don't know.

 

[Raywood]

I did not see the program and cannot comment on the case. I would point out though this is a TV show and is there principally for entertainment. The decision is not binding on other courts, so cannot be taken as gospel, although from what I read looks correct.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray,

I think you will find that all participants in the programme have willingly taken part and will have signed contracts to appear, and to be bound by the outcome of the Arbitration presided over by Judge Rinder.

Also bearing in mind the arbitrator is a practising criminal law barrister, (Robert Rinder) the civil courts are unlikely to overturn a properly adjudicated decision, unless there are material inaccuracies or very significant new information that was not presented at the arbitration hearing.

However, should a participant refuse to complete the remedy handed down, then the plaintiff has the contract that was signed by all parties, and could pursue that through the civil courts under contract law.

 

[Dustydog]

I fully agree about her tardiness Prof.
Her slow inaction should be a lesson for all purchasers to ensure their new caravan is everything they hoped for within days of possession.
My main concern is a dealer taking ages to remedy a minor fault and the poor purchaser discovering major faults later on outside the 30 days. Thereafter the CRA will still be your champion but there are a few more hurdles to go through.

That's an interesting point Dusty, but how about this:

If a customer takes possession of the goods, and within the first 30 day discovers and reports a genuine fault, then the goods were not to contract which means the original point of sale is not the point where the contract was completed.

Now the customer has the legal right to ask for a refund, but at the customers discretion they might opt to accept repairs. Technically the contract will only be concluded when the repaired goods (conforming to contract) are returned to the customer, so the 30 Day period should be reset. The question is would that argument stand up in court? At this stage I don't know.

I think Prof the CRA may be wide enough to be interpreted as you say but perhaps not a"reset" but a statutory entitlement to a refund out with of the first 30 days.
I quote from a which article which is interesting:-
You're entitled to a full or partial refund instead of a repair or replacement if any of the following are true:

the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content
a repair or replacement is impossible
a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience
the repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time.
If a repair or replacement is not possible, or the attempt at repair fails, or the first replacement also turns out to be defective, you have a further right to receive a refund of up to 100% of the price you paid, or to reject the goods for a full refund".
If the dealer does not carry out repairs say immediately or tomorrow ask for a full refund! Ok harsh but do you want to wait weeks or have your caravan returned to the factory or be told the heater or cooker manufacturer has a six week delay.
Prof
I believe the CRA will prove to be a very powerful tool indeed for the caravan purchaser. New or used the same terms apply.

 

[ProfJohnL]

We just need to educate the public about the CRA.

How many times have seen news reports or even "Don't get done get Dom" do a straw poll of the buying public to find they don't know their legal rights?

I maintain that it should be a statutory requirement that all retailers have to display a prescribed set of salient CRA facts prominently so the customers can easily see them on their premises and on order paperwork. And that when a customer complains about a product they should always treat it as if its a CRA matter before the manufacturer's warranty is considered at the customers discretion.

 

[Raywood]

Hi Prof, I was not looking at anybody challenging that case, but pointing out that in any future ones that this was not binding on the real courts, although it looked correct. Robert Rinder though, is a criminal barrister rather than a civil one, and from what I have seen, I am not always convinced by his judgements.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hi Prof, I was not looking at anybody challenging that case, but pointing out that in any future ones that this was not binding on the real courts, although it looked correct. Robert Rinder though, is a criminal barrister rather than a civil one, and from what I have seen, I am not always convinced by his judgements.

Hello Ray,
My comment about pursuing a Judge Rinder programme was not specifically aimed at the particular programme mentioned but a general one that would apply to any participants in the programme.

There is clearly quite a lot of background work carried out that we don't see, and i would guess that case law is also consulted. I also suspect that background work may also produce information that we may not see presented in the programme, but would be pertinent in the adjudication handed down. This may be why some of the outcomes may no seem entirely appropriate.