The right of consumers to reject faulty goods must be retained in the UK despite European plans to abolish it, legal watchdogs said yesterday.

The Law Commissions of England and Wales, and Scotland, have thrown their weight behind retaining the right which consumers have exercised for more than 200 years.

There is overwhelming support among both the public and businesses for keeping the right to reject faulty goods - currently the subject of 10 million complaints a year.

But the European Commission has proposed a new directive on consumer rights which, if adopted, would force the UK to abolish the right to reject in favour of a right to a repair or replacement.

David Hertzell, the Law Commissioner in charge of the review of consumer remedies for faulty goods, said: “We believe that the right to reject should be retained in the UK as a short-term remedy of first instance. It is a simple, easy to use remedy which inspires consumer confidence.”

The view of the two law reform watchdogs and of Scotland, are set out in a report today that was commisioned by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

In their report however, the Commissions say that the law needs to be clarified and simplified so that there is no uncertainty over the period in which consumers may return faulty goods and receive a refund.

At present there is the traditional common law remedy, later included in the Sale of Goods Acts of 1893 and 1979, for consumers to reject goods provided they “act within a reasonable time”, although the courts have not clarified how long “reasonable” is.

In addition, a European Consumer Sales Directive in 1999 entitles consumers to a repair or replacement. If the retailer cannot provide either within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience, the consumer may ask for a refund or price reduction.

But, the Law Commissions say, there has been little attempt to integrate these two regimes, leading to confusion and complexity.

The latest Europeal proposals would involve rejecting the right to reject. Instead the retailer would offer a repair or replacement within a reasonable time.

Consumers would not be entitled to a refund for “minor” defects, such as imperfections in appearance, finish or small malfunctions. If a repair or replacement is not practical or possible, the consumer would only have the remedy of a price reduction.

But it says: “Consumers often care a great deal about the appearance of new consumer goods. What is minor to the retailer may not be minor to the consumer.” Removing the right to a refund for minor defects would lead to unnecessary disputes, it says.

The European proposals would also mean that consumers would not be entitled to a remedy where a fault only becomes apparent more than two years after delivery.

However this two-year cut off point could cause problems with goods intended to be long-lasting and where faults take time to emerge, such as a boiler breaking down after 26 months or water pipes that burst during the first hard frost, the Law Commissions say.

Their’ own research finds overwhelming support to keep the right, which it says encourages consumers to shop more freely and be more prepared to try new brands and new shops in the confidence that they can get their money back.

However their report says that the current regime should be clarified. It proposes a time to return goods of 30 days with flexibility for shorter or longer periods where needed - for instance, a shorter period for perishable goods, or a longer one where the buyer cannot test the goods immediately - such as a lawnmower bought at Christmas.

It calls for a new, simpler and harmonised regime: if goods do not conform to contract and the buyer wants to reject them, they have three choices: one, a refund within 30 days; two, a repair or three a replacement.

In the case of the repair and replacement, consumers could still seek a price reduction or, if not satisfied, still demand a refund.

Lord Drummond Young, chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, said: “Legal advice is rarely sought for consumer disputes so it is particularly important that the law on consumer remedies is easily understood, remembered and applied.”

“Our proposals will result in a considerable simplification of the law.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure