Insurance excess

What does insurance excess mean?

You agree to pay a fixed sum when you make a claim on your insurance policy. The insurance company will pay losses beyond that excess figure.

We tend to chose this option to reduce our insurance premium. Insurance companies like an excess as it puts you off claiming unless the sum involved is large. Excesses avoid small claims for broken lights and dented bumpers. Excesses save the insurance company money and expensive office work.

So everyone one is happy until a claim has to be made. When an insurance claim has to be made you need to know the score. Most people’s first thought after an accident is to contact their own insurance company. Yes your insurance company must be informed, but you do not need to make a claim. If you contact Your Key first we will deal with this notification for you.

Your Key says contacting us first on 08000 114 114 is the best course because:
• Our independent experts will assess if someone else is to blame and claim the expense and loss from their insurance company, and not from yours.
• Claiming on your own policy, even when someone else is to blame, can ruin your claims history.
• If you claim on your own policy you will have to pay out the excess.
• Your own insurance company may not chase the party to blame for their outlay.

You must understand the economics which sit behind this rather surprising position. Your insurance company is not your representative. It is an insurance company which has agreed to pay out in certain circumstances. Insurance companies like to keep admin costs to a minimum, so many do not like to chase other insurers for their outlay and your excess.

All legal expenses insurance policies are based on the ability to have legal costs paid by the party at fault if the claim succeeds, and the legal expenses insurance picks up those legal costs if the claim goes wrong. If there is no chance of the legal costs being paid by the other side then the legal expenses insurance will not support your claim. Legal cover insures the risk of you losing your claim rather than paying your legal costs outright.

So when can you recover legal costs?

If there is no injury, and the financial loss is below £5,000 your case falls into what is called the small claims category, and legal costs cannot be recovered from the party to blame.

If your injury is not worth £1,000 in compensation value, and the financial losses are worth less that £5,000, legal costs cannot be recovered.

If your injuries are worth more than £1,000, and the injury does not have to be too serious to be worth £1,000, then legal costs can be recovered from the party to blame if the claim for compensation is successful.

The Your Key legal cover is for any accident where an injury is suffered. We will help you recover compensation for the injury plus any financial losses, including your insurance excess.

We can suggest two alternatives where there is no injury, and the financial losses are worth less than £5,000. Both mean someone else handles the case for you, and this is important as it is best if you know the ropes.

Our first suggestion is to use credit repair for your vehicle. The credit repair company we use will assess what happened in the accident. If someone else is to blame the credit repair company will collect and repair your vehicle and send the bill direct to the insurer of the person who caused the accident. All the work is done by the credit repair company, and they will even inform your own insurer, and there is no need for you to pay your excess.

The second option is credit hire. If you have been involved in an accident, your vehicle is out of action, and there is no reasonable alternative available, then a credit hire company will hire a vehicle to you. Just like a credit repair company the bill will be presented to the insurer of the person who caused the accident.

Both repair and hire can be carried out on credit, and within recovery of the repair and hire costs your excess can be included.

Credit repair and credit hire have sometimes been given a bad name. Some credit companies have tended to allow hire to last too long, or to hire an unreasonably expensive vehicle. These problems have been overcome by agreements between the insurance and credit hire industries. Procedures and cost agreements are in place and for you that means a quick service and no need for you to pay anything, not even your excess.

Compare that to making a claim to your own insurance company when someone else is at fault. Yes your insurance company will sort out the repair, and might even arrange a courtesy vehicle, but you will pay out your excess. If your insurer does not chase the insurance company of the person to blame you are out of pocket, not once but twice. First you pay the excess, and because the insurer has paid out your claims record is damaged and your premium goes up. Not all insurance companies claim from other insurance companies, and even if they do they tend not to include your excess. That will not feel fair but it is a very regular problem. The reason is that most people call their own insurer after an accident, and they do what you have paid them to do, they repair or pay for the value of your vehicle.

To avoid these problems you must get independent help and support, and that is exactly why Your Key exists. Armed with the right advice you can deal with your problems without unnecessary cost and anxiety. This is the time to know the score, the time for independent accident advice and support from Your Key.

