Approved Used car / Lemon - consumer rights act 2015
Discussion
6 months ago my wife bought a nearly new 'approved used' low mileage car from a main dealer - because they advertised "Peace of mind" and "no hidden surprises". The condition of the car was described as: "I have looked around the car and everything looks fine apart from a small mark near the driver’s door handle which I have attached a photo of. We should be able to improve this with a 'touch in'." On this basis we drove about 70 miles to go and view the car with the intention of buying it; and bringing it home; should it match their description of its condition. My wife and I are very fussy petrol heads and prefer only to buy mint low mileage examples. The promise of "Peace of mind" and "no hidden surprises" was the main reason for going to a main dealer. My first inspection of the vehicle revealed a small dent on the nearside front door and a scuff on the front bumper. I pointed these out to the salesman prior to us taking the car out for a test drive. When we got back from the test drive I inspected the car further and discovered distorted rubber seals on the offside rear door. I lifted the seal where it was distorted the most; and underneath the seal were two deep scratch marks as if someone had tried to break into the car using a screw driver. When I pointed this out to the salesman he had no explanation for this damage. The dent and the scuff I estimated at £50 each to put right. The two deep scratches under the rubber seal I was not too worried about as they could not be seen once the seal was put back in place. I wrongly assumed that the rubber seal could easily be put straight - so we went ahead with the purchase and got £100 knocked off the price for the dent and the scuff. The vehicle only had 6500 miles on the clock and was on a 65 plate. The next day we inspected the car and noticed the drivers door also had distorted rubber seals. We took the car to our local main dealer for him to look at the rubber seals on the offside. We were shocked when they quoted over £400 to replace the rubber seals on both offside doors. We came home very dissappointed and examined the car with a fine tooth comb. We spotted the red LED was broken on the inside of the drivers door. I spotted another small dent on the nearside rear door. I also spotted respray overspray on the headlamp glass on the nearside. I also spotted some masking tape on the inside edge of the offside rear door - a sign that the door may have been resprayed. I discovered more masking tape under the front bumper - another sign of possible respray work having been carried out. When we looked very closely at the paint finish on the drivers door and rear offside door the quality of the paintwork was not to the same standard as the rest of the car - in fact it had a rippled effect if you looked at it from certain angles. We suspected that both doors on this side had been completely resprayed.
On day two we rejected the car and asked for our money back - under the consumer rights act 2015.
We contacted the manufacturer customer services and enquired whether they had any knowledge of repairs done to this vehicle. After all it was an "approved used" vehicle supplied to the main dealer by them. To our horror the customer services confirmed that both offside doors had been resprayed; a 'smart repair' (respray) had also been done to the front bumper and also the rear bumper. Every side of the vehicle was damaged or damaged and repaired. This is not what we were expecting when buying a low mileage nearly new car from a main dealer.
Six months on the car is still on our drive and has not been used since day 2 of ownership. The dealer refused to accept our rejection and refuses to give us our money back. Under the consumer rights act 2015 the vehicle fails on two counts - it was not as described and it was not of satisfactory quality. Under the old law the dealer could offer to repair the vehicle. But under the new law the customer does not have to accept an offer of repair. The dealer did offer to repair the vehicle - but as the vehicle has already been repaired multiple times - and not to a satisfactory standard - we rejected his offer to repair the vehicle. We just wanted our money back - which we are entitled to under the law. It would have been no skin of the dealers nose to take the car back and give us our money back - he could have repaired the vehicle and sold it to someone else - or sent it back to the manufacturer who could have disposed of it through a car auction.
I am not allowed to mention the dealers name or the manufacturer under this forum rules.
Let this be a warning to anyone think of buying an "approved used" vehicle. Approved used does NOT give you "piece of mind" and "no hidden surprises" as they advertise.
We have now had to resort to the expense of a solicitor to try and get our money back; and we are taking the dealer to court. The law has since changed so that you can now go to the motoring Ombudsman if you have an issue like ours - and its free. But when we bought the vehicle we did not have this option as Motorcodes did not deal with used vehicles ; only new ones.
On day two we rejected the car and asked for our money back - under the consumer rights act 2015.
