You buy a new laptop on Monday. By Friday, it freezes whenever you open more than one program. The shop offers to repair it, but you would rather have your money back. A week later, the answer may be different from the one you would receive after two months.
That timing matters under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which has governed contracts between consumers and businesses in the UK since 1 October 2015. The law does not treat every disappointing purchase in the same way. It separates faulty goods from poorly delivered services and defective digital content, then attaches different remedies to each.
The practical question is rarely just, “Is this faulty?” It is also, “How long have I had it, what went wrong, and what remedy has already been attempted?”
The first 30 days create the strongest exit route
Goods sold to consumers must meet the standards a reasonable person would expect. They should be of satisfactory quality, fit for their stated purpose, and match their description. A television that arrives with a cracked screen, a coat whose zip fails almost immediately, or a kitchen appliance that cannot perform the function advertised may all fall short of those requirements.
If the defect appears within 30 days of receiving the goods, the consumer can usually reject them and request a full refund. This is known as the short-term right to reject. The 30-day period is not a vague estimate: it is a firm window that makes the calendar surprisingly important in a dispute.
Keep the receipt, order confirmation, delivery record, and any messages exchanged with the seller. A photograph or short video can help show what happened, particularly when the problem is intermittent. There is no prize for producing a perfectly worded legal argument; a clear description of the fault and the date it appeared is generally more useful.
The right belongs against the business that sold the goods, not simply against the manufacturer. That distinction matters when a retailer tries to send a customer elsewhere. A manufacturer’s warranty may offer an additional route, but it does not erase the consumer’s statutory rights against the seller.
After day 30, repair and replacement move to the front
Once the first 30 days have passed, the usual remedy changes. The seller must offer a repair or a replacement rather than an immediate full refund. The choice between those two options is not entirely automatic, because a particular remedy may be impossible or disproportionate in the circumstances.
A repair should solve the original problem, not merely disguise it for a short period. A replacement should be of the same contractual standard. The business should not use the process to leave the consumer paying extra for a product that was supposed to work properly in the first place.
The law also recognises that a failed remedy cannot be repeated forever. If a repair or replacement does not resolve the problem, the consumer may be entitled to a price reduction or to reject the goods for a final refund. The same can apply where the business cannot provide a remedy within a reasonable time or without causing significant inconvenience.
There is one practical complication: a final rejection may involve a deduction for the use the consumer has had from the goods, particularly where more than six months have passed. The exact calculation can become contentious. A consumer who has used a faulty car for a substantial period may not be treated in exactly the same way as someone returning a kettle that failed almost immediately.
That is why the sequence of events should be recorded. Write down when the fault was reported, what the seller proposed, when the item was returned, and whether the same or a different defect appeared afterwards. A neat timeline often carries more weight than a long complaint written in anger.
The six-month presumption shifts the evidential pressure
For defects discovered during the first six months after delivery, the usual assumption is that the problem existed when the goods were supplied. The business carries the evidential burden in that period. In practical terms, the consumer generally does not have to prove precisely what went wrong at the factory or warehouse before asking for a remedy.
This does not mean every fault automatically produces a refund. Damage caused by misuse, an accident, or normal wear may not amount to a breach of the statutory standards. A phone dropped onto concrete is a different case from a phone that loses its charging function during ordinary use.
After six months, the position becomes harder for the consumer because the assumption no longer operates in the same way. Evidence then becomes more significant. An engineer’s report, service record, photographs, or a consistent history of the product’s failure can help establish that the defect was inherent rather than caused by later use.
The six-month mark is therefore not a cliff edge at which all rights disappear. It is a change in who may need to demonstrate what. Consumers still need to explain the problem, while businesses may challenge whether it was present at delivery or arose later.
Poor service is measured by care and skill
The Act covers more than products in boxes. A service must be carried out with reasonable care and skill. That standard applies to work such as plumbing, decorating, vehicle repairs, hairdressing, and professional or technical services supplied under a consumer contract.
A tradesperson who installs a shower that leaks, or a repair business that returns a vehicle with the original fault untouched, may have failed to meet that standard. The issue is not whether the customer disliked the result. It is whether the service was performed with the level of care and expertise reasonably expected for that work.
The primary remedy is repeat performance. The business should carry out the service again, correcting the failure without charging the consumer for the remedial work. The repeat service must be completed within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience.
If repeating the service is impossible, or the business fails to put matters right, the consumer may seek a reduction in price. The reduction can reflect the seriousness of the failure and, in suitable cases, may amount to the full price of the service. For example, paying for a repair that did not repair anything is a stronger case than paying for a job that works but falls short in a limited, cosmetic respect.
Services can be especially difficult to assess because the evidence is often less tangible than a damaged screen. Before-and-after photographs, written specifications, appointment records, and messages about what was promised can show the gap between the agreement and the result.
Digital content has its own repair route
Apps, e-books, games, software, and other digital products also receive protection under the Act. Digital content must be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose where that purpose was made known, and match its description.
If the content is faulty, the consumer has the right to ask for a repair or replacement. An app that repeatedly crashes, an e-book file that will not open, or software that lacks a feature expressly included in its description may raise a statutory issue rather than being dismissed as a minor technical annoyance.
Where repair or replacement is impossible or does not fix the problem, the consumer may be entitled to a price reduction. A refund must be made no later than 14 days after the claim has been accepted. That period gives the business time to process the payment, but it is not an open-ended invitation to delay.
Digital content can also damage a device or other digital material. The business may have to repair the damage or compensate the consumer where the content caused it and the device was being used in a way that could reasonably have been expected. The important detail is that the protection is tied to the consumer contract, not simply to whether the download was free or paid for.
A statutory right is most useful when it is expressed plainly. State what was purchased, identify the fault, give the relevant date, and say which remedy you are requesting. If a seller offers a repair, note whether it succeeds. The law’s time limits and remedy stages are designed to turn a vague complaint into a sequence of concrete questions, beginning with the day the goods, service, or digital content failed to deliver what was promised.