Posted in insurance advice, key can help, legal rights | No Comments »

I just want to claim my excess.

We are often asked how you go about recovering your insurance excess. It is tempting to take a bigger excess to keep our premiums down, and that works, but it can be a pain after an accident which is not your fault.

You must inform your own insurer about any accident whether you want to claim or not. Remember Your Key will do that for you if you contact us first and we handle your case.

If you have fully comprehensive insurance you might claim first on that policy for your vehicle damage and then seek to claim against the person to blame. You pay up your excess and your repair is done. This can be a mistake. The reason why recovering that excess is difficult is that if you are claiming for property damage alone, and the claim is below £5,000, the costs of using a solicitor to run your claim cannot be recovered from the other side when you win. It is an uneconomic case and falls outside most legal expenses insurance policies. Most policies we know of, including our own, do not cover the recovery of excess alone.

The other mistake is to think that because the accident was the fault of someone else your insurance record will not be damaged. You are wrong because if your insurer has made a payment your no claims record goes backwards.

The next mistake is to believe that when your insurance company pays for your repair they will get back the money from the person at fault, or their insurance company. Some insurers chase the person at fault, and some do not. It is pot luck what practice your insurance company follows, but it is your insurance claims record which will suffer. It is expensive to recover relatively small amounts, particularly when your premium can be increased next renewal.

The Your Key policy covers any accident in which there is an injury. If your injury is worth at least £1,000 then your legal costs will be paid by the party to blame, and within that case your excess and other losses can be recovered. It is just when you are claiming below £5,000 for property only losses that the no costs rule applies.

The best way to avoid chasing the excess yourself is if you use credit repair or credit hire. The credit repairer will agree to fix your vehicle and will recover payment direct from the insurer of the person to blame. Much better than having your own insurer do the job and make a mess of your insurance claims record. Credit hire is similar. The hirer decides if you have a good case, if you need the vehicle, and will then hire a vehicle to you. The hire will be paid by the insurance company of the person to blame. Within that case you can recover your repair costs plus any expenses or losses incurred.

Credit repair and credit hire are sometimes given a bad name. The rules are actually quite tight and the company we use operates within the agreements between the credit hire and insurance industry. The credit repair and credit hire companies that get it wrong tend to be too quick to hire expensive vehicles, allow the hire to drag on, and seek high rates of hire. It is not a surprise the insurance companies kick up and fight such cases. This type of company leaves you at risk. We take great care to ensure we work with legitimate companies which operate high industry standards.

Through credit repair and credit hire you have the services you need, and professionals will recover the excess and any other expenses for you.

If you cannot use credit repair or credit hire, and the property damage you seek is below £5,000 then please see our detailed guidance by clicking here.

Posted in insurance advice, legal rights | No Comments »

Black ice is lethal. You don’t see it until its too late. If there is an answer to staying upright please please let us know.

The road surface just has to be below freezing, and if water gets on it you have ice. It might be dry weather, but water has come onto a road from a drain. It might be the road surface is colder in the shade, or under a bridge. You just cannot assume a road is clear. The technical weather stuff can be read by clicking here.

We are often asked by members about insurance, and if the highway authority can be blamed. Black ice or snow on the road is looked at very much like pot-holes. The highway authority has a duty to keep the road in reasonable condition, but not A1 at all times. There is no duty to grit a road every time there is a warning of frost, in the same way that a pot-hole need not be repaired almost instantly.

There are some very sad cases. look at this one reported recently in The Telegraph. It is not an unusual story of someone seriously injured because there was ice on the road. Witnesses are being sought in the hope of showing the road was in a dangerous condition for an unreasonably long time, and that the dangerous condition had already been brought to the attention of the highway authority.

There are no clear rules as to what is reasonable, but in recent years the Courts have shown them unwilling to hold local authorities to be in breach of their duties. There are some cases which can succeed. You have legal cover with YourKey, so do not hesitate to ask us to put you in touch with one of the specialist solicitors we use.

