Troublesome car dealers breaking consumer rights act
Discussion
Trevor555 said:
Did the supplying dealer ask to inspect the car?
If so, did you allow them?
Did they offer in any way to fix the car?
If so, did you allow them the opportunity to?
This. No claim will be entertained by any court unless the original dealer has had every opportunity to inspect and/or fix, and that assumes there was a warranty in place to start with.If so, did you allow them?
Did they offer in any way to fix the car?
If so, did you allow them the opportunity to?
What the car sold for against what it was bought for is a bit irrelevant as you could make up anything on the sale price.
Simpo Two said:
I don't think that you can buy a faulty car, sell it for a loss, then sue the dealer for the loss. I'm not convinced all due steps have been taken.
If you proceed to court you will find out one way or the other!
As far as I understand the OP; bought car at normal retail price. Car faulty from the outset. Gave the dealer opportunity to fix. Sold car for big loss due to selling as faulty.If you proceed to court you will find out one way or the other!
Don't see why you wouldn't be able to sue the dealer for the loss (less some money for the use, say 45p a mile). According to the CRA the dealer should have taken the car back and refunded less the usage, so that's the position the OP should be put back to. All subject to OP having followed procedure and timescales.
Referring to the thread title, want to add a little experience I had.
Bmw main dealer, sold me a "used approved" bike
Less than a year old, done only 450 miles.
Dangerous fault reported within first week.
Recovered to Bmw where they attempted a repair.
Repair not successful, service adviser said he'll talk to Bmw technical
Next day service adviser took the line "it performs as expected"
Bmw, and Bmwfs, the same line
Then they pulled the shutters down, dumped me as a customer, ignored ALL correspondence via email, recorded letter
Phone calls met with "one of our qualified Bmw technicians has said it performs as expected"
Took 7 months to get my refund whilst having a bike I couldn't use.
Why tell this little story?
Because it's not just the "troublesome" dealers happy to ignore the CRA
Seems many will ignore it until either court papers land, or the FCA close to getting involved.
And they do this because a high percentage just give up.
Bmw main dealer, sold me a "used approved" bike
Less than a year old, done only 450 miles.
Dangerous fault reported within first week.
Recovered to Bmw where they attempted a repair.
Repair not successful, service adviser said he'll talk to Bmw technical
Next day service adviser took the line "it performs as expected"
Bmw, and Bmwfs, the same line
Then they pulled the shutters down, dumped me as a customer, ignored ALL correspondence via email, recorded letter
Phone calls met with "one of our qualified Bmw technicians has said it performs as expected"
Took 7 months to get my refund whilst having a bike I couldn't use.
Why tell this little story?
Because it's not just the "troublesome" dealers happy to ignore the CRA
Seems many will ignore it until either court papers land, or the FCA close to getting involved.
And they do this because a high percentage just give up.
Forester1965 said:
Simpo Two said:
I don't think that you can buy a faulty car, sell it for a loss, then sue the dealer for the loss. I'm not convinced all due steps have been taken.
If you proceed to court you will find out one way or the other!
As far as I understand the OP; bought car at normal retail price. Car faulty from the outset. Gave the dealer opportunity to fix. Sold car for big loss due to selling as faulty.If you proceed to court you will find out one way or the other!
Don't see why you wouldn't be able to sue the dealer for the loss (less some money for the use, say 45p a mile). According to the CRA the dealer should have taken the car back and refunded less the usage, so that's the position the OP should be put back to. All subject to OP having followed procedure and timescales.
The only thing I don't really understand is what 'more issues than a math textbook' means.
Forester1965 said:
As far as I understand the OP; bought car at normal retail price. Car faulty from the outset. Gave the dealer opportunity to fix. Sold car for big loss due to selling as faulty.
Don't see why you wouldn't be able to sue the dealer for the loss (less some money for the use, say 45p a mile). According to the CRA the dealer should have taken the car back and refunded less the usage, so that's the position the OP should be put back to. All subject to OP having followed procedure and timescales.
Was a warranty taken out? What representations were made on purchase? Why didnt the seller take the car back for repair?Don't see why you wouldn't be able to sue the dealer for the loss (less some money for the use, say 45p a mile). According to the CRA the dealer should have taken the car back and refunded less the usage, so that's the position the OP should be put back to. All subject to OP having followed procedure and timescales.
