Page 4278 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of, and to fix, the faults in their motor vehicles. When something does go wrong, consumers want to be able to resolve the problems quickly to minimise the inconvenience.
This pressure is often amplified for certain members of our community, such as those who are living with a disability, those who are on a low income or those who are simply absolutely reliant on their vehicle to meet their daily demands. When consumers can make purchases confidently, this stimulates competition. This can lower prices and improve service and innovation. For a consumer to be confident, they have to be able to make informed purchasing decisions and also to access remedies when they suffer detriment from defective goods or services.
In the ACT and across Australia these important consumer protections are primarily contained in the Australian Consumer Law, known as the ACL. The ACL was decided on by governments at the territory, state and federal levels. It is the same across Australia. Under the ACL, goods and services purchased from 2011 onwards come with automatic consumer guarantees. These guarantees provide that goods will be of acceptable quality, fit for any particular purpose and match the demonstration model.
Motor vehicles purchased prior to 2011 were covered by statutory rights, including that they be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose. These rights were conferred by the then Trade Practices Act 1974. If a motor vehicle does not meet a consumer guarantee, a consumer may have recourse against the dealer and manufacturer. The remedy will depend on whether the failure is considered major or minor.
If there is a major problem with a motor vehicle such that the consumer would not have bought it if they had known about the problem, the consumer can choose from a refund or replacement or to keep the motor vehicle but receive compensation for the decline in its value. If there is a minor problem with a motor vehicle, the dealer can choose to give the consumer a free repair instead of a replacement or refund. The free repair must be undertaken within a reasonable time.
One of the important facts to note about this law is that a series of minor faults can be considered a major fault. This should cover the issue of so-called lemons, where a vehicle or a product suffers multiple minor faults and the consumer wishes to receive a replacement product or refund instead of repeatedly having minor faults repaired. They were the issues raised in Ms Cheyne’s motion and in the information she has provided.
I would like to explore whether it is practically possible for consumers to get a suitable remedy in a situation where there are multiple minor faults. It no doubt requires some effort by the customer. They are likely at a power and information disadvantage with complex matters like vehicles. It may take some effort and potentially action in a tribunal for the customer to get this remedy. However, this is where the ACT’s Fair Trading office can assist consumers, as part of their role is to receive these complaints and to assist to conciliate a suitable outcome for the consumer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video