Consumer Rights Act: Enforcing short-term right to rejection
Discussion
I'll keep a fairly long story short:
I can continue arguing with them, but it's far beyond the point I want to keep doing that.
I've told them I want to reject the car under my short term right to rejection, i.e. they collect the car at their cost and refund the full purchase price. They refuse.
How do I go about enforcing this? I know I could claim through Money Claim Online, but I'm not sure if that's relevant. I can claim for the purchase price of the car, but how does that work with returning the car? It seems like claiming for the purchase price of the car is not the same as enforcing the short-term right to rejection. Essentially I just want a court to hear the case, and tell the trader they have to accept the rejection, issue a refund, etc.
- I bought a car from a trader in February of this year
- It developed an engine fault within the first three weeks
- I contacted the trader and asked them to repair it
- They're refusing to repair it
- Lots of back and forth with the trader and more recently their solicitors, where they continue to deny any liability
- The Consumer Rights Act (2015) states that a car can be rejected within the first 30 days, after giving the trader an opportunity to fix the problem (in a nutshell, anyway).
- If a repair is requested within those 30 days, then the 30 day rejection period is paused until the trader repairs the car, at which point it continues.
- I asked for a repair 3 weeks after buying the car, no repair has been made, and therefore retain my short-term right to rejection.
- Their continual refusal to repair the car has caused undue inconvenience and I now want to reject the car.
I can continue arguing with them, but it's far beyond the point I want to keep doing that.
I've told them I want to reject the car under my short term right to rejection, i.e. they collect the car at their cost and refund the full purchase price. They refuse.
How do I go about enforcing this? I know I could claim through Money Claim Online, but I'm not sure if that's relevant. I can claim for the purchase price of the car, but how does that work with returning the car? It seems like claiming for the purchase price of the car is not the same as enforcing the short-term right to rejection. Essentially I just want a court to hear the case, and tell the trader they have to accept the rejection, issue a refund, etc.
To successfully reject a car you need to return it to the dealer and inform them in writing what you want within 30 days , you cant continue to use it . What is this engine fault that has caused you to change your mind about wanting the car , I presume you are still using the car ?
Chose the car you want then chose your dealer but I suppose its worth mentioning that cars are not supplied on a "trial" basis
Chose the car you want then chose your dealer but I suppose its worth mentioning that cars are not supplied on a "trial" basis
The car is not currently in use, and is registered as SORN.
The car started using ridiculous amounts of oil (about a litre per 150-200 miles), copious amount of blue smoke. I had it checked by two garages local to me (the trader is located about 4 hours away) who diagnosed it as failed piston rings on one of the cylinders. I was told that in terms of repair the piston rings could be replaced, but it was likely a rebuild would be needed. The costs of a rebuild far exceed the costs of just fitting a second hand engine.
The car was used for a few short trips after the diagnosis, and then parked up on my drive. Only recently SORN'd (I'd lived in hope it would be resolved quickly, so kept the insurance and tax running).
As for the rejection part: I notified the dealer (and their solicitor) via email I wanted to exercise my short-term right to rejection, and asked them to contact me within 7 days to arrange collection of the car. They've replied to this and, in so many words, said no.
I haven't returned the car to them as firstly it isn't drivable, and if I have it transported there it would be at my cost, for which I'd have to claim that back from them. I'd rather they collect it (which from reading the CRA, it seems they have an obligation to do).
The car started using ridiculous amounts of oil (about a litre per 150-200 miles), copious amount of blue smoke. I had it checked by two garages local to me (the trader is located about 4 hours away) who diagnosed it as failed piston rings on one of the cylinders. I was told that in terms of repair the piston rings could be replaced, but it was likely a rebuild would be needed. The costs of a rebuild far exceed the costs of just fitting a second hand engine.
The car was used for a few short trips after the diagnosis, and then parked up on my drive. Only recently SORN'd (I'd lived in hope it would be resolved quickly, so kept the insurance and tax running).
As for the rejection part: I notified the dealer (and their solicitor) via email I wanted to exercise my short-term right to rejection, and asked them to contact me within 7 days to arrange collection of the car. They've replied to this and, in so many words, said no.
I haven't returned the car to them as firstly it isn't drivable, and if I have it transported there it would be at my cost, for which I'd have to claim that back from them. I'd rather they collect it (which from reading the CRA, it seems they have an obligation to do).
wildoliver said:
What was the car, price and engine fault?
There's a big difference between a 500 quid banger with an engine shudder but otherwise working and a 25k 6 month old car with rod knock and burning oil.
Mazda MX-5There's a big difference between a 500 quid banger with an engine shudder but otherwise working and a 25k 6 month old car with rod knock and burning oil.
£4,495
Failed piston rings, resulting in extremely high oil usage and lots of blue smoke
wildoliver said:
What was the car, price and engine fault?