There are too many questions, one wrong answer and any claim will be shot to pieces.
It seems to me there is a procedure for getting your money back.
There are established remedies for faulty goods, some of which are actually written in the Consumer Rights Act, and some of which have become estblished as normal practice.
You have to return the car.
If you do that immediately you can get a full refund.
If you do it later you have to allow the retailer an opportunity to repair the car.
It seems to me that the retailer will say the OP bought a cheap old car with a few things wrong with it.
USed cars are not expected to be perfect. They need to work and they need to be roadworthy.
It needs to be fit for purpose.
The OP lost £3k by trading in this car. To me that says there wasn't a vast amount wrong with it. When you buy a car at forecourt price and trade it in, you 'lose' the difference between trade-in and retail prices. So a big slice of that £3k is not faults with the car, it's the cost of trading.
The OP says he lost more, the 'equity' in his previous car. How much was that?
What were the faults?
What was actually said in the email and other conversations?
It seems to me quite likely a court would decide the OP has not followed proper process and won't award him very much money, if any.
It's a long way from being a clear open and shut case IMHO.
There are established remedies for faulty goods, some of which are actually written in the Consumer Rights Act, and some of which have become estblished as normal practice.
You have to return the car.
If you do that immediately you can get a full refund.
If you do it later you have to allow the retailer an opportunity to repair the car.
It seems to me that the retailer will say the OP bought a cheap old car with a few things wrong with it.
USed cars are not expected to be perfect. They need to work and they need to be roadworthy.
It needs to be fit for purpose.
The OP lost £3k by trading in this car. To me that says there wasn't a vast amount wrong with it. When you buy a car at forecourt price and trade it in, you 'lose' the difference between trade-in and retail prices. So a big slice of that £3k is not faults with the car, it's the cost of trading.
The OP says he lost more, the 'equity' in his previous car. How much was that?
What were the faults?
What was actually said in the email and other conversations?
It seems to me quite likely a court would decide the OP has not followed proper process and won't award him very much money, if any.
It's a long way from being a clear open and shut case IMHO.
Forester1965 said:
Looks like some people have missed the OP saying the gave the dealer opportunity to repair and it wasnt successful.
Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
OP hasn’t explained much at all and there’s not enough detail so I suspect there’s no legal case. A warranty would make a huge difference.Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
GeneralBanter said:
Forester1965 said:
Looks like some people have missed the OP saying the gave the dealer opportunity to repair and it wasnt successful.
Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
OP hasn’t explained much at all and there’s not enough detail so I suspect there’s no legal case. A warranty would make a huge difference.Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
Op reported fault after 5 days of ownership.
He gave the dealer an opportunity to repair, they failed.
He got another diagnosis.
Dealer became hostile.
I suspect there is a legal case.
GeneralBanter said:
OP hasn’t explained much at all and there’s not enough detail so I suspect there’s no legal case. A warranty would make a huge difference.
The OP has said he took it back to the dealer for repair (you appear to have not read that). He's given the timescales involved. In respect of his statutory rights to reject the car a warranty is irrelevant. I don't understand on what basis you've come to the conclusion 'there's no legal case'. On the bare facts we have in front of us it looks the opposite.Whether the threshold has been met for the right to reject under CRA is a matter of fact to be determined by the court. The cost and risk of finding that out is relatively low for the OP.
Forester1965 said:
Looks like some people have missed the OP saying the gave the dealer opportunity to repair and it wasnt successful.
Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
Again, agreed. Also, lots of people seem to be missing the fact that the CRA is the Consumer Rights Act and not the Consumer Obligations Act - while you have the right to reject or to require the supplier to fix something they've sold you, you don't have an obligation to do that. Funny how people are invoking the CRA about while ignoring the fact it says right there that the CRA doesn't exclude any other remedies that are available under general contract law (s.19(9)-(11) if anybody cares). Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
Roger Irrelevant said:
Yep all seems pretty straightforward to me. If the OP has good evidence that the car was a dud (certainly seems so), and good evidence that the dealer wasn't standing by his CRA obligations (again, seems so), then the fact he needed to take matters into his own hands by selling the faulty car won't be held against him.
The fact that the OP has sold the car could make a huge difference.The dealer has an obligation to take the car back but if the OP has sold it, he can't do that, therefore he cannot refund the OP.
