CRA 2015 Burden of Proof: What Used Car Dealers Must

What Is the Burden of Proof Under CRA 2015?

The burden of proof under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 determines who must prove whether a fault existed at the point of sale. For the first six months after a used car sale, if a fault develops, the law presumes it was present when the customer bought the vehicle. The dealer must prove the fault was not present at sale, rather than the customer having to prove it was. This reversal of normal legal burden creates significant liability exposure for motor traders and fundamentally changes how you must approach vehicle preparation, documentation, and dispute resolution.

This presumption applies to any fault that appears within six months of purchase, regardless of when the customer first notices it. A gearbox that fails in month five is presumed to have been faulty when you sold the car. An electrical issue that emerges after three months is presumed to have existed at handover. The customer does not need to prove you sold them a defective vehicle. You need to prove you did not.

The practical impact is stark. Without robust evidence showing the vehicle was fault-free at sale, you will likely lose disputes, face rejection claims, and bear repair costs even when the fault genuinely developed after sale through customer use or external factors.

How the Six-Month Presumption Changes Dealer Liability

Before CRA 2015, customers claiming a fault existed at sale bore the burden of proving it. They needed expert evidence, technical reports, or clear documentation showing the defect was present when they bought the vehicle. Most customers could not meet this burden, and many legitimate claims failed simply because proving causation was too difficult or expensive.

The six-month presumption flips this dynamic entirely. Now, when a fault appears within six months, the law assumes it was your fault. The customer simply needs to demonstrate that a fault exists and that it appeared within the six-month window. They do not need to prove causation, timing, or your negligence. The presumption does that work for them.

Your only defence is rebutting the presumption with evidence. You must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the fault was not present at sale. This might mean proving the fault resulted from customer misuse, an accident after purchase, lack of maintenance, or external damage. Without contemporaneous evidence from the point of sale, this is exceptionally difficult.

The burden shift applies to all aspects of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, and description accuracy. A vehicle that develops rust, mechanical failure, electrical faults, or performance issues within six months is presumed to have been defective when sold unless you can prove otherwise.

What Counts as Sufficient Evidence to Rebut the Presumption

Rebutting the burden of proof requires contemporaneous, objective evidence that the specific fault complained of was not present when you sold the vehicle. Generic statements, post-hoc assessments, or assumptions about normal wear patterns are insufficient. You need documentation created at or before the point of sale that directly addresses the fault in question.

Pre-delivery inspection reports are your primary defence tool. A detailed PDI report documenting the condition of specific components, systems, and areas provides evidence of their state at handover. If a customer claims the brakes were defective and your PDI shows brake pad measurements, disc condition, and fluid quality all within specification, you have rebuttal evidence. If your PDI is a generic tick-box form with no measurements or observations, you have nothing.

Professional vehicle intelligence reports strengthen your position by documenting the vehicle's history and provenance at purchase. MOT history showing recent passes with no advisories in the relevant area, service records confirming recent maintenance, and mileage verification all support your case that the vehicle was in satisfactory condition. These records do not directly rebut specific fault claims, but they establish a pattern of proper maintenance and condition that makes sudden catastrophic failure less plausible.

Photographic and video evidence captured during preparation and handover can be decisive. Time-stamped images of bodywork, interior condition, dashboard displays showing no warning lights, and video of test drives demonstrating proper operation create a contemporaneous record that is difficult to dispute. The key is capturing this evidence before the customer takes possession.

Expert evidence may be necessary for complex mechanical or electrical faults. An independent engineer's report explaining why a particular failure could not have been present at sale, or demonstrating that the fault resulted from post-sale events, can rebut the presumption. However, this is expensive, time-consuming, and often required only because you lack adequate pre-sale documentation.

Common Scenarios Where the Burden of Proof Creates Dealer Liability

Certain fault patterns consistently trigger burden of proof disputes. Understanding these scenarios helps you focus your documentation and preparation efforts on the highest-risk areas.

Mechanical failures within the first six months are the most common burden of proof claims. Gearbox issues, engine problems, turbocharger failures, and suspension faults all attract the presumption. Customers argue these components were already failing when they bought the vehicle, and wear simply accelerated post-sale. Without detailed pre-sale mechanical inspection records, you will struggle to prove the fault developed after handover. Comprehensive vehicle provenance checks that include service history and previous MOT advisories help establish the mechanical baseline.

Electrical and electronic faults are particularly problematic because intermittent issues may not appear during your preparation. A customer experiencing repeated electrical gremlins, warning lights, or infotainment failures will claim these were present but not disclosed. Your defence requires evidence that you tested these systems and they functioned correctly at sale. Dashboard photographs showing no warning lights and test drive videos demonstrating system operation provide this evidence.

Bodywork and corrosion claims often centre on whether rust or paint defects were present but concealed at sale. Customers discovering rust under trim, behind panels, or in structural areas will argue you knew or should have known about the condition. Detailed photographic records of bodywork condition, including underside images and areas prone to corrosion, protect against these claims. For vehicles where corrosion is a known risk, specific inspection and documentation of vulnerable areas is essential.

Misdescription claims carry the burden of proof throughout the six-month period. If a customer discovers the vehicle lacks equipment you described or has different specifications than advertised, they can claim breach of contract. Factory build sheet verification before listing vehicles prevents these disputes by ensuring your descriptions match actual fitted equipment.

The Relationship Between Burden of Proof and Rejection Rights

The burden of proof directly impacts how rejection claims unfold during the first 30 days after sale. During this short-term rejection period, customers have an almost unconditional right to reject for any breach of the satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, or description requirements. The burden of proof presumption applies immediately, meaning any fault appearing in the first 30 days is presumed to have existed at sale.

This combination creates maximum dealer exposure. Not only must you prove the fault was not present at sale, but the customer also has an automatic right to full refund if you cannot rebut the presumption. The evidential burden and the remedy available to the customer both favour the consumer during this critical first month.

Between 30 days and six months, customers must give you one opportunity to repair before they can reject. However, the burden of proof still applies. If a fault appears in month four and you cannot prove it developed post-sale, you must repair it. If the repair fails or you cannot complete it within reasonable time, the customer can then reject. The burden of proof determines whether you have any liability at all; the rejection rights timeline determines what remedy the customer can claim.

After six months, the burden shifts back to the customer. They must prove the fault existed at sale, which returns you to a more defensible position. However, the first six months represent your highest-risk period, and this is where your documentation and preparation standards matter most.

How to Document Vehicle Condition to Protect Against Burden of Proof Claims

Protecting your business requires systematic documentation practices applied to every vehicle before sale. Ad-hoc or selective record-keeping leaves gaps that undermine your ability to rebut presumptions when disputes arise.

Implement structured pre-delivery inspection protocols that record specific measurements, observations, and test results for all major systems and components. Brake pad thickness, tyre tread depth, fluid levels and condition, battery health, warning light status, and operational tests of all electrical systems should be documented with actual values, not just pass/fail ticks. The more specific your records, the stronger your rebuttal evidence.

Capture time-stamped photographic evidence as standard practice. Exterior images from multiple angles, interior condition shots, dashboard displays, engine bay condition, and underside views create a visual record of the vehicle's state at handover. Modern smartphones embed date and time metadata in images, providing authentication. Store these images systematically with each vehicle's sale records.

Obtain and retain comprehensive vehicle intelligence reports for every vehicle you sell. Professional vehicle checks that combine MOT history, service records, mileage verification, and specification data create an evidence trail showing the vehicle's condition and history. These reports support your position that you conducted proper due diligence and sold a vehicle with known, documented history.

Document any known faults, repairs, or reconditioning work completed before sale. Transparency about pre-existing issues and the work you performed to address them demonstrates good faith and provides evidence that you disclosed material information. Customers cannot claim surprise about issues you documented and disclosed.

Create detailed handover records signed by the customer acknowledging the vehicle's condition. While customer signatures do not override statutory rights, they do provide evidence of what was disclosed and discussed at the point of sale. Include specific condition notes, known characteristics of the vehicle, and confirmation that the customer had opportunity to inspect and test drive.

The Role of Vehicle History and Provenance in Burden of Proof Disputes

Comprehensive vehicle provenance documentation supports your burden of proof defence by establishing the vehicle's condition trajectory before you acquired it. A vehicle with complete service history, consistent MOT passes, and verified mileage is objectively less likely to have hidden defects than one with gaps, advisories, or unclear provenance.

Digital service history retrieved from manufacturer databases provides independent, tamper-proof evidence of maintenance and condition. When a customer claims a fault existed at sale, service records showing recent dealer inspections, component replacements, or system checks in the relevant area support your position that the vehicle was properly maintained and unlikely to have had the claimed defect. Verifying digital service history before purchase gives you this evidential foundation.

MOT history analysis reveals patterns of wear, advisories, and failures that predict future issues. A vehicle with a history of clean MOT passes and no advisories in areas now claimed to be defective supports your argument that the fault developed post-sale. Conversely, MOT advisories for the same component or system that later fails weakens your position, which is why understanding MOT history before purchase is critical for risk assessment.

Mileage verification through service records, MOT history, and previous keeper documentation helps rebut claims that excessive wear or mechanical failure resulted from undisclosed high mileage. Consistent, verified mileage records demonstrate transparency and support your position that the vehicle's condition matched its documented use.

Finance and insurance history checks protect against claims that accident damage or previous insurance events caused the current fault. Customers sometimes discover previous damage and argue you concealed material history. Clean finance and insurance records, properly documented at purchase, defend against these allegations.

What Happens When You Cannot Rebut the Presumption

When you cannot provide sufficient evidence to rebut the burden of proof presumption, the law treats the fault as having existed at sale. This triggers your obligations under the Consumer Rights Act to provide a remedy, and the customer's rights depend on the timing and nature of the fault.

If the fault appears within the first 30 days and you cannot rebut the presumption, the customer has the right to reject the vehicle and claim a full refund. You cannot insist on repair or replacement. The short-term rejection right is absolute when a breach is established, and the burden of proof presumption establishes that breach unless you rebut it.

Between 30 days and six months, you have one opportunity to repair the fault. However, if you cannot rebut the presumption, you must accept that the fault is your responsibility and complete the repair at your cost. If the repair fails, cannot be completed within reasonable time, or causes significant inconvenience, the customer can then reject or claim a price reduction.

The financial exposure extends beyond the immediate repair or refund. Customers may claim consequential losses, including recovery costs, alternative transport, and losses flowing from the breach. While these claims must be reasonable and foreseeable, failing to rebut the burden of proof presumption opens the door to broader liability.

Reputation damage compounds the financial cost. Customers who successfully claim under the burden of proof presumption often share their experience through reviews, social media, and word-of-mouth. A pattern of disputes where you cannot rebut presumptions signals poor preparation standards and inadequate due diligence, damaging your market position.

How AutoProv Supports Burden of Proof Defence Strategies

AutoProv's vehicle intelligence platform provides the documentation and evidence foundation necessary to rebut burden of proof presumptions. By aggregating data from 10 trusted UK sources including DVLA, DVSA, MOT history, manufacturer databases, and insurance records, the platform creates comprehensive provenance records that support your defence position.

Vehicle provenance reports combine HPI checks, finance verification, MOT history, service records, and specification data in a single document created at the point of purchase. This contemporaneous record establishes the vehicle's known history and condition baseline, providing objective evidence that you conducted proper due diligence and understood the vehicle's background before sale.

Service history checks retrieve digital maintenance records directly from manufacturer databases, documenting dealer visits, work completed, and components replaced. When customers claim faults existed at sale, these records provide independent evidence of the vehicle's maintenance state and recent inspections that would have identified significant defects.

Factory build sheet verification ensures your vehicle descriptions match actual fitted equipment, eliminating misdescription claims that carry the burden of proof throughout the six-month period. Accurate specification documentation prevents disputes about missing features or incorrect descriptions.

The platform's free compliance tools, including PDI report templates and dispute response builders, help you create and maintain the documentation necessary to rebut presumptions. Structured PDI templates ensure you capture specific, measurable condition data rather than generic assessments. The dispute response builder generates legally-referenced responses when burden of proof claims arise, helping you articulate your defence position clearly and professionally.

Experian indemnity protection up to £50,000 provides financial backstop for undisclosed finance or stolen vehicle issues that might otherwise trigger burden of proof disputes. While indemnity does not cover mechanical faults, it eliminates one category of risk where hidden history could create liability.

Practical Steps for Managing Burden of Proof Risk

Managing burden of proof exposure requires integrating documentation and evidence-gathering into your standard operating procedures. Treating these practices as optional or applying them selectively leaves gaps that undermine your defence position when disputes arise.

Establish minimum documentation standards for every vehicle before listing or sale. At minimum, obtain a comprehensive vehicle intelligence report, complete a detailed PDI with specific measurements, capture photographic evidence of condition, and verify service history where available. Make these requirements non-negotiable regardless of vehicle value or source.

Train your preparation and sales teams on the burden of proof and its implications. Staff must understand that generic inspections and superficial checks create liability exposure. The person preparing vehicles should know what evidence you need to defend disputes, and the person selling should know what documentation to provide customers and retain for your records.

Create systematic storage and retrieval systems for vehicle documentation. When a dispute arises months after sale, you need immediate access to the PDI report, photographs, vehicle intelligence report, and handover records. Digital storage with proper indexing and backup ensures you can locate evidence quickly when needed.

Review and update your documentation practices based on dispute patterns. If you face repeated claims about specific fault types or vehicle categories, enhance your inspection and documentation protocols for those areas. Learn from disputes to strengthen your processes and reduce future exposure.

Consider the burden of proof when pricing and selecting stock. Vehicles with incomplete history, missing service records, or known risk factors carry higher burden of proof exposure. Either avoid these vehicles, price them to reflect the additional risk, or invest in enhanced preparation and documentation to mitigate the exposure.

FAQs

Does the burden of proof apply to private sales or only dealer sales?

The CRA 2015 burden of proof presumption applies only to sales by traders to consumers. Private sales between individuals are governed by different rules under the Consumer Rights Act and do not include the six-month burden of proof reversal. However, if you are a motor trader selling to a consumer, the presumption applies regardless of whether you are a franchised dealer, independent trader, or occasional seller. The key factor is whether you are selling in the course of business.

Can I contract out of the burden of proof with terms and conditions?

No. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 burden of proof is a statutory protection that cannot be excluded or limited by contract terms. Any clause in your terms and conditions attempting to shift the burden back to the customer or exclude the six-month presumption is void and unenforceable. The Act explicitly prevents traders from contracting out of consumer rights, and attempting to do so may constitute a breach of consumer protection regulations.

What happens if a customer damages the vehicle after purchase and then claims it was faulty at sale?

If you can prove the damage occurred post-sale through customer action, you rebut the burden of proof presumption. Evidence might include accident reports, insurance claims, photographs showing the damage was not present at handover, or expert evidence demonstrating the fault resulted from specific post-sale events. The burden remains on you to prove causation, but clear evidence of intervening customer conduct or external events can successfully rebut the presumption. This is why contemporaneous photographic evidence at handover is so valuable.

Does the burden of proof apply to wear and tear items like tyres and brake pads?

The burden of proof applies to all aspects of satisfactory quality, but the assessment must account for the vehicle's age, mileage, and price. Wear items are expected to have finite life, and what constitutes satisfactory quality for a high-mileage older vehicle differs from a nearly-new car. If brake pads fail within six months on a vehicle sold with 80,000 miles, the question is whether their condition at sale was satisfactory for that vehicle. Your PDI documentation showing actual pad thickness at sale provides the evidence to demonstrate they were within acceptable limits, and normal wear caused the subsequent replacement need.

How does the burden of proof interact with manufacturer warranties?

Manufacturer warranties are separate from your CRA 2015 obligations and do not affect the burden of proof. If a fault appears within six months and is covered by manufacturer warranty, the customer may claim under the warranty rather than against you. However, they retain the right to pursue you under CRA 2015 if they prefer, and the burden of proof still applies. A valid warranty claim does not rebut the presumption that the fault existed at sale; it simply provides an alternative remedy route. Your CRA obligations exist independently of any warranty coverage.