Limitations of The Consumer Rights Act
5 April 2021
|
Estimated reading time 3 minutes
The Consumer Rights Act is promoted as a panacea for buyers of misdescribed and faulty new and used cars.
However, for those who have sought to enforce their statutory rights under the Act, it soon becomes apparent that it’s a bit of a one-trick pony and even then, it has its fair share of shortcomings and limitations.
This is almost without exception due to a cognitive bias that the Consumer Rights Act is the ‘Gospel’ for car rejection and compensation claims.
As a result, the usual process adopted by legal scholars of analysing the relevant facts, identifying the relevant law(s) and applying the former to the latter has been bypassed. Instead, the single qualifying binary question is posed, “has the car developed a fault within 6 months of delivery?”
If the answer is yes, it is concluded that the claim is made out and the buyer is assumed to be automatically entitled, according to the Act, to a repair, replacement, or a refund.
This generic approach coupled with equally generic complaint letter templates has predictably led to generic pre-prepared answers and defences by car dealers and their lawyers and the matter almost immediately descending into deadlock.
As all good law students will know, the answer lies in the statute, which from the outset reveals that the Act applies exclusively to a contract for the sale of goods.
Therefore, in drafting a clear, simple consumer law, the effect has been to direct focus away from other claims the buyer may have in negligence, statutory duty or common law for example.
This is amplified by the assumption that the supplying dealer’s or finance company’s liability for breach of contract expires after 6 months.
While It is true that the Act has primacy in circumstances where a breach of contract occurs within 6 months of delivery, after that, the usual rules for common law breach of contract apply for which the seller can still be held liable.
Crucially, the breach of contract has to be identified, that is to say, according to the Act, there needs to be not a fault, but a non-conformity to the contract. This involves an examination of the facts surrounding the contract and the alleged breach, which requires technical knowledge of the vehicle.
In short, by starting from the wrong premise and applying the Act to the facts, invariably consumers and car dealers alike end up with either the wrong or the least expeditious answer.
About Philip Harmer
Philip is widely regarded as a leading practitioner in consumer law. He studied the subject in depth during his LLM at a time of significant legal change, analysing the transition from the Sale of Goods Act to the Consumer Rights Act. Combined with his first-hand industry experience, this academic foundation enables him to challenge poor practice and defend consumer rights with clarity and precision.
He regularly advises on consumer complaints, product liability claims, and faulty goods disputes.
Contact Stormcatcher for First Free Advice