My wife lent her son £3,000 towards a car two years ago, on the understanding he would repay her in instalments. 

To date, he has made no effort to even pay off a small amount of the debt, despite being asked multiple times. 

He earns a good wage and could afford it. He is also constantly buying expensive items, which is infuriating. What can we do?

Name and address supplied

Dean Dunham replies: The fact this money was lent by a mother to her son makes things tricky. 

Under a long-standing legal presumption under English law, money passed between family members is treated as a gift or domestic arrangement, not a loan or any other form of contract. 

This means if the dispute went to court, the judge would not simply take your wife’s word that it was a loan – she would have to prove it. 

This is known as the presumption against legal relations in family dealings, and it has been established in law for over a century.

The good news is this presumption can be rebutted. To do that, your wife needs evidence that, at the time the money changed hands, both she and her son understood it to be a genuine loan repayable in instalments. 

Evidence could include a bank transfer reference saying ‘loan’, text messages or emails discussing repayment, or even a written IOU. 

Any later message in which her son acknowledges the debt, such as ‘I’ll start paying you back next month’, is gold dust. The size of the sum and the fact he is an adult earning a good wage both help her case.

If your wife has that evidence, her path forward is straightforward. She should send her son a letter before action setting out the amount and terms of the loan, demanding repayment within 14 days, and warning of court proceedings. 

If ignored, she can issue a claim through the Government service, Money Claim Online for a modest court fee. This will be recoverable from the son if your wife is successful. 

A warning: There is a six-year limit on making this kind of claim under the Limitation Act 1980, so tell your wife not to delay.

Rise and recline chair's too uncomfortable 

My wife bought a special ‘rise and recline’ chair for £2,000. This is designed to help her get up as she has arthritis. 

However, sitting in it causes her immense pain. The retailer says we cannot return it, because it tested this model of chair in its showroom and found no problems. What should we do?

J.T., Fife

Dean Dunham replies: When your wife bought the chair, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applied. Two provisions matter here. 

First, and most importantly, Section 9 requires that goods be of satisfactory quality. 

This means they meet the standard a reasonable person would consider acceptable, taking into account the price paid, the description and all relevant circumstances.

A £2,000 rise and recline chair is specifically marketed as a mobility product for people with reduced mobility and conditions such as arthritis. 

That is its entire target market. If a chair sold for that purpose at that price causes a typical arthritic user immense pain, it fails the satisfactory quality test. It simply is not doing the job a reasonable consumer in this market would expect.

Second, if your wife told the retailer she has arthritis and needed the chair for that specific reason, or if that was obvious from the circumstances of the sale, Section 10 of the Act also applies.

This requires the chair to be fit for her particular purpose, not just suitable in the abstract. Either way, the chair must be capable of being used comfortably by the person it was sold to.

The retailer’s ‘We tested it in our showroom’ defence carries no legal weight. A staff member perching in a chair for ten minutes does not override your wife’s experience using it daily as intended. The statutory tests apply regardless of any in-house assessment.

Write to the retailer formally, citing the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and request a full refund or a suitable replacement. If they refuse, tell your wife to raise a Section 75 claim with her credit card provider, if she paid with her card.