# Sale of Goods Act 1979 is it all worth it?



## 106410

Having a problem with shoddy workmanship on behalf of the Motorhome Manufacturer and trading standards have pointed me to the supplying dealer quoting the said Act. I am getting the impression that the dealer is going to laugh at this. Am I wasting my time or has anyone succeeded on this course. L.


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes

*Re: Sale and Goods Act 1979 is it all worth it?*



laidback said:


> Having a problem with shoddy workmanship on behalf of the Motorhome Manufacturer and trading standards have pointed me to the supplying dealer quoting the said Act. I am getting the impression that the dealer is going to laugh at this. Am I wasting my time or has anyone succeeded on this course. L.


The Sale of Goods Act gives valuable protection for purchasers however some specific details would be of asssistance in answering your query.

Regards


----------



## hilldweller

*Re: Sale and Goods Act 1979 is it all worth it?*



laidback said:


> Having a problem with shoddy workmanship on behalf of the Motorhome Manufacturer and trading standards have pointed me to the supplying dealer quoting the said Act. I am getting the impression that the dealer is going to laugh at this.


That is the Law - you gave money to The Dealer.

Give the dealer written notice of the problems and ask for them to be corrected. If they fail to do this go back to Trading Standards or you could get the work done and take the dealer to the small claims court.

Be calm, polite and document everything. Pictures as well.


----------



## citroennut

hi,
the problem is that if you let them try to fix it you are accepting the vehicle, until then you can reject it as unfit for purpose.

cheers
simon


----------



## carolgavin

citroennut said:


> hi,
> the problem is that if you let them try to fix it you are accepting the vehicle, until then you can reject it as unfit for purpose.
> 
> cheers
> simon


Not quite true you can still reserve your right to reject the vehicle if the repairs do not suceed. Or if repairs are not effected in a 'reasonable' time you can then sue for breach of contract (by far the easier option as it is much easier to prove!!)


----------



## 106410

In some of my recent posts I have mentioned that I have a big problem with a paint defect on my Hobby 750. The problem was only noticed two months after its warranty had expired. I have written to most of the top officials in Hobby, names that were given to me via this forum. Hobby responded by saying that the vehicle was delivered in perfect condition to Brownhills and it is no longer their problem. I have found out that there are identical vans with the same paint problem mostly the special edition painted mostly silver and in further research I found that Hobby were spraying vans in their German location OUTSIDE before they got the new motorhome assembly plant up and running. The condition of vans were so bad a team had to be sent from the UK to to Hobby to supervise the operation and a team from Hobby to Brownhills to paint the vehicles on site. My van fits into this time zone. I know of one customers van was taken back to Hobby via his dealer for a respray and thats about the history of this case. I have taken my van to Brownhills today so that they can see the problem and asked if they could approach Hobby about the problem. I was told that if Hobby say nein again then thats it finished. Someone(ex Brownhills) who knew of this problem checked my van today and stated it was the worst case that he had ever seen. Trading standards have just emailed me to quote this Sale Of Goods Act. Have got to do something as I cannot sell the van(don't want to) no one will take the chance and paint it(the plastic needs grinding down etc) although someone mentioned a £8,000 price. Brownhills will not paint it, too big of a job. Do you think I should go for this Sale Of Goods Act if everything else fails? L

(hi L - I have edited your post. Using the unitials for sale of goods act was linking to a certain piece of toilet equip. - stew)


----------



## Wizzo

I would definitely go down that route if the initial firm but calm approach fails. It doesn't matter that it may be out of warranty because the courts would take the view that the paintwork on an item like this should last quite a number of years. 

It is a lot of money that's at stake here. Too much for you to be contemplating on a DIY job.

JohnW


----------



## 90128

*Sale of Goods Act 1979 [as amended] sorry a bit long*

Yes the Sale of Goods Act 1979 [*as amended]* does work. In 2001 I set out a case for a friend using the said act to reject a caravan that almost killed him and his friends the second time of using it. [Turned out to be a split rubber ring in the gas fire] There was 6 faults at the time of rejection and because the caravan dealer and the finance company would not accept the rejection my friend and I were in court and him facing bankruptcy if we lost the case. But we had faith in the S.O.G. Act and also the book 'Nutshells Consumer Law by Sandra Silberstein', purchased from any good book shop. This book is used by law students to quickly revise before an exam. We won the court case! and against a barrister.

My second rejection came some 10months later with a motorhome from you know who which was totally unfit for purpose. I sent letters to the then directors by recorded delivery and gave them 14days to refund my monies. On receipt of the letter they telephoned and said they would not refund my money and they had right to repair [they had already had a day attempting to repair it] but I stuck to the S.O.G. Act as it was then and told them I would take them to court - no problem. On the 12th day the dealer telephoned me again and offered a meeting at their premises - to which we arrived as they opened the door. The dealer said that their solicitor said they had the right to repair then I asked them had their solicitor been in court to defend and win a S.O.G. Act case in the last 10months because I had - against a barrister. That's when they backed down and the matter was settled to my satisfaction.