If you know of an area where water gets onto the road and freezes, please tell your local highway authority. They may not know about it, and may not understand life on two wheels. A recent report on the www.fixmystreet.com site went like this:

Reported in the Roads/highways category by Nick Jones at 12:01, Thursday 12 February 2009
Sent to West Sussex County Council 4 minutes later

I was travelling south on the B20208 into Lindfield this morning at about 0740. There is visible surface ice around the 30mph boundary. However, at the top of the hill by the junction to Old Place Farm there is black ice on which my scooter skidded. I was thrown over the handlebars. Fortunately I was only doing 20mph. No injuries. Can you do something about running water that frequently cross the carriageway on this hill please. Empty drains so they can receive water, clean ditches to stop water flowing into the carriageway. Put new drains in. All this also applies to the Hortsted Keynes to Lindfield road that has tonnes of running water on it despite the recent works near the waterworks.

Reporting my seem a pain, but it will save someone else from a spill.

Take care, and let us have any tips.

Posted in legal rights, riding tips | No Comments »

Paul called today with a knotty problem.

He planned two weeks in Italy by bike. His mechanic made a mess of the preparation for the trip, so very kindly offered his own bike. Paul knew he could rely on his own insurance for third party cover only. He had the sense to ask the mechanic to include him as a named rider on that policy, and £67 was charged for the 10 day trip.

When on those great roads on the Alps the rider in front braked harder and longer than expected, and Paul lost control. Result is that mechanic’s bike needs £2,000 spent on it.

The mechanic’s insurers are saying no to the claim, saying Paul should rely on his own policy. Paul’s own policy is third party only, so is no use. They have also suggested Paul chase the rider in front for compensation. Chasing the rider in front caused the problem in the first place.

Final problem is that the mechanic is hanging onto Paul’s bike until the insurance is sorted.

Paul did the right thing by making sure he had full cover when riding a bike lent to him. The insurer is doing what insurers do, they look for reasons why they should not pay.

Ever been in this position - let us have the story, and the result.

Posted in insurance advice, legal rights | No Comments »

If you have been in an accident caused by someone else, and the consequences are not great, you may find yourself in a frustrating position.

We are talking about a case which the law calls a small claim. If there is not an injury worth £1,000, and the financial loss is below £5,000, you are in small claims territory. The classic situation is where your vehicle is damaged, and you have to pay for its repair, or you have paid your own excess. If your case falls into this category your legal costs cannot be recovered from the party at fault. All legal cover policies we know of cannot provide assistance in such a situation, simply because it is uneconomic to do so.

Another frustration is that your own insurer will not chase the insurer of the person to blame. So lets say you have fully comprehensive insurance, someone knocks over and damages your bike which is legally parked. You claim on your own policy, and have to pay the excess to the repairer. Most people think their own insurer will recover the cost from the party to blame. It might surprise you, but most insurers are not interested. Their job is to insure you, not represent you.

The insurance companies used to operate a knock for knock agreement. They recognised the swings and roundabouts of accidents and blame, they knew it was expensive to chase one another for repayment of their expense, so agreed to swallow their own losses. This agreement was kicked into touch some years ago, but some still operate along the same lines. So in the example above, where the accident is clearly the fault of someone else, both you and your insurance company have paid out, and your premium will go up next year.

So, what are your options?

If YourKey has arranged repair or hire you have a process within which your own expenses can be recovered. The benefit of credit hire in such a situation is that the paying insurer wants to keep the cost down, so will try to ensure repair is quick, and the hire period short. In this case the expense is recovered direct from the insurer of the person to blame, leaving your insurance record and wallet intact.

If we do not arrange hire or repair, then you have to recover the cost yourself, and here is how to do it.

Do not try to recover losses by telephone. The insurer will have a process, and telephoning does not short circuit the process, as you talk to a call centre rather than the person assigned the file. Write a letter, keep a copy, and although formal, you are much more likely to get a reply this way. Check the website of the insurer you are writing to for a fax number.

We recommend writing to the person you hold responsible, and their insurer at the same time. You will need to change the wording of the letter below to suit your situation. It is designed for writing to the person at fault only, but do send a copy for the insurance company.

