Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    Section 75 claim issue

    As the retailer was ignoring section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by offering a replacement and not a refund for a folding mobility scooter that had gone faulty twice within 6 months, a section 75 was sent to Barclay Card on 18th March along with proof of the earlier repair.
    In the meantime the trader collected the faulty scooter and left a loan scooter that needs to be dismantled to load into the vehicle. The trader still has the scooter although they did try to return it after repairing it for a second time after being advised of the rejection. They were asked to collect the loan scooter, but never made an appearance.
    On 3rd May I contacted BC again by phone to get an update and was told that I needed to prove that the contract between the trader and myself had been broken or that there had been misrepresentation. I told the person on the phone that I had already supplied all the proof. BC then sent a letter asking me to get an independent assessment on the scooter however the trader still has the scooter.
    On 15th May I contacted BC again only to be told what i was told on the 3rd. I told them that as 8 weeks had passed since raising the initial request I would be contacting the Financial Ombudsman. I was then told that as I had only raised the complaint on the 3rd May I had to wait another 6 weeks before I could approach the Ombudsman.
    The trader is clearly ignoring their responsibilities under the CRA 2015. The trader by offering a replacement has clearly indicated that there is or was an issue with the scooter however they should also be offering a refund under section 24 of the CRA. The trader was sent two registered letters the first in March outlining the issues with the scooter and the second just over a week ago giving them 7 days to respond and advising them that under S24 of CRA 2015 they are obliged to refund the consumer. No reply as yet.
    I am fighting the CC company and also the trader and think they are trying to wear me down however I am going to persevere as it is time companies woke up to their responsibilities.
    The big issue here is that I bought the folding scooter for overseas travel and paid a premium price and now we are away next week minus a scooter which is going to have an impact on our enjoyment on this holiday which has take us a long time to save up for!

  2. #2
    You say that you're using your right to cancel, which is correct as they get one chance to repair then you get this right under the CRA.


    However, while you say that it has failed twice within 6 months, did you use your right to cancel within that period.


    See these following bits from the CRA relevant here:


    (8) If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer


    may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer


    has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered, but this is subject


    to subsections (9) and (10).


    (11) In subsection (10) the first 6 months means 6 months beginning with the first


    day after these have all happened—


    (a) ownership or (in the case of a contract for the hire of goods, a hirepurchase


    agreement or a conditional sales contract) possession of the


    goods has been transferred to the consumer,


    (b) the goods have been delivered,


    If you told them that you didn't want the scooter before the 6 month period you're covered, if not they can make deductions.

  3. #3
    The goods failed within 10 days of purchase and I gave them a chance to repair. They then failed again with the identical faults 3 months later the same faults occurred within the first 6 months as the scooter was purchased in Nov 2016. As it was getting onto winter I used it once to go to a park nearby to test it so less than 1/2 mile there and back and again beginning of Dec 2016 to go into the town centre so altogether the scooter has done less than 2 miles. The main issue is that the lithium battery does not seem to hold the charge. Initially I would charge the scooter, unplug it for 3 or 4 days and then even though it was not being used I had to re-charge it. When they came for the first repair, I was told that I could leave it on charge 24/7 365 days which is what I did and the new battery still would not hold the charge even though it was on charge constantly.
    I have since found out that lithium batteries have a life span of between 3 - 5 years depending on how often it is charged so having to charge it every 3- 4 days severely reduces the life span something I was not told when purchasing the scooter. If you are not told, is this misrepresentation?
    The other issue was that the ignition barrel worked loose was tightened the first time and then 3 months later was loose again even though the scooter had hardly been used.
    The second time it went faulty I sent a letter stating that under CRA 2015 I wanted a refund as was not interested in a repair. Another letter was sent last week specifically mentioning section 24 of the CRA and once again asking for a refund and giving them 7 days to respond.
    It is my understanding that it may be a criminal act not to comply with S24 of the CRA2015? Trader has not phoned, written or communicated with me except to send a rep on the road phoned and told me that they were going to deliver the rejected scooter 2 days after I sent the trader the letter last week. I refused the delivery as I had rejected the scooter, but asked them to collect the loan scooter, however they never arrived. I had been asking for them to collect the loan scooter since beginning of May, but got no response.

  4. #4
    Section 75 (and breach of contract in general) allows you to claim for consequential losses - so, in theory, you could rent a mobility scooter for your holiday, for example, and claim back the cost.

    I guess it depends how confident you are of winning your claim. If you lose, you will be out of pocket for the rental cost as well.

  5. #5
    Thanks. I did look at renting a scooter but at over 100 a week I thought I would give it a miss as can buy a brand new Traveller for about 450. I feel that I have a good chance of winning if I use current legislation however in the meantime I am 2295 out of pocket until the issue is resolved!
    BTW just been informed by email that FOS are now looking into the section 75 issue in addition to Trading Standards as it seems that BC are not complying with S75 requirements and are moving the goal posts to suit their agenda.
    I have no objection to the assessment of the scooter, but what will it prove if the scooter has been repaired by the trader despite me rejecting the scooter in early March and the trader collecting the scooter at end of March.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •