Goods

First: what is actually wrong with the goods?

The statutory standards: quality, fitness and description

“Faulty” is shorthand. The legal question is whether the goods conformed to the contract. Satisfactory quality includes matters that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking account of description, price and other relevant circumstances, and can include fitness for common purposes, appearance/finish, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability.

If you made a particular purpose known and relied on the trader’s skill or judgment, fitness for that purpose can add another route. Description matters too: a product can work mechanically but still breach the contract because it is not the model, capacity, material or specification sold.

The retailer is responsible: manufacturer warranty is separate

Your statutory goods contract is normally with the trader that sold the item. A retailer can use a manufacturer or repair agent to investigate or perform a repair, but “contact the manufacturer” is not a complete answer to a statutory claim against the retailer.

A manufacturer warranty can add useful rights and sometimes be quicker, but expiry of the warranty does not itself decide whether the retailer breached the Consumer Rights Act. Keep warranty arguments separate from statutory rights.

The 30-day short-term right to reject

Where goods do not conform, the Consumer Rights Act provides a short-term right to reject, generally subject to a 30-day time limit. If properly exercised, the consumer can require a refund rather than being forced into repair. There are timing details, including where delivery/installation is required and where the consumer agrees to a repair during the short-term period.

State clearly that you are exercising the short-term right to reject because the goods do not conform. Do not frame it as a discretionary returns request. A retailer’s “28-day policy” cannot reduce a statutory right.

What happens if you agree to a repair during the first 30 days?

Agreeing to repair does not necessarily mean surrendering the short-term right permanently. The statutory time-limit rules pause in relevant circumstances while repair/replacement is attempted, and a minimum period can remain after the goods are returned. The exact dates matter, so record when you notified the fault, when the trader received the goods and when they were returned to you.

If preserving the short-term rejection right matters, say so in writing when agreeing to the repair.

Repair or replacement after the short-term rejection stage

Repair or replacement is commonly the first-tier remedy once the short-term right to reject is no longer being used. The trader may choose between them where one is impossible or disproportionate compared with the other, but the remedy must be provided at no cost, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

“Reasonable time” is contextual. A fridge, mobility product or essential phone can create much greater inconvenience than a rarely used item. Parts delays and manufacturer processes do not give the retailer an unlimited period.

How many repair attempts does the retailer get?

For goods, the Act contains an important “one repair or one replacement” gateway to the final remedies. If, after one repair or one replacement, the goods still do not conform, the consumer may be able to move to the final right to reject or a price reduction, subject to the statutory conditions.

Do not confuse this with the services regime, which does not contain the same one-attempt formulation. Also do not assume every diagnostic inspection is necessarily the statutory repair attempt; look at what the trader actually did and agreed.

The six-month presumption

If a fault becomes apparent within six months of delivery, the Act generally treats the goods as having failed to conform at delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or that presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or fault. This is a significant evidential advantage for consumers.

It is not a rule that every failure within six months guarantees a refund. The retailer can still show misuse, accidental damage or another cause, and the correct remedy stage still matters.

After six months: evidence becomes more important

After the six-month presumption no longer assists in the same way, the consumer may need to show on the balance of probabilities that the problem reflects an underlying breach present at supply rather than later damage or ordinary wear. The age, expected durability, price and nature of the item all matter.

An independent report can be useful for expensive or technical goods, but it should be proportionate. Ask the retailer what factual issue it disputes before paying for expert evidence. If a reasonable expert cost becomes necessary because of the breach, keep the invoice for any later consequential-loss argument.

Intermittent faults and “we cannot reproduce it”

Intermittent faults are a classic stalemate. One successful test by the retailer does not necessarily prove conformity. Record videos, error codes, dates, environmental conditions and frequency. For connected devices, save logs or screenshots before resets and software updates erase them.

Ask what tests were performed, for how long and under what conditions. If the retailer rejects the claim because “no fault found”, compare its test with the circumstances in which the fault actually occurs.

Accidental damage allegations

The Consumer Rights Act does not make a trader responsible for damage caused by the consumer. If the retailer says impact, water ingress, misuse or an unauthorised repair caused the problem, causation becomes the central issue.

Ask for the inspection findings, photographs, diagnostic codes and explanation linking the alleged damage to the reported symptom. Cosmetic marks do not automatically prove causation. Equally, do not conceal an accident: a credible chronology is more persuasive than an absolute denial contradicted by evidence.