We contacted the manufacturer customer services and enquired whether they had any knowledge of repairs done to this vehicle. After all it was an "approved used" vehicle supplied to the main dealer by them. To our horror the customer services confirmed that both offside doors had been resprayed; a 'smart repair' (respray) had also been done to the front bumper and also the rear bumper. Every side of the vehicle was damaged or damaged and repaired. This is not what we were expecting when buying a low mileage nearly new car from a main dealer.
Six months on the car is still on our drive and has not been used since day 2 of ownership. The dealer refused to accept our rejection and refuses to give us our money back. Under the consumer rights act 2015 the vehicle fails on two counts - it was not as described and it was not of satisfactory quality. Under the old law the dealer could offer to repair the vehicle. But under the new law the customer does not have to accept an offer of repair. The dealer did offer to repair the vehicle - but as the vehicle has already been repaired multiple times - and not to a satisfactory standard - we rejected his offer to repair the vehicle. We just wanted our money back - which we are entitled to under the law. It would have been no skin of the dealers nose to take the car back and give us our money back - he could have repaired the vehicle and sold it to someone else - or sent it back to the manufacturer who could have disposed of it through a car auction.
I am not allowed to mention the dealers name or the manufacturer under this forum rules.
Let this be a warning to anyone think of buying an "approved used" vehicle. Approved used does NOT give you "piece of mind" and "no hidden surprises" as they advertise.
We have now had to resort to the expense of a solicitor to try and get our money back; and we are taking the dealer to court. The law has since changed so that you can now go to the motoring Ombudsman if you have an issue like ours - and its free. But when we bought the vehicle we did not have this option as Motorcodes did not deal with used vehicles ; only new ones.
>I am surprised you have left it so long.
We rejected the car on day two of ownership in writing. The dealer refused to take the car back and refused to give us a refund.
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/...
The Consumer Rights Act 2015
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 became law on 01 October 2015, replacing three major pieces of consumer legislation - the Sale of Goods Act, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Supply of Goods and Services Act.
Under the Consumer Rights Act you have a legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund - as long as you do this quickly.
This right is limited to 30 days from the date you buy your product.
So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards:
• Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question? For example, bargain bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
• Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.
• As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase.
++++++++
The dealer is in this situation because he is advertising these "Approved used" cars online before he has taken delivery of them. "Coming soon" is what you will see in his adverts. So if like us you want one straight away; then it doesn't give the dealer much time to properly inspect the vehicle prior to sale. So the 101 point check sheet we were supposed to get on the day of sale was not forthcoming - because we believe it never happened. All they did was to give a a quick wash and valet on the day we went to view it. If the salesman had done his job properly he would have phoned the manufacturer customer services to find out the history of this particular vehicle. He would then have found out the long list of repairs that had been done to this lemon. So when I did ask about the condition of the vehicle - he could have told me the truth about this car ie., it had damage or repairs on every side. If the salesman had done his job properly; and if the dealer had inspected the car thoroughly; then when I asked about the condition of the vehicle - the answer should not have been that the only defect was a small paint blemish by the drivers door handle. If they had told us the truth about this car we would never have driven 70 miles to go and see it.
We rejected the car on day two of ownership in writing. The dealer refused to take the car back and refused to give us a refund.
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/...
The Consumer Rights Act 2015
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 became law on 01 October 2015, replacing three major pieces of consumer legislation - the Sale of Goods Act, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Supply of Goods and Services Act.
Under the Consumer Rights Act you have a legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund - as long as you do this quickly.
This right is limited to 30 days from the date you buy your product.
So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards:
• Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question? For example, bargain bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
• Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.
• As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase.
++++++++
The dealer is in this situation because he is advertising these "Approved used" cars online before he has taken delivery of them. "Coming soon" is what you will see in his adverts. So if like us you want one straight away; then it doesn't give the dealer much time to properly inspect the vehicle prior to sale. So the 101 point check sheet we were supposed to get on the day of sale was not forthcoming - because we believe it never happened. All they did was to give a a quick wash and valet on the day we went to view it. If the salesman had done his job properly he would have phoned the manufacturer customer services to find out the history of this particular vehicle. He would then have found out the long list of repairs that had been done to this lemon. So when I did ask about the condition of the vehicle - he could have told me the truth about this car ie., it had damage or repairs on every side. If the salesman had done his job properly; and if the dealer had inspected the car thoroughly; then when I asked about the condition of the vehicle - the answer should not have been that the only defect was a small paint blemish by the drivers door handle. If they had told us the truth about this car we would never have driven 70 miles to go and see it.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/news/new-laws-...
What’s new is that, if the product sold fails to meet one or more of those criteria, buyers are entitled to reject the product within the first 30 days of buying it. This ‘early right to reject’ replaces the previous rule, which said retailers only need to repair or replace a faulty item or part.
++++++++++++++++
So even though the dealer offered to repair the vehicle - under the new law we do not have to accept any offers of repair - we are entitled to ask for a full refund - which is what we did. As far as we were concerned this lemon had been repaired too many times already.
What’s new is that, if the product sold fails to meet one or more of those criteria, buyers are entitled to reject the product within the first 30 days of buying it. This ‘early right to reject’ replaces the previous rule, which said retailers only need to repair or replace a faulty item or part.
++++++++++++++++
So even though the dealer offered to repair the vehicle - under the new law we do not have to accept any offers of repair - we are entitled to ask for a full refund - which is what we did. As far as we were concerned this lemon had been repaired too many times already.
>I am struggling to understand why, if you are both fussy petrol heads, you bought this particular car
Our guard was down. We thought that buying an "Approved used" car from a main dealer would give us "Peace of mind" and "no nasty surprises". This is what their adverts promised. They failed to live up to that promise. They couldn't even describe the car accurately - they described it as a 'business edition' - which includes SatNav. But it was not a 'business edition'. They never comment on the condition of the vehicle in their adverts - they only list the spec, colour, mileage, number of owners etc - and they can't even get that right. Which is why I specifically asked prior to going to view the car what the condition was in terms of scuffs, dents, paint damage, repairs, is it HPi clear etc etc. If they had been honest and told us the car had been resprayed on three sides and was dented twice on the fourth side - we would never have gone to view it.
Our guard was down. We thought that buying an "Approved used" car from a main dealer would give us "Peace of mind" and "no nasty surprises". This is what their adverts promised. They failed to live up to that promise. They couldn't even describe the car accurately - they described it as a 'business edition' - which includes SatNav. But it was not a 'business edition'. They never comment on the condition of the vehicle in their adverts - they only list the spec, colour, mileage, number of owners etc - and they can't even get that right. Which is why I specifically asked prior to going to view the car what the condition was in terms of scuffs, dents, paint damage, repairs, is it HPi clear etc etc. If they had been honest and told us the car had been resprayed on three sides and was dented twice on the fourth side - we would never have gone to view it.
>Highly unlikely you will win if you go legal.
Our solicitor says we have a very good chance of winning as they are clearly in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
"So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards:
A) Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question? For example, bargain bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
B) Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.
C) As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase.
It fails on two counts A) & C). It only has to fail on one of the three for us to win our case.
Our solicitor says we have a very good chance of winning as they are clearly in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
"So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards:
A) Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question? For example, bargain bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
B) Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.
C) As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase.
It fails on two counts A) & C). It only has to fail on one of the three for us to win our case.
http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/865
New rules mean a customer can reject a car within the first 30 days after purchase
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 comes into force on 1 October 2015. From that date, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will become largely redundant for all ‘business to consumer’ sales which will then be covered by the new Act.
One of the new rules is the ‘short term right to reject’ covered in Section 22 of the Act.
By virtue of this Section, if a consumer complains of a fault with the vehicle in the first 30 days, they will be entitled to bring it back to you for a refund. They can ask for a repair but they are not obliged to accept a repair and can simply insist on a refund which you will be legally obliged to give.
New rules mean a customer can reject a car within the first 30 days after purchase
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 comes into force on 1 October 2015. From that date, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will become largely redundant for all ‘business to consumer’ sales which will then be covered by the new Act.
One of the new rules is the ‘short term right to reject’ covered in Section 22 of the Act.
By virtue of this Section, if a consumer complains of a fault with the vehicle in the first 30 days, they will be entitled to bring it back to you for a refund. They can ask for a repair but they are not obliged to accept a repair and can simply insist on a refund which you will be legally obliged to give.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff