Understanding the Six-Month Burden of Proof Under CRA 2015Understanding the Six-Month Burden of Proof Under CRA 2015

By CiteFlow

What Is the Six-Month Burden of Proof Under CRA 2015?

The six-month burden of proof under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is a presumption period during which any fault that becomes apparent is assumed to have existed at the point of sale, unless you as the dealer can prove otherwise. For the first six months after delivery, the legal burden sits with you to demonstrate that a defect was not present when the customer took possession. This reversal of normal evidential responsibility represents one of the most significant liability shifts in UK consumer law and fundamentally changes how dealers must approach stock preparation, documentation, and dispute management.

This presumption applies to all consumer sales of goods, including used vehicles. When a customer reports a fault within six months, they do not need to prove the vehicle was faulty when sold. Instead, you must prove it was not, or accept liability for repair, replacement, or refund under your CRA 2015 obligations.

How the Presumption Period Changes Dealer Liability

Before CRA 2015, customers bore the burden of proving a fault existed at sale from day one. The 2015 Act introduced a six-month grace period that shifts this evidential burden onto traders. During months one through six, if a customer discovers a fault, the law presumes it was present or developing when you handed over the keys.

This presumption is rebuttable, not absolute. You can challenge it with evidence. However, the quality and type of evidence required is substantial. Vague assertions or general statements about the vehicle's condition carry no weight. You need specific, contemporaneous documentation that demonstrates the vehicle was fault-free at the point of sale.

The practical effect is stark: a gearbox failure at five months is presumed to have been faulty or developing when sold. A suspension component that breaks at four months is presumed defective at handover. The customer does not need a forensic engineer's report. They simply need to show the fault exists and that it appeared within six months.

What Types of Faults Trigger the Presumption

The presumption applies to faults that mean the vehicle does not meet the satisfactory quality standards required under CRA 2015. This includes defects affecting safety, durability, appearance, and fitness for purpose. Mechanical failures, electrical faults, structural issues, and undisclosed accident damage all fall within scope.

Wear and tear items present a grey area. A clutch that fails at five months on a high-mileage vehicle may not trigger the presumption if you can demonstrate it was within acceptable wear parameters at sale. However, premature failure of components that should reasonably last longer than six months will engage the presumption regardless of mileage.

The presumption does not apply to damage clearly caused after sale. If a customer curbs an alloy wheel or drives through flood water, you are not liable simply because it happens within six months. The key distinction is whether the fault relates to the condition of the vehicle as sold or to subsequent use and treatment.

Evidence Required to Rebut the Presumption

Rebutting the presumption demands contemporaneous, specific evidence created at or before the point of sale. Generic statements are worthless. You need documentation that directly addresses the component or system now in dispute.

A comprehensive pre-delivery inspection report is your primary defence. This must record the specific condition of relevant systems, not just tick boxes. If a customer claims gearbox failure at four months, a PDI report stating 'gearbox tested, no faults detected, smooth operation across all gears' carries weight. A tick next to 'transmission OK' does not.

OEM build sheets help establish what was fitted as standard and can demonstrate that certain high-wear components were factory-original, supporting arguments about reasonable durability expectations. MOT history and mileage records show the vehicle's usage pattern and can evidence that certain components were functioning correctly at recent official inspections.

Photographic and video evidence dated to the handover period can document visible condition. However, most mechanical and electrical faults are not visible externally, limiting the utility of photographs alone.

Expert evidence may be required in complex disputes. An independent engineer's report examining the failed component and providing an opinion on when the fault originated can rebut the presumption, but this is expensive and typically reserved for high-value disputes.

The Relationship Between the Six-Month Rule and Rejection Rights

The six-month presumption period operates alongside but separately from the rejection rights timeline under CRA 2015. Customers have different rejection rights depending on when they discover a fault, but the burden of proof question affects all periods.

During the first 30 days, customers have a short-term right to reject for any breach of the satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, or description requirements. The burden of proof is already on you during this period, so the six-month presumption adds no additional liability.

Between 30 days and six months, customers must first give you one opportunity to repair or replace. If that attempt fails, rejection rights may apply. The six-month presumption is critical here because it determines whether the customer must prove the fault existed at sale (after six months) or you must prove it did not (within six months).

After six months, the burden shifts back to the customer. They must now prove the vehicle was faulty when sold. This is often difficult or impossible, particularly for mechanical faults with no clear timeline. The evidential shift at the six-month mark dramatically reduces successful customer claims.

Common Misconceptions About the Six-Month Rule

Many dealers misunderstand the scope and operation of the six-month presumption. The most common misconception is that it creates automatic liability for any fault within six months. It does not. The presumption is rebuttable with appropriate evidence.

Some dealers believe the six-month rule only applies to specific components or systems. It applies to all aspects of satisfactory quality. Any fault that renders the vehicle unsatisfactory can trigger the presumption, from major mechanical failure to minor electrical glitches, provided the fault is significant enough to breach CRA 2015 standards.

Another misconception is that selling a vehicle 'sold as seen' or 'trade sale' to a consumer exempts you from the six-month rule. It does not. Consumer sales cannot contract out of CRA 2015 protections. Such disclaimers are void and unenforceable against consumers.

Some dealers assume that because a vehicle passed an MOT shortly before sale, they are protected. An MOT is a minimum safety standard at a point in time. It does not certify satisfactory quality for sale purposes and provides limited protection against the six-month presumption for non-MOT items or items that can deteriorate rapidly.

Practical Steps to Protect Your Dealership

Protecting yourself against six-month presumption claims requires systematic documentation and quality control at the point of sale. Verbal assurances and memory are worthless in dispute resolution.

Implement detailed PDI processes that record specific findings for each vehicle system. Generic checklists are insufficient. Record actual observations: brake pad thickness measurements, tyre tread depths, fluid conditions, warning light status, and functional tests of all major systems. Date and sign these reports, and retain them digitally for at least six years.

Use provenance reports that combine MOT history, mileage verification, and service records to establish the vehicle's history and support durability arguments. A vehicle with full service history and consistent MOT passes provides stronger evidence of proper maintenance and reasonable condition than one with gaps and advisories.

Photograph or video-record vehicle condition at handover, focusing on areas commonly disputed: panel gaps, paint condition, interior wear, dashboard warning lights, and fluid levels. Time-stamped media created at handover provides contemporaneous evidence.

Provide customers with comprehensive handover documentation that includes the PDI report, provenance check, and any known issues or characteristics. A customer who signs acknowledgment of a noisy timing chain cannot later claim it as a hidden fault within six months.

Retain all documentation. The six-month period can extend to years if a customer takes time to pursue a claim. Digital storage is essential for long-term retention and rapid retrieval during disputes.

How AutoProv Supports Six-Month Presumption Defence

Defending against six-month presumption claims requires evidence that the vehicle's condition and history were properly verified before sale. AutoProv's provenance reports provide dated, third-party documentation of vehicle history, mileage verification, and specification checks that support your defence.

MOT history analysis shows the vehicle's condition at official inspections leading up to sale. If a component that later fails showed no advisories or failures at recent MOT tests, this supports an argument that the fault developed post-sale. Mileage progression records from MOT data help identify unusual usage patterns that might explain premature component failure.

Service history verification from manufacturer databases provides independent confirmation of maintenance history, supporting arguments about reasonable durability and proper care. A vehicle with verified dealer servicing presents stronger evidence of satisfactory condition than one with no service records.

Factory build sheet data confirms original specifications and fitted equipment, helping you demonstrate that certain components were OEM-standard and should meet reasonable durability expectations. This is particularly valuable when customers claim that a component is not of satisfactory quality when it may simply be wear-appropriate for the vehicle's age and mileage.

The compliance tools within AutoProv, including the PDI report generator and dispute response builder, help you create and organise the contemporaneous documentation required to rebut the presumption. These tools ensure consistent, detailed record-keeping across your stock.

The Six-Month Mark and Shifting Liability

The moment a sale reaches six months and one day, the evidential burden shifts back to the customer. This transition is absolute and immediate. A customer reporting a fault on day 179 benefits from the presumption. The same fault reported on day 184 requires the customer to prove it existed at sale.

This shift dramatically reduces successful claims. Proving a mechanical fault existed six months earlier is difficult without expert evidence, and most customers will not invest in engineering reports for moderate-value disputes. The practical effect is that claims drop significantly after the six-month mark.

However, the shift in burden does not eliminate your obligations. If a customer can prove a fault existed at sale, even after six months, you remain liable under CRA 2015 for up to six years (five years in Scotland). The burden of proof shift affects evidential requirements, not the duration of your legal obligations.

Some faults are easier to prove retrospectively than others. Undisclosed accident damage, for example, can be proven at any time through inspection. Mileage discrepancies can be established through MOT records regardless of when discovered. The six-month presumption primarily affects faults where timing of origin is disputed.

Handling Disputes When the Presumption Applies

When a customer raises a fault within six months, your response strategy depends on the strength of your evidence and the nature of the fault. Automatic acceptance of liability is unnecessary, but so is blanket denial without investigation.

First, establish the facts. What is the specific fault? When did it first appear? Has the vehicle been serviced or repaired since sale? What is the customer's usage pattern and mileage since purchase? Gather this information before committing to any position.

Review your point-of-sale documentation. Does your PDI report address the system now in dispute? Do MOT records show recent passes with no advisories in the relevant area? Is there service history showing recent attention to the component? Strong contemporaneous evidence may allow you to rebut the presumption.

If evidence is weak or the fault is clearly related to vehicle condition at sale, consider your repair obligations under CRA 2015. One attempt at repair is typically required before rejection rights arise. A successful repair may resolve the dispute at lower cost than fighting the presumption.

If you believe the fault arose post-sale due to misuse, accident damage, or lack of maintenance, you need evidence. A customer's admission of impact damage or photographs of accident damage can defeat a claim regardless of the presumption period. However, vague assertions about 'customer misuse' without supporting evidence will not rebut the presumption.

Document all communications and decisions. If a dispute escalates to ADR or court, you will need a clear record of your investigation, evidence review, and reasoning for any decisions to accept or challenge liability.

FAQs

Does the six-month presumption apply to commercial vehicle sales?

No, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and its six-month presumption apply only to consumer sales, defined as sales to individuals acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside their trade, business, craft, or profession. Sales to limited companies, sole traders purchasing for business use, or other dealers are business-to-business transactions governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which has different rules and no equivalent presumption period.

Can I contract out of the six-month presumption with terms and conditions?

No, you cannot exclude or limit your CRA 2015 obligations through contract terms when selling to consumers. Section 31 of the Act makes any term that seeks to exclude or restrict your liability for breach of the satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, or description requirements void and unenforceable. This includes attempts to modify the burden of proof or presumption period. 'Sold as seen' clauses are similarly void in consumer sales.

What happens if a fault appears at five months but the customer does not report it until eight months?

The presumption applies based on when the fault became apparent, not when the customer chose to report it. If the customer can demonstrate the fault was present and discoverable at five months, the presumption applies even if they delayed reporting. However, if the fault genuinely did not become apparent until after six months, the burden sits with the customer to prove it existed at sale. The timing question becomes evidential: when did the fault actually arise versus when was it discovered.

Does a valid MOT certificate at point of sale protect me from the six-month presumption?

An MOT certificate provides limited protection. It confirms the vehicle met minimum roadworthiness standards on the test date for the items covered by the MOT inspection. It does not certify satisfactory quality for sale purposes, and many vehicle systems and components are not tested during MOT. If a fault relates to an MOT-tested item and the vehicle passed shortly before sale, this provides some evidence the component was functional at that point. However, it does not rebut the presumption for non-MOT items or for items that can deteriorate rapidly between test and sale.

How does the presumption work for high-mileage or older vehicles where some wear is expected?

The presumption still applies, but your defence is stronger. Satisfactory quality is assessed against what a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory given the vehicle's age, mileage, and price. A component failure that would be unacceptable on a low-mileage vehicle may be within normal wear expectations for a high-mileage example. Your PDI documentation should note the vehicle's condition relative to age and mileage expectations, and your evidence should demonstrate the fault is consistent with normal wear rather than a defect present at sale. The relationship between age and mileage expectations becomes critical in these disputes.