I highly doubt it's a simple then as a court saying
"Well, OP had to sell the car so we'll award the difference between that sale and the purchase price of the car"
OP - seek proper legal advice. This is far from open and shut.
Forester1965 said:
Looks like some people have missed the OP saying the gave the dealer opportunity to repair and it wasnt successful.
Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
It helps if you use the correct words:Warranty point is irrelevant to the question.
I am rejecting this car in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act. It's back on your forecourt, here is the key.
Not vague words about being unhappy and could the dealer possibly do something about X Y and Z....
If the dealer's refused to accept the return or recompense, the OP's entitled to sell it and recover his losses. Based on what's said so far an issue may be that he didn't seek the best possible sale price by offering it on the open market (claimants have a duty to mitigate their losses).
Muzzer79 said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Yep all seems pretty straightforward to me. If the OP has good evidence that the car was a dud (certainly seems so), and good evidence that the dealer wasn't standing by his CRA obligations (again, seems so), then the fact he needed to take matters into his own hands by selling the faulty car won't be held against him.
The fact that the OP has sold the car could make a huge difference.The dealer has an obligation to take the car back but if the OP has sold it, he can't do that, therefore he cannot refund the OP.
I highly doubt it's a simple then as a court saying
"Well, OP had to sell the car so we'll award the difference between that sale and the purchase price of the car"
OP - seek proper legal advice. This is far from open and shut.
Roger Irrelevant said:
Muzzer79 said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Yep all seems pretty straightforward to me. If the OP has good evidence that the car was a dud (certainly seems so), and good evidence that the dealer wasn't standing by his CRA obligations (again, seems so), then the fact he needed to take matters into his own hands by selling the faulty car won't be held against him.
The fact that the OP has sold the car could make a huge difference.The dealer has an obligation to take the car back but if the OP has sold it, he can't do that, therefore he cannot refund the OP.
I highly doubt it's a simple then as a court saying
"Well, OP had to sell the car so we'll award the difference between that sale and the purchase price of the car"
OP - seek proper legal advice. This is far from open and shut.
However, I guess that it boils down the the fact that anyone can sue someone - whether you win is the unknown element.
Roger Irrelevant said:
The dealer only has an obligation to take the car back if that is the method of redress that the OP wishes to pursue. If the OP has come to the conclusion that trying for a rejection/refund is a waste of time because the dealer is an obstructive bellend, then the OP is well within his rights to take matters into his own hands by selling the car and then suing the dealer for any losses. Yes the OP has to mitigate his losses and yes he will have to provide evidence of his losses, and so none of us can say for sure that the OP will be successful as we just don't know the facts. However to say 'the dealer has an obligation to take the car back' without qualification is just plain wrong and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the CRA (in fairness you're not alone).
The CRA obliges the dealer to sell a car that's 'fit for purpose' and 'sufficient quality'.Fir for purpose is assumed to be 'you can drive it on the road' unless the buyer stated other purposes, like maybe 'it needs to tow 1000kg' or 'it must be ULEZ free' or something.
'Sufficient Quality' is a vague and flexible thing, if you buy a car for £30k, you can expect better quality than if you pay £300. You but a cheap old car, you should expect wear and tear, minor noises etc.
If the car is a tatty old shed which runs, drives, stops etc and is legally roadworthy with no major hidden defects then the seller may have done nothing wrong. The buyer is only entitled to reject the car if there is a significant fault with it. A fault which was obvious when the buyer chose to buy it probably doesn't count. You buy an old car with a scratch, you can't reject it for that.
The inference here is that the seller has refused rejection of the car.
How exactly has done done that?
Has he said 'the faults you moan about are not material, it's what you get in a £5000, ten year old car'?
Or has he said, yes I know the gearbox doesn't work but F&&K the CRA, I'm not giving you your money back?
One is a civil matter, a debate about quality, the other is a criminal matter for Trading Standards.
Or has the buyer not given the seller proper opportunity to fix the faults?
I don't think the buyer should generally expect to sell the car cheaply and claim his losses back, because there is some onus on him to prove the 'faults' were material and that he was entitled to reject the car. If the faults are material then the seller would normally be expected to put them right.
That might be £1000 or £100 not the £3000+ the buyer has lost.
If this went to court, who knows what would happen?
We have one side of a story without the full facts
I wonder if the OP's emails to the dealer were as vague and lacking n substance as his posts here?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff