returning car to dealer after 2 faults

[unwashed potato!]

not me but a friend

bought a car from a dealer. within about 5 days it had an engine fault. dealer took it back, did minimal work as the error code was reset and didn't come back on, and now a week later the fault is back again.

now there's costs getting another car sorted again, still currently sat waiting for AA to come look at the car (3 hours this time).

the deal has said they will come collect tomorrow to look to fix, but really now the trust is gone and would rather a refund.

are we within our rights? it's less than 2 weeks since purchase. same fault again. in writing what they did last time to fix it.

if we are within out rights and they refuse, what can we do then?

 

[kindai]

Well within your rights, explain you are rejecting the car under the consumer rights act 2015.

An engine fault is likely to have been there at the time of purchase for it to re-occur within such a small time period.

Your friend is entitled to a full refund of the value he purchased the car back, the dealer can not make any deductions, they are also required to collect it, though dropping it off yourself may be easier and less aggro.

If they refuse, then small claims court / credit card chargeback it is.

 

[unwashed potato!]

OK thanks

 

[Haze]

/thread closed

 

[Nasher]

I bought a used car and had a major issue before Christmas. Consumer rights say you actually get 6 months for them to fix it under warranty, not just the 3 they offer.

They get one attempt and then must offer a refund if they fail to fix it. A dash light is an MOT fail so it's a major defect.

 

[Kenai]

I bought a used car and had a major issue before Christmas. Consumer rights say you actually get 6 months for them to fix it under warranty, not just the 3 they offer.

They get one attempt and then must offer a refund if they fail to fix it. A dash light is an MOT fail so it's a major defect.

Given he's less than 2 weeks from purchase, he doesn't need to mess around with letting them try to fix it anyway, he can use his right to reject.

 

[unwashed potato!]

So they are refusing. Saying they just want to fix the car.

Made it clear multiple times the only option wanted now is return and refund.

They have said they want to take it to their garage and fully inspect it before refund. Trouble is, it's obvious want they want to do. Say it had no oil, say it was run to the ground by us.

I assume it's not going to cause an issue by just saying the only option is they take the car back but refund in full needs to be done before they are given the keys? This won't look like rejecting them the chance to do whatever they want first.?

 

[kindai]

So they are refusing.

Tell them they don't have the option to refuse.

Under the consumer rights act you have the short term right to reject within the first 30 days, for basically anything.

You have given them an opportunity to fix the issue, they have failed to do so. (and point out you didnt have to give them that opportunity within the first 30 days)

Given it is now a recurrent problem and still within that 30 days you want your money back. Also inform them if they dont comply with the consumer rights act you will involve trading standards and if necessary take them to court to recover your money.

Did you pay any of it on credit card or via finance?

 

[unwashed potato!]

Also inform them if they dont comply with the consumer rights act you will involve trading standards and if necessary take them to court to recover your money.

We have done that, on top of explaining its best to sort now and avoid costs for them. Will tell them tomorrow court costs appear to be £450, plus the vehicle will need temp insurance which we'd look to recover, and until we get money back to buy the next vehicle, we are stuck with old vehicle which costs £12.50 for ulez per day.

Will see what they say.

Unfortunately it was paid by cash deposit (small) and rest bank transfer

 

[Semple]

Do you still have to pay the ulez charge if it's only parked up? Ideally at this point you need to stop using the vehicle.

Next step I'd say would be an LBA, there's plenty of templates online. Send it recorded (even though I don't believe this is necessary for the courts). Then give them X days to provide the refund.

The law is clearly on your side in this case so I can't see a car dealer wanting to go to court when he's guaranteed to lose.

 

[unwashed potato!]

Do you still have to pay the ulez charge if it's only parked up? Ideally at this point you need to stop using the vehicle

We aren't in ulez but work is. This new car is ulez free. Old car is not. Now back to old car and having to pay ulez until we can get the refund and buy another. Going to court could take months so that's months of ulez charges each day.

 

[j.col]

We aren't in ulez but work is. This new car is ulez free. Old car is not. Now back to old car and having to pay ulez until we can get the refund and buy another. Going to court could take months so that's months of ulez charges each day.

If the garage is refusing a refund despite them clearly breaking the law, i would make sure to tell them in the LBA letter that any additional expenses (ULEZ) you incur because of this, will also be charged to them.
As said above, send them an LBA letter

 

[Tinders]

If the garage is refusing a refund despite them clearly breaking the law, i would make sure to tell them in the LBA letter that any additional expenses (ULEZ) you incur because of this, will also be charged to them.
As said above, send them an LBA letter

Can you really do that? i would have thought the dealers responsibility is fixing the car, not any consequestial losses??

 

[j.col]

Can you really do that? i would have thought the dealers responsibility is fixing the car, not any consequestial losses??

Its more of a threat tbh but...

The garage is clearly breaking the law, and won't refund the OP.
Therefore the OP cannot buy a ULEZ compliant car becuase of the garages actions and therefore is liable to ULEZ charges.

If it did go to court, i would argue that i incurred additional expenses (ULEZ charges) caused by the garages actions, especially after it been stated in the LBA.

 

[tom_e]

As long as it's reasonable then in these sort of cases a judge will generally rule that the party breaking the law will have to cover it. It's not guaranteed but as long as it's not taking the pee then you've got a good shot.

 

[unwashed potato!]

Update on this. The dealer is saying because we didn't return it directly to their garage they are rejecting the claim, along with blaming claimant for them being unable to fix due to rac resetting the fault codes, and when they bought the car, they bought it thinking it was good.

Curious on thoughts on the first issue, especially given the car in something like 4 uses broke down and became undrivable

 

[Haggisman]

Irrelevant - unless they can prove that the car was in full working condition before hand, and that the RAC broke it, they don't have a leg to stand on.

"when they bought the car, they bought it thinking it was good."

It doesn't work like that, any faults within the first 6 months are assumed to have been there at the point the car was purchased unless the dealer can prove otherwise - something like an intermittent fault code is an easy one for the dealer to reset to hide any issues and try to trick a naive buyer.

To cover yourself, make sure you have proof in writing that you have informed them you are rejecting the car under the consumer rights act 2015

 

[unwashed potato!]

Irrelevant - unless they can prove that the car was in full working condition before hand, and that the RAC broke it, they don't have a leg to stand on.

"when they bought the car, they bought it thinking it was good."

It doesn't work like that, any faults within the first 6 months are assumed to have been there at the point the car was purchased unless the dealer can prove otherwise - something like an intermittent fault code is an easy one for the dealer to reset to hide any issues and try to trick a naive buyer.

To cover yourself, make sure you have proof in writing that you have informed them you are rejecting the car under the consumer rights act 2015

Thanks. We do all by WhatsApp, and then signed letter before action etc.

WhatsApp was also sent multiple times, as one time they replied saying "we will take the Car back but Admin fee of £250 applies" so we just resent the same thing and they ignored from that point onwards.

 

[jpaul]

I'd be contacting AA if they have genuinely reset codes & erased evidence without recording the codes and providing owner with details of their likely meaning.
if the codes meant the car couldn't/shouldn't be driven you'd expect the car to have a permanent record, garage could retrieve.

with details of what the codes were on the initial incident the court/ombudsman could determine if the garage had made the appropriate repair, or were negligent.

 

[unwashed potato!]

I'd be contacting AA if they have genuinely reset codes & erased evidence without recording the codes and providing owner with details of their likely meaning.
if the codes meant the car couldn't/shouldn't be driven you'd expect the car to have a permanent record, garage could retrieve.

with details of what the codes were on the initial incident the court/ombudsman could determine if the garage had made the appropriate repair, or were negligent.

The codes/report was all sent to the dealer after both visits from rac, so no excuse from them in that case. The codes were then reset to see if they came back. Standard practice I believe as when there's 25 codes showing, too many to determine the fault, so record them, reset and if it happens again, hopefully now you jsut have the code for the actual fault.

Either way, both times rac recorded this and gave the codes. The last time the rac reported it was the catalytic converter and the dealer has even acknowledged in their rejection of the claim that this was the fault they were told the second time.