Used Car Dealers in the UK are calling for a review of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA). The Act was introduced to give consumers confidence when making purchases and to provide clear remedies when products fall short of expectations. From a consumer protection perspective, few would argue with that objective.
However, recent feedback from motor retailers suggests that many in the used car trade believe the legislation has become increasingly difficult to apply in practice. In a recent survey by Car Dealer Magazine, dealers identified the Consumer Rights Act as the single piece of legislation they would most like to see amended to better support the motor trade. Dealers highlighted the 30-day right to reject, distance selling rules and the way the legislation applies equally to vehicles of vastly different ages and conditions as particular concerns.
The Government has defended the legislation, stating that it helps consumers buy with confidence while providing clear protections when things go wrong. It has also said it continues to engage with businesses to understand how regulations operate in practice.
The Challenge of Applying One Set of Rules to Every Vehicle
Perhaps the biggest frustration expressed by many dealers is that the law makes little distinction between vehicles at opposite ends of the market.
A three-year-old family SUV with 30,000 miles and a full manufacturer service history is fundamentally different from a 13-year-old hatchback with 130,000 miles on the clock. Yet dealers argue that both are subject to largely the same legal framework when faults arise after sale.
Of course, the Consumer Rights Act does recognise factors such as age, mileage, price and description when assessing whether a vehicle is of satisfactory quality. However, many retailers believe the legislation still creates uncertainty because it relies heavily on interpretation when disputes occur.
For dealers operating at the value end of the market, this uncertainty can be particularly challenging. An older vehicle is naturally more likely to experience wear-related failures than a newer equivalent, even when properly prepared and honestly described at the point of sale.
If your business services, repairs or modifies vehicles then Plan Insurance Brokers can source a tailored Motor Trade insurance policy for you. If you have any more questions or would like a quote call our expert team, request a call back or fill in our new quick quote form.
The 30-Day Right to Reject
Another common criticism centres on the consumer’s short-term right to reject a vehicle within the first 30 days if it does not meet the required standards. From a consumer perspective, this offers reassurance when making what is often one of the largest purchases after buying a home.
From a dealer’s perspective, however, a motor vehicle is a complex mechanical product comprising thousands of components. Some retailers argue that faults can develop that neither party could reasonably have predicted at the point of sale, yet the dealer remains exposed to potentially significant costs if the vehicle is rejected.
Distance Selling Rules and Modern Motor Retailing
The growth of online vehicle sales has created another area of concern. Many dealers have expressed frustration with distance selling regulations, which can provide buyers with additional cancellation rights when purchasing remotely. Some argue that rules originally designed for more straightforward consumer purchases are not always well suited to used vehicles, where condition, history and individual buyer expectations can vary considerably.
As more consumers buy vehicles online, this remains an area where retailers continue to seek greater clarity.
Would a US-Style Lemon Law Offer a Better Solution?
Interestingly, several dealers have suggested that the answer may not be fewer consumer rights at all. Instead, they have called for the introduction of a US-style “lemon law” system. Under many American state schemes, warranty obligations are clearly defined according to factors such as mileage and vehicle age, with specific components and systems explicitly covered from the outset.
Proponents argue that such an approach could provide greater certainty for both parties. Consumers would know exactly what protection they have when purchasing a vehicle, while dealers would have clearer guidance on their responsibilities and potential liabilities. Rather than reducing consumer protection, supporters believe a well-designed lemon law could reduce disputes by setting expectations more clearly on day one.
Whether such a system would work in the UK is open to debate, but the principle of greater clarity is difficult to dismiss.
The Importance of Managing Risk
Whatever your view on the Consumer Rights Act, the reality is that the legislation is unlikely to disappear any time soon. For dealers, that makes robust preparation and risk management more important than ever. Areas worth reviewing include:
- Vehicle appraisal and preparation processes
- Accurate vehicle descriptions and advertising
- Pre-delivery inspection records
- Customer handover documentation
- Complaint handling procedures
- Warranty arrangements
- Motor trade insurance and legal expenses protection
Where disputes do arise, detailed records are often a dealer’s strongest defence.
Looking Ahead
The debate around the Consumer Rights Act highlights a genuine tension within the used car market. Consumers deserve meaningful protection when purchasing a vehicle. Equally, many dealers feel the current framework does not adequately reflect the realities of selling vehicles with different ages, mileages and maintenance histories.
The question may not be whether consumer protections should exist, but whether the current system provides enough certainty for both sellers and buyers. That is why calls for a more tailored approach, including discussion around a potential UK-style lemon law, are gaining traction across the motor trade. Whether policymakers are prepared to revisit the legislation remains to be seen, but it is clear that many retailers believe the conversation is long overdue.