Software and firmware problems in physical goods

Modern goods often depend on embedded software, firmware, apps or cloud services. A product can fail to meet the contractual standard because its digital element prevents it functioning as sold. The Consumer Rights Act also contains rules dealing with digital content supplied with goods.

Preserve the software/firmware version, update history, error messages and any manufacturer admission. If a mandatory update creates the problem, record when it was installed and whether rollback is possible. Do not let the dispute be dismissed merely because the physical hardware powers on.

Replacement goods fail again

A replacement does not necessarily mean the trader receives a fresh unlimited sequence of remedies. Keep the original purchase date and complete remedy history. If a replacement fails, identify whether the goods still fail to conform after the repair/replacement stage and whether the final remedies are now engaged.

Also check any warranty paperwork separately: a manufacturer may restart or extend a commercial warranty, but that is not the same question as the statutory remedy sequence.

Final right to reject and price reduction

Where the statutory conditions are met, for example after one repair or replacement and the goods still do not conform, or where repair/replacement is impossible or not provided within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience: the consumer can move to the final right to reject or an appropriate price reduction.

A price reduction can be useful where you want to keep goods with a residual defect. Final rejection unwinds the transaction, subject to rules on refunds and permitted deductions for use.

Deductions for use

A common misconception is that a retailer can always deduct a depreciation percentage from a refund. Under the final right to reject, the Act generally prevents a deduction for use where rejection occurs within the first six months, but motor vehicles are an express exception. After six months, a deduction for use can be relevant.

Any deduction should be tied to the statutory rule and actual use, not an invented restocking fee. Ask the retailer to show how it calculated the figure.

Refund method and timing

Where the right to reject is exercised, the Act contains rules governing the refund, including timing and the method of repayment. Refunds should generally be made using the same means of payment unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise, and the trader must not impose a fee for making the refund.

For mixed payment methods, ask for a clear breakdown. Store credit is not automatically an acceptable substitute for a statutory refund.

Retailer inspections: reasonable investigation is not an indefinite holding pattern

A retailer is entitled to investigate whether goods are faulty and what caused the problem. But inspection should serve a defined purpose and should not be used to postpone a remedy indefinitely. Ask for the expected timescale, who will inspect, what will be tested and what happens if the fault is confirmed.

Photograph the condition before handing goods over and obtain a receipt listing accessories and visible damage. For data-bearing devices, back up personal data where possible and understand that diagnostic work may erase it.

Consequential losses

The statutory remedies do not necessarily prevent a consumer claiming recoverable losses caused by the breach under ordinary contract principles. Examples might include reasonable diagnostic costs or damage directly caused by defective goods, depending on foreseeability, causation and mitigation.

Keep the claim proportionate and itemised. The aim is compensation for loss caused by breach, not a penalty against the retailer.

Common retailer responses, and the issue underneath

Faulty goods are different from a change-of-mind return

The Consumer Rights Act remedies apply because the goods fail to conform to the contract, not simply because you no longer want them. A shop can set its own policy for an in-store change-of-mind return, but it cannot replace statutory remedies for faulty, misdescribed or otherwise non-conforming goods with that policy.

Online purchases can also have separate cancellation rights. Keep the routes distinct: “I changed my mind within the distance-selling period” is different from “the product is faulty and I am exercising a Consumer Rights Act remedy”. This matters for return costs, deadlines, deductions and what the trader is allowed to require.

Sale, clearance and second-hand goods still have statutory standards

A reduced price does not erase consumer rights. However, satisfactory quality is judged in context, including description, price and other relevant circumstances. A five-year-old used laptop sold with clearly disclosed cosmetic wear is not judged as if it were factory new; an undisclosed failed charging circuit is a different matter.

If a specific defect was clearly drawn to your attention before the contract, you cannot normally rely on that same disclosed defect as the basis of saying the goods failed the statutory standard. Record the advert and any pre-sale disclosure so the dispute is about what was actually known and agreed.

Durability: “it worked on day one” is not the whole test

Satisfactory quality includes durability. Some goods are expected, taking account of price, description and circumstances, to remain usable for a reasonable period. A product can therefore breach the contract even though the fault appears after the first few weeks.