To

Defendant (name and address of person you hold responsible)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Claimant’s full name (that’s you)

Claimant’s full address
I wish to claim damages in connection with a road traffic accident on (date) at (place of accident which must be sufficiently detailed to establish location)

Please confirm the identity of your insurers. Please note that the insurers will need to see this letter as soon as possible and it may affect your insurance cover and/or the conduct of any subsequent legal proceedings if you do not send this letter to them.

The circumstances of the accident are:-

(brief outline)

The reason I am alleging fault is:

(simple explanation e.g. pulled out from minor to major road without looking, driving too fast)

The accident was reported to the police by (myself or name). I will obtain a copy of the police report if you do not accept what I say and agree you are wholly at fault. I will let you have a copy of the same upon your undertaking to meet half the fee.

My vehicle (manufacturer, model, and registration) needs repair. The vehicle is currently at (and is incurring storage charges). I would like to give you the opportunity to inspect my vehicle and put forward your own proposal as to the work required and the method of repair. If you do not wish to take up this offer I will arrange for the repairs myself, and send the invoice to you for payment.

In the accident the following articles were damaged:

(detailed description, date of purchase and price - remember you are only entitled to cost of repair or value at time of accident).

A copy of this letter is attached for you to send to your insurers.

Finally I expect an acknowledgment of this letter within 21 days by yourself or your insurers.

Yours faithfully

We help many members with this type of claim. We have also advised on making a County Court claim which is your next step if the letter does not work. The process is not difficult, it does not require a solicitor, but it does require a little time and determination. Don’t be fobbed off, and use the letter rather than the phone so the insurer sees you know what you are doing.

There is encouragement from the Guardian consumer rights man who brought a small claim against Carphone Warehouse.

There is some very useful guidance on the Government website by clicking here.

Let us know how you get on, and share your experience to help other members.

Good luck.

Posted in insurance advice, key can help, legal rights, questions to yourkey | 1 Comment »

One of the most regular questions from members is this:

I have fully comprehensive insurance. I was involved in an accident which was the fault of another driver. My own insurance company paid for my repairs. When my policy was up for renewal my premium was increased. That is exactly the result we would expect, and we will explain.

By law you must have third party insurance on a vehicle. Third party cover is for the damage you do through your own fault. You might then add to the cover by including fire and theft, and beyond that fully comprehensive insurance.

Fully comprehensive is not really fully comprehensive. All you are doing is insuring the vehicle and specified possessions to the policy in case they are damaged, regardless of fault. If you damage your own vehicle the insurer will pay to repair it, and if written off you will be paid the market value of the vehicle at that time. That is the market value at the time of the accident, and not the amount you insured it for.

Now when the damage to your vehicle is the fault of someone else our advice is to use YourKey and go direct to that person’s insurance company. Claiming on your own policy is fine, but your own insurer has no incentive to chase the insurance company of the person at fault. Some do, and some don’t, but if they have paid out money, and got nothing back, your insurance will increase in price next year.

Our advice, where another driver caused the accident, is to recover direct from the person to blame, and their insurer. The benefit is that you leave your own insurance record intact. We will inform your own insurer, and certainly you must include it when you renew, but if they have not paid a claim your premium should not go up at renewal.

How to recover your losses.

If you need repairs or a replacement vehicle YourKey will handle that for you. If someone else is to blame we will recover the cost of these services direct from that person’s insurance company.

If you were injured in the accident the YourKey scheme will arrange hire and repair, plus legal action. We will arrange a solicitor for you to act under your legal expenses insurance policy we gave you. That means you do not have to worry about legal fees, and you will receive 100% of your compensation. So everything you need is dealt with in one case.

The difficulty is when you have no injury, and your losses are small. The YourKey policy is for personal injuries caused by accidents. Without injury, and where we do not arrange repair and a replacement vehicle, the position can be difficult. This is because with losses below £5,000, legal costs cannot be recovered. You would not use a solicitor in such a case, as the costs would wipe out the value of the case.

The answer, and one which has worked for other members, is this:

1.       Make sure you have details of the person who is at fault, their insurance company and policy number.

2.       Write to that person, and send a copy to their insurance company.

3.       If you do not have insurance details remind the other person they must supply their own name and address, and details of their insurance cover.