There's a big difference between a 500 quid banger with an engine shudder but otherwise working and a 25k 6 month old car with rod knock and burning oil.
^ This.There's a big difference between a 500 quid banger with an engine shudder but otherwise working and a 25k 6 month old car with rod knock and burning oil.
CRA, as with SOGA before it, tempers your rights with reasonable expectations based on age/price/apparent condition. If the "engine fault" has been contributed to by your actions (not checking oil level, continuing to drive after coolant leak, that sort of thing), then all bets are off.
If you want to force it to the next level, then you need to return the car to them physically (if it isn't already with them), and take them to court for the money.
<edit> Rings that worn, with blue smoke that thick, would have been apparent on the test drive, right? Anyway, you also say you don't want to physically return it. No, you need to. If that costs you, then add it to the claim. But they only need collect it from your house if they delivered it there. Your responsibility includes returning it to where you collected it from. If that's their premises, then you need to take it to them.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 28th June 10:09
TooMany2cvs said:
^ This.
CRA, as with SOGA before it, tempers your rights with reasonable expectations based on age/price/apparent condition. If the "engine fault" has been contributed to by your actions (not checking oil level, continuing to drive after coolant leak, that sort of thing), then all bets are off.
If you want to force it to the next level, then you need to return the car to them physically (if it isn't already with them), and take them to court for the money.
<edit> Rings that worn, with blue smoke that thick, would have been apparent on the test drive, right? Anyway, you also say you don't want to physically return it. No, you need to. If that costs you, then add it to the claim. But they only need collect it from your house if they delivered it there. Your responsibility includes returning it to where you collected it from. If that's their premises, then you need to take it to them.
The test drive was short- 5 minutes or so. The issue seems to be most apparent when up to temperature. Further to that, when I bought the car it had a broken thermostat and so didn't actually get up to temperature. I realised this after buying the car and on the way home. Rather than go through the hassle of taking another day off work to return the car, I had the thermostat replaced by a Mazda main dealer (at my cost). Once up to temperature, the smoke becomes more apparent.CRA, as with SOGA before it, tempers your rights with reasonable expectations based on age/price/apparent condition. If the "engine fault" has been contributed to by your actions (not checking oil level, continuing to drive after coolant leak, that sort of thing), then all bets are off.
If you want to force it to the next level, then you need to return the car to them physically (if it isn't already with them), and take them to court for the money.
<edit> Rings that worn, with blue smoke that thick, would have been apparent on the test drive, right? Anyway, you also say you don't want to physically return it. No, you need to. If that costs you, then add it to the claim. But they only need collect it from your house if they delivered it there. Your responsibility includes returning it to where you collected it from. If that's their premises, then you need to take it to them.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 28th June 10:09
As for physically returning the car, I guess that's the next step then. Do I just hire a transporter to deliver the car there? What about the V5, keys, etc?
mx5tom said:
The test drive was short- 5 minutes or so. The issue seems to be most apparent when up to temperature. Further to that, when I bought the car it had a broken thermostat and so didn't actually get up to temperature. I realised this after buying the car and on the way home.
So you bought a car with mechanical issues (which were apparent immediately on collection, so you tacitly accepted) after a very brief test drive... mx5tom said:
Rather than go through the hassle of taking another day off work to return the car, I had the thermostat replaced by a Mazda main dealer (at my cost).
...then had somebody else lay spanners on it.This is all making your claim a lot less straightforward. You haven't yet said how old the car is, but £4,500 is about right for an 11-12yo MX5, perhaps a good chunk older, going by the 'trader.
mx5tom said:
As for physically returning the car, I guess that's the next step then. Do I just hire a transporter to deliver the car there? What about the V5, keys, etc?
Yes. Everything.You put a post about this back in April and was advised then to return the car and request a refund. At that point you said the car was using oil and had an occasional misfire that had since stopped (no mention of blowing out clouds of smoke and you were still using the car) it’s now June and your asking exactly the same questions.
I also note that on your Twitter page your profile picture is (I presume yourself and a friend) in a Mazda MX5 on a track day with helmets on. Not saying this is the same car just merely an observation.
The car is 12 years old has done over 70,000 miles so is entitled to have wear but should be in the condition a reasonable person would expect for its age mileage and price. Burning that amount of oil is IMO unreasonable but I think you have left it too late now to reject it. You did keep on using the car after you reported the issue this is clear from your post in April and I would hazard a guess that you have used it more since April and as a result possibly done more damage ( a reasonable counter claim for the trader to use) you also said in your April post that the trader was willing to make a contribution to its repair. Did you follow this up?
Get a second hand engine fitted and get on with your life or spend the next few months preparing for a court case that you could win but you could also lose. But actually do something this time do t leave it a few more months and ask for the same advice for a third time
Good luck whichever way you go
I also note that on your Twitter page your profile picture is (I presume yourself and a friend) in a Mazda MX5 on a track day with helmets on. Not saying this is the same car just merely an observation.
The car is 12 years old has done over 70,000 miles so is entitled to have wear but should be in the condition a reasonable person would expect for its age mileage and price. Burning that amount of oil is IMO unreasonable but I think you have left it too late now to reject it. You did keep on using the car after you reported the issue this is clear from your post in April and I would hazard a guess that you have used it more since April and as a result possibly done more damage ( a reasonable counter claim for the trader to use) you also said in your April post that the trader was willing to make a contribution to its repair. Did you follow this up?
Get a second hand engine fitted and get on with your life or spend the next few months preparing for a court case that you could win but you could also lose. But actually do something this time do t leave it a few more months and ask for the same advice for a third time
Good luck whichever way you go
I had the same problem in 2013 with an audi A4, heavy oil consumption and the local audi garage said they couldn't find anything wrong with it so would have to strip the engine to do a diagnostic and that would cost £1,500. Worst case scenario was piston rings apparently and total repair cost could be as high as 10k. Car was 4 years old and had 75,000 miles (approx). Like you, trader refused to have anything to do with it.
So very simply, I part exchanged it at a loss, and sued the trader in small claims court for the loss I suffered. Easy process, court granted me the claim, CCJ and bailiffs enforced the judgement. Done. Took about 18 months start to finish (with some failed repayment plans along the way) (and with the BBC filming the enforcement officers)
So very simply, I part exchanged it at a loss, and sued the trader in small claims court for the loss I suffered. Easy process, court granted me the claim, CCJ and bailiffs enforced the judgement. Done. Took about 18 months start to finish (with some failed repayment plans along the way) (and with the BBC filming the enforcement officers)
chris52 said:
You put a post about this back in April and was advised then to return the car and request a refund. At that point you said the car was using oil and had an occasional misfire that had since stopped (no mention of blowing out clouds of smoke and you were still using the car) it’s now June and your asking exactly the same questions.
Misfire and oil usage. Blue smoke at higher revs, but didn't mention for brevity sake.Asking the same questions as this has been an ongoing thing with the dealer, and then their solicitors. It's not been months of doing nothing.
chris52 said:
I also note that on your Twitter page your profile picture is (I presume yourself and a friend) in a Mazda MX5 on a track day with helmets on. Not saying this is the same car just merely an observation.
Old car and photo from about 3 or 4 years ago...chris52 said:
The car is 12 years old has done over 70,000 miles so is entitled to have wear but should be in the condition a reasonable person would expect for its age mileage and price. Burning that amount of oil is IMO unreasonable but I think you have left it too late now to reject it.
The odd issue I would deal with and expect of a 12 year old car. A few paint chips here and there that don't bother me, a broken thermostat I fixed out of my own pocket, etc. I think I'm being reasonable in all of this- small issues, sure, take it on the chin. A failed engine? No.
chris52 said:
You did keep on using the car after you reported the issue this is clear from your post in April and I would hazard a guess that you have used it more since April and as a result possibly done more damage ( a reasonable counter claim for the trader to use)
The car hasn't been used since April, save for some further trips to local garages as part of the diagnosis on instruction from the trader I bought the car from (I think the last one was April 18). Only recently declared as SORN, but it's not really been used. I bought it to use as a track car over the summer, and have spent a fair bit of money on maintenance within the first month of ownership in order to use on track, e.g. wheel refurb, new set of tyres, new set of brakes, engine oil and filter, gearbox oil, diff oil (all work carried out by either a main dealer or reputable independents).I don't have a commute, I have use of my girlfriends car for day to day stuff, and tend to use my motorbike for anything else. This car was meant purely as a second car/fun car.
chris52 said:
you also said in your April post that the trader was willing to make a contribution to its repair. Did you follow this up?
Yes- they said they'd make a "goodwill contribution", and requested I send them estimates and diagnosis from multiple garages. I did this, with the estimated repair being £2.4k inc. VAT. It took months to get them to come up with a number, but they finally offered £250.00. It's been a long back and forth with them, and then their solicitors, to take this further.chris52 said:
Get a second hand engine fitted and get on with your life or spend the next few months preparing for a court case that you could win but you could also lose. But actually do something this time do t leave it a few more months and ask for the same advice for a third time
It's a £4.5k car, bought from a trader and so I should be protected from having to fork out half the cars value for a fault that became apparent less than a month after buying the car. I have been doing something these past months. I've sent letters outlining my rights under the Consumer Rights Act and demanded they either repair the car, pay the full cost of repair, or I would reject the car. Their solicitor then responds within