Transportation Costs on Faulty Goods - the Dealer Should Pay

[WilliamTups]

After reading several forum members saying that they have had to take their caravan to be repaired at their cost and in some cases over a hundred miles round trip, I would like to point an interesting point that was made to me by a solicitor during the recent weeks, The Law relating to the Supply of Goods and Services says that:

"Repair and Replacement have to carried out within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience for the customer (if this is not possible the consumer should select an alternative remedy). The retailer has to bear any costs such as transporting the goods.

This means that it would not be unreasonable to expect the dealer to collect and deliver your goods (i.e. caravan) for repair any or warranty issues - or pay your travelling costs (fuel, overnight accommodation etc)

More information can be found on page 12 of the following DTI booklet:

www.dti.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

Hope this helps....

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello William,

You do raise an interesting point however it is not as black and white as you make out. It is always important to read the whole section of the act, and in this case there is are three built points and an attached note that have as much significance when considering such a claim.

It is important to realise that the Supply of services and goods act (Sale of goods) places an obligation on both the supplier and the purchaser. The statutory obligations are between the two parties, and no one else. The acts are rested in civil law, where courts take a balanced view, and consider the actions of all parties when making a reasoned judgment.

Generally for caravans it is the customer that chooses which seller to purchase from. We sometimes read of stories of a customer choosing a caravan and finding the best deal even though it means travelling hundreds of miles to collect the caravan. The dealer has not forced the customer to make that decision, so why should the dealer be penalised for a customer's independent choice, when a local dealer may have an equivalent model for sale.

The customer should consider the benefits vs cost of their decision, and if consider the implications of using such a remote seller - e.g. if the caravan needs to be returned to the dealer for any reason. Perhaps a more local dealer would be a better bet even though the purchase price may be slightly more. It is likely that the courts would consider that aspect of the customer's choices.

If the fault with the product such as if the roof of the caravan collapsed when on holiday, directly causes additional expense such as overnight accommodation, then the expense may be claimable, but the indirect costs of returning a caravan such as fuel, and accommodation, are not a direct cost arising out of the failure of the product, and as such could be foreseen and might be mitigated by alternative reasonable strategies.

In all of this it is a question of what is 'reasonable'. Yes- we should all expect perfect products, but we also have to accept that the more complex a product is there is a greater chance that a fault might occur, and that is the risk. Generally faults with products are not the result of deliberate negligence (which could be construed as fraud and as such would be a criminal act) but most likely an unforeseen set of circumstances or an oversight during design or construction.

The Consumer acts are there to put in place a set ground rules, that do provide a marked level of protection for consumers, but also they place responsibilities on consumers to also be reasonable.

 

[WilliamTups]

Thanks John,

The way the point was put to me is that the sale / transaction is a two way thing, if the consumer travels whatever distance in order to get the best deal (or they can not get that make of caravan near home) and the dealer agrees the deal then the dealer has to take on board the rights of the purchaser under the Supply of Goods and Services Act - just as the consumer can say No the deal is not right, the dealer can also say No and advise you to buy closer to home if they do not want this hassle in the event of a problem arising - but they don't because they are seeing a sale, commission and profit.

Referring to the three points attached to the articles are:

1) The nature of the goods

2) The purpose for which they were bought; and

3) Their importance to that particular customer

We can all argue that a caravan often costing thousands of pounds is important to us and it represents a sizable investment and enjoyment.

But the view that a couple of solicitors that I have spoken to concerning a legal matter involving a caravan, is that given the cost of a caravan and its important to the consumer when the caravan has a problem under the act the supplying dealer should meet these costs. If we wanted the dealer to collect the caravan just for a routine service then this would be a little unreasonable.

As a side note, in the motor trade most dealers offer a collect and return service or mobile mechanics to get around the act - why should we not expect this form the caravan industry

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello again William,

In some cases it may be appropriate for the dealer to cover some relocation costs, but it is not a guaranteed position. It would be unfair to give readers the impression that it is. The test is 'if it is the only reasonable course of action'.

At the point of sale a contract is deemed to exist, and gives all parties both responsibilities and rights. It is incumbent on all parties to act reasonably, and not to incur undue expense or inconvenience to the other parties.

At the end of the booklet there is a section about the 'Test Of Reasonableness' and issues such long distance purchases when alternative more local ones are available are specifically considered.

It would also an issue if costs were incurred that could reasonably have been avoided, so if accommodation were to be claimed, the use of a 5* hotel when a 3* was available would be frowned on etc.

Dealers do have responsibilities towards their customers, but only so far as is reasonable. Courts will test claims and what may seem in your eyes a cut and dried case be significantly modified by the judge who will give reasons.

I do believe that some traders do ignore or don't understand some of their responsibilities to customers, and I strongly advocate that customers should stand up for their rights. But I also understand that there has to be a balance, and it is equally unfair if customers seek to abuse their position to gain unfair advantage.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello again William,

In some cases it may be appropriate for the dealer to cover some relocation costs, but it is not a guaranteed position. It would be unfair to give readers the impression that it is. The test is 'if it is the only reasonable course of action'.

At the point of sale a contract is deemed to exist, and gives all parties both responsibilities and rights. It is incumbent on all parties to act reasonably, and not to incur undue expense or inconvenience to the other parties.

At the end of the booklet there is a section about the 'Test Of Reasonableness' and issues such long distance purchases when alternative more local ones are available are specifically considered.

It would also an issue if costs were incurred that could reasonably have been avoided, so if accommodation were to be claimed, the use of a 5* hotel when a 3* was available would be frowned on etc.

Dealers do have responsibilities towards their customers, but only so far as is reasonable. Courts will test claims and what may seem in your eyes a cut and dried case be significantly modified by the judge who will give reasons.

I do believe that some traders do ignore or don't understand some of their responsibilities to customers, and I strongly advocate that customers should stand up for their rights. But I also understand that there has to be a balance, and it is equally unfair if customers seek to abuse their position to gain unfair advantage.

I should add that a different slant applies if the dealer applies special inducments to the customer, but just a lower published price which is availabel to all customers is not a special or unique inducement.

 

[WilliamTups]

Thanks again for the comments, since I am not a solicitor or an expert on consumer law, but just an ordinary member of Joe Public, I can not comment fully in depth on this issue but I can allow people to have the benefit of the advice given to me that arose out of a legal challenge that I am party to, by a solicitor (who speciality is consumer law) and a well respected caravan organisation

The whole point of this forum is about giving people "food for thought" and perhaps allowing consumers benefit of some advice which they would need to relate to their own circumstances.