4.       Your letter sets out what happened, why you hold the other person to blame, and the losses you have incurred. Always write, the alternative being the frustration of the call centre. You will be bounced from one person to the next. There is no advantage to them in dealing with your claim quickly, as they have many other cases on the go, and you have to make yours a priority. There are exceptions, but the feedback from our members is frustration.

Posted in insurance advice, key can help, legal rights, questions to yourkey | No Comments »

Bob asked for our comment on police use of section 59 of Police Reform Act 2002.

The story goes like this. Last year a mate was riding in North Wales and was stopped for filtering and issued with a Sect 59. I suppose he did not  know exactly what this was, and perhaps being threatened with due care and attention he took the warning. He tells me that while slowly passing traffic on offside a van pulled out in front of him and caused him to ride over broken white line into opposite carriageway, he returned to his own side of the road immediately and caused no oncoming vehicle to swerve or alter course. However he was stopped by PC and done.

Last month he was pulled for apparently overtaking a vehicle within the confines of a pedestrian crossing. He was past the crossing at the time and did not believe that this constituted an offence. He was pulled by the police for this offence and having a sect 59 recorded against him he had his bike confiscated for committing a similar offence to the first.

The follow up was that he was informed where the bike was to be held, he made his way there and on paying the fees got his bike back same day.

It looks like rather than try to prove an offence against sect 3 where after reporting the defendant has the recourse to the courts, the police are pursuing this sect 59 where they need no proof and there is no recourse only to another police officer and we know where that would lead. Even ASBO’s need more proof than this.

Our thoughts to Bob’s question.

Section 3 is from the Road traffic Act 1988, and contains the offence of careless, and inconsiderate, driving:

“If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.”

This is usually called driving without due care, but do read the offence in full, as it can include driving through a puddle and soaking people in a bus queue.

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 is quite different as it deals with vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance.

“(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-

(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and

(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,

he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3) Those powers are-

(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;

(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;

(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;

(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).

(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-

(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and

(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the warning.

(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-

(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;

(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;

(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or

(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.

(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.

(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.

(9) In this section-

* “driving” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);

* “motor vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and

* “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.”

Sorry to set it out in full, but this looks like a real issue, so best we understand it.

The purpose of section 59 is not really to deal with a motoring offence, but to deal with a situation where use of the vehicle is “causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.” This is a requirement for the section to come into play. It allows the police to stop cars and bikes firing up and down residential roads, car parks, or off road. This is different to someone driving poorly and breaching section 3 above. The two sections crossover as for section 59 the driving or riding is supposed to contravene section 3, but the additional requirement is the alarm, distress or annoyance bit. That means a circumstance above and beyond the effect of driving “without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road…”

It is a pretty powerful law, particularly if a police force decide to use it aggressively. It is meant to swiftly stop a nasty situation from arising. The officer stops the vehicle, gives a warning, and if you carry on your vehicle is taken away. In your mate’s situation he might have been guilty of a section 3 offence, but we question if section 59 should have come into play. The warning is recorded and is “live” as the section comes into play if the officer knows the vehicle has been used before in a way which steps on the toes of this section. So, although the law was set up to deal with an immediate problem, the fact that an earlier warning has been given means that second time around you might lose your bike until you cough up for the charges in retaining it.

The law is very loosely drafted, and in your mate’s case is being used as a convenient way of managing road behaviour without having to prosecute the offence. Given the choice would your mate rather be prosecuted or be disciplined as if he is a road hooligan. Section 3 carries between 3 and 9 penalty points.

Posted in legal rights | 9 Comments »

Sorry, its outside the warranty period is something you hear too often.

Guarantee and warranty are terms often used incorrectly, and the time limits set can be an excuse not to help you. For some reason we all think a guarantee or warranty lasts just 12 months, and then we are on our own. Well some very annoyed and determined people have fought their way through this customer service wall.

Back in 1999 the European Parliament decided to set a common guarantee period for consumer goods, and set it at two years, yes 2 years. Some manufacturers give a longer period, and thank you very much to them, but the minimum is two years.

DIRECTIVE 1999/44/EC is the official title. It applies to consumer goods sold within Member States. Consumer goods includes everything bought by a consumer for private, that means non-business, use. The only exceptions seem to be gas, electricity and water when provided as a utility. Contain those items in some way and they become consumer goods.

Next time you are told you are out of warranty or guarantee just print off this Directive. Read it over the counter to your supplier until you bore them to death. Its not a great read, but a very useful one.

We do hear of members having warranty and guarantee problems, so let us know how you get on.

Posted in legal rights | 2 Comments »

“Legal expenses insurance is described by the FSA on its Money Made Clear site. This is what it says:

This is a way of protecting yourself against some of the costs involved when funding a legal dispute, which can be very expensive. The cover often provides for legal advice helplines, as well as the costs of appointing solicitors, expert witnesses and representation if the claim goes to court.

It can be bought with some insurance policies. For example, some companies selling motor and household contents insurance may include this cover as a free add-on, while others give you the option to attach the cover for an additional premium.

If you’ve decided you want this type of cover, check your motor or household contents insurance policies - you may already have this cover written into your insurance.

You should also check your insurance policy documents carefully to make sure you understand what you are covered for, the level of cover and any limitations that apply. For example, in most circumstances you may not be able to choose which lawyer is instructed - the insurance company usually appoints a lawyer to act for you.

Also this type of cover normally allows the insurer to withhold or withdraw funding if there isn’t a ‘reasonable prospect of success’, which is usually interpreted to mean that you have a 51% or better chance of winning or defending your case.”

The page can be viewed by clicking here.

Posted in insurance advice, legal rights | 1 Comment »

Don’t be fobbed off by what the manufacturer or the warranty company will and won’t do. You bought the bike from a dealer, and the dealer is the supplier in consumer protection law.You have to show that the supplier is in breach of contract to you for supplying a bike which was not “of satisfactory quality”, or did not remain so for a reasonable period of time. The Courts have held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so. The goods must be returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork, and the supplier must be sent a recorded delivery letter detailing why the bike has been rejected as not “of satisfactory quality”. Case law has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject and obtain a full refund, though lesser refunds, taking account of mileage covered, may be obtained outside that period. The price you pay compared to market value will be taken into account. So if you buy a cheap bike on trade terms you cannot reject it. If you buy a cheap bike on retail terms from a trader, you cannot reasonably expect it to be perfect.

The law is pretty tough on the supplier. If goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sale-supply/page8599.html

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.

All cases will be argued on their own facts. So although the Sale and Supply of Goods Act may appear to give you rights, your true rights are governed by case law and asserting them can be very expensive. Our suggestion is that you act quickly, confirm everything in writing, and do not let the clock tick while you are fobbed off with talk of manufacturers and warranties. Be sensible, but be firm. Remember that the standard is judged against what a reasonable person would expect, so be reasonable.

If the claim is a relatively simple one for a specific amount of money use www.moneyclaim.gov.uk run by HM Courts Services. If it is not a simple claim get expert advice.

Some useful links:

www.dti.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf
A traders guide: the law relating to the supply of goods and services

www.consumerdirect.gov.uk connects you to your local Trading Standards office for free advice by telephone or e mail on all the usual areas of commercial (not criminal) dispute encountered by motorists, and others.

Posted in legal rights | No Comments »

We were contacted by a member who took his bike in for service. His story goes like this:

” I took my bike in for its first service and they crashed it. What are my options.”

A very polite question in the circumstances, and our guess was an unlucky road test, but no explanation was given. Our advice:

“The answer to your question is that the dealer is responsible for making good the bike to its pre-accident condition and value. The dealer isalso responsible for reasonable expenses such as an alternative bike while the repairs are made, or the cost of alternative transport. The downside in terms of value is that a repaired bike which has been involved in an accident is likely to be worth less, as a buyer will look at it with a wary eye. The dealer should agree in writing to allow a trade in value which ignores the accodent. A dealer with an eye on its customers ought to make that offer without prompting.”

The repairs are complete and saisfactory, a bike was provided to keep our member on the road, and the service bill has been waived. We are waiting to hear about possible trade in value.

These things happen, and lets  hope all dealers do the right thing. We will let you know when we hear about the trade in value point.

Let us know if you have had a similar experience.

Posted in legal rights | 1 Comment »