There is no universal statutory lifespan table saying that every television, washing machine or pair of shoes must last a fixed number of years. The evidence is contextual: purchase price, product type, intensity of normal use, manufacturer's descriptions, maintenance requirements, failure mode and expert evidence where proportionate.

Installation can make conforming goods non-conforming

Where installation forms part of the contract and the goods are installed incorrectly by the trader, or under the trader's responsibility, the consumer may have a goods remedy even if the physical product itself was manufactured correctly. This commonly matters with fitted appliances, kitchens, flooring, electronics and equipment that only fails because it was set up wrongly.

If you arranged an entirely separate installer yourself, responsibility may instead fall under the services contract with that installer. Identify who supplied the installation and what the sales contract promised before accepting “the product is fine, so speak to the fitter” as the final answer.

The burden of proof changes with the remedy and timing

The familiar six-month presumption is important but often oversimplified. For repair/replacement and the later remedies, a failure appearing within six months is generally presumed to have existed at delivery unless that is incompatible with the nature of the goods or fault, leaving the trader to show otherwise. After six months, the consumer normally needs stronger evidence that the goods failed to conform when supplied.

The short-term right to reject has its own evidential position, so do not present “six months means the retailer must always prove everything” as a universal rule. Whatever the stage, preserve evidence of the fault promptly. A clear video taken while the fault occurs can be more useful than weeks of argument about who bears the formal burden.

Repair or replacement: the consumer has a choice, but not an absolute one

After the short-term rejection stage, the consumer can normally require repair or replacement, but the trader can resist a chosen remedy if it is impossible or disproportionate compared with the alternative. A replacement of a discontinued bespoke item may genuinely be impossible; replacing an entire product for a trivial component failure may sometimes be disproportionate if a prompt repair is straightforward.

The trader still has to provide the available remedy within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience, and bear necessary costs such as labour, materials and postage. “Our policy is repair only” is not the same thing as analysing the statutory tests.

Returning rejected goods and collection costs

When goods are rejected, the consumer must make them available to the trader. The trader normally bears the reasonable cost of returning rejected goods, subject to the statutory rules. For a small parcel this may mean a prepaid label; for installed, bulky or unsafe goods, collection may be the only sensible arrangement.

Do not pay an expensive return cost without agreement if the trader should be arranging collection. Photograph the goods before handover and obtain proof of collection. If the retailer insists that you transport a large appliance or sofa back to a distant store, ask it to explain how that demand complies with its obligation to bear the reasonable return cost.

Mixed goods-and-services contracts

Many disputes involve both: a boiler plus installation, kitchen units plus fitting, tyres plus fitting, or a device plus setup. Do not let the trader classify the entire problem in whichever category gives it the easiest answer. A defective product may engage the goods provisions; bad installation may engage services provisions; sometimes both contribute.

Split the factual failures. If the boiler itself has a manufacturing fault, identify that. If pipework was installed negligently, identify the service failure. The remedy should address the actual breach rather than forcing the consumer through a manufacturer warranty for workmanship or a fitter complaint for a defective product.

Connected finance can change who else is liable

If the goods were bought with qualifying credit, the consumer may have an additional route against the creditor. Section 75 can apply to some credit-card and point-of-sale credit purchases; hire purchase and conditional sale have their own creditor/supplier responsibilities. The existence of finance does not remove the retailer's Consumer Rights Act obligations.

Where the retailer is insolvent or refuses to engage, identify the finance structure early rather than waiting until evidence disappears. Keep the credit agreement, invoice and payment records together with the fault evidence.

Unsafe goods: remedy and safety reporting are separate questions

If goods present a safety risk, stop using them where continued use could cause injury or damage. The immediate consumer remedy is only one part of the issue. Serious product-safety concerns can also justify reporting through the appropriate product-safety or Trading Standards route.

Preserve photographs, model/serial numbers, batch information, packaging and any recall notice. Do not deliberately recreate a dangerous fault merely to obtain better evidence.

What a good independent report should answer

After six months, or where accidental damage is alleged, an independent report can be decisive. Ask the expert to identify the fault, likely cause, whether it is consistent with normal use, whether it is likely to reflect an underlying defect or poor installation, and the reasonable remedy. A report that only says “item broken” adds little.

Choose someone with relevant competence and keep the fee proportionate to the value of the dispute. If you succeed, reasonable diagnostic or report costs may form part of the losses you ask the trader to consider, but recovery is not automatic in every case.

Evidence worth keeping