Family Loan Dispute and Mobility Chair Refund: Expert Advice on Consumer Rights A reader seeks legal advice after his wife’s son refuses to repay a £3,000 loan for a car, despite earning a good income. Consumer rights expert Dean Dunham explains the legal complexities of family loans and the evidence needed to prove the debt. Additionally, another reader’s wife faces issues with a £2,000 rise and recline chair that causes pain, with the retailer refusing a refund. Dunham outlines the protections under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the steps to take for a resolution. A reader has shared a troubling situation where his wife lent her adult son £3,000 two years ago to help him purchase a car. The agreement was that the son would repay the money in instalments, but despite multiple reminders, he has failed to make any payments. The son earns a substantial income and frequently spends money on luxury items, which has left the reader and his wife frustrated and seeking legal advice. Dean Dunham, a consumer rights expert, explains that this case is complicated by the fact that the money was lent between family members. Under English law, there is a long-standing presumption that financial transactions between relatives are considered gifts or domestic arrangements rather than formal loans.This presumption, known as the presumption against legal relations in family dealings, has been part of legal precedent for over a century. However, Dunham notes that this presumption can be challenged. To prove that the money was indeed a loan, the wife would need evidence demonstrating that both parties understood the transaction as a repayable loan. This could include bank transfer references labeled as a loan, text messages or emails discussing repayment terms, or even a written IOU.Any subsequent acknowledgment of the debt by the son, such as a message stating he will begin repayments, would strengthen the case. Given the significant amount involved and the son’s financial capability, the wife’s position is bolstered. If she has sufficient evidence, she should send her son a formal letter before action, outlining the loan amount, repayment terms, and a 14-day deadline for repayment, with a warning of potential court proceedings if ignored.If the son fails to comply, the wife can file a claim through the Government’s Money Claim Online service for a modest fee, which can be recovered if the court rules in her favor. It is crucial to act promptly, as there is a six-year limitation period for such claims under the Limitation Act 1980. In another case, a reader’s wife purchased a £2,000 rise and recline chair designed to assist with mobility issues, specifically for her arthritis.However, the chair has caused her significant discomfort and pain. The retailer has refused to accept a return, citing that the model was tested in their showroom without issues. Dunham clarifies that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the chair must meet the standard of satisfactory quality, which includes being fit for its intended purpose.Given that the chair is marketed as a mobility aid for individuals with arthritis, its failure to provide comfort to the buyer constitutes a breach of this act. Additionally, if the wife informed the retailer of her specific needs or if it was evident from the sale’s circumstances, the chair must also be fit for her particular purpose.The retailer’s internal testing does not override the statutory requirements, and the reader’s wife is entitled to a full refund or a suitable replacement. If the retailer continues to refuse, she can pursue a Section 75 claim with her credit card provider if the purchase was made using a card