Points to consider

The test of quality is what a reasonable person would find satisfactory, taking into account the price, how the goods are described and other relevant factors such as their age. The goods should be
1.fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied
2. fit for your specific purpose - if the seller knows what the purpose is 
3. satisfactory in appearance and finish
4 free from minor defects
5 safe and durable
6. as described, for example, by the seller or on packaging or labels

Remember your legal rights are against the seller. Don't be put off by arguments that it's the manufacturer's fault.

If you agree to a repair it will not stop you claiming your money back if the repair turns out to be unsatisfactory.

If the defect was present at the time of sale and if it was reasonable for the goods to last that long, you can claim compensation for up to six years after purchase.

If goods were bought on credit or with a credit card you may also have rights against the credit company.

Manufacturers' warranties - Manufacturer may promise to put a fault right if it appears in a given period - say one, two or three years. These give rights which are additional to your legal rights against the seller.

When speaking to the seller remain calm - the law is on your side.

Just edited to say I am not legally trained the above are the arguments I used in the said rejections.


----------



## davesport

Sealady.

Yor reply to this thread has warmed me to the core. A story of backbone & doggedness in the face of adversity.

Fantastic  

Dave.


----------



## Biglol

Sealady

That was a good read, I have copied and pasted it for future reference.
many thanks


----------



## SpeedyDux

Well done sealady!

Here's a pretty good summary of the situation for consumers under amended Sale of Goods legislation that I previously cut and pasted from the DTi website (now BERR but I don't know if it still has the same web page):

"*during the first six months*:

the consumer returns the goods in the first six months from the date of sale and requests a repair or replacement or a partial refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003

*after the first six months:*

Under sale of goods legislation (Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994) consumers are entitled to expect that any goods they buy are of satisfactory quality. That is, that the goods meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account the way they are described, their price, and any other relevant circumstances, such as the fact that they are second-hand or used. ... ..

If a product that was not of satisfactory quality at the time of the sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer is entitled to a full refund (if it is within a reasonable time of the sale), or, if a "reasonable time " has elapsed, to a reasonable amount of compensation. The consumer needs to demonstrate the goods were not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale. This is so if the consumer chooses to request an immediate refund or compensation. It is also the case for any product returned more than six months after the date of sale."

The right of rejection has been the subject of a lot of case law which cannot be summarised properly in a brief post. The more expensive the motorhome, the higher your legitimate expectation of satisfactory quality. In very serious defect cases you may not be expected to allow the retailer the opportunity to repair and you should reject as soon as possible and claim your money back. Your right to reject can be undermined if you hang onto the MH for too long - you will be deemed to have accepted the MH and your remedy will be limited to damages for your actual loss.

SD


----------



## 106410

Thanks for all your sound advice. The last few weeks I have been wandering around in no mans land without a compass and a rifle without ammunition. I really don't expect any favours from Hobby so it will be between me and the dealer. The Euro Trading Standards centre advised me the I have no claim on the manufacturer as the problem is just outside the 2 year warranty but they say the if the dealer and myself are both in the UK then the Sale of Goods comes into its own right. It is a shame really because my Hobby drives lovely and the inside is beyond my wifes dreams, its just the outside finish that lets everything down. Yesterday Brownhills stated that they were unaware of any paint problems on Hobbies but the chap standing next in line in the service que had a Hobby ford van he bought second hand with a paint problem so someone knows something. I am not saying that the dealer knowingly sold me a van with a paint defect, its just that vans around about this time were having major problems with the bodywork and paint process which could take time to show itself. Anyway I seem to be taking more out of this forum that I am putting in. Thanks again. L.


----------



## thieawin

You can no longer reject the van due to lapse of time so you have to go down the road of rectifcation and repair

make a full picture record of the defects

Find someone to price the repairs, I presume a complete respray.

Get evidence of the problem, ie others affected, letters saying my van same dates what was cause and waht was done include evidence of the cause not just gossip

Write to Brownhills with the evidence and the estimate

Give them 14 days to agree to rectify themselves and disclose your evidence. say if they do not do it you will sue.

If they agree you are home and dry

If they refuse you have three options

leave as is and live with it

get re done and pay but do nothing

get redone and sue, maybe limit your claim to small claims limit so as to avoid any cost risk

One point, if the Brownhills you bought from is no longer in existence as it has been liquidated or ceased trading you may be without remedy in any event. The obligation will not transfer to a new company.

(I have been off line for a week so not sure where they are up to)


----------



## 04HBG

Yes it does work.
I have just returned from Simpsons of Greta Yarmouth who wothout hesitation did a job on the overhead cab of my van. The gaurantee was up last year as it was new in 04 but i had problems with the roof splitting on the overhead cab after 2 years, recently i noticed what looked like another split along the lower part so took it back armed with a copy of the 1979 trading act, no problem as usual they were excellent and said right away they would do the job.
I must say all through the gaurantee period they have been excellent and would certainly buy off them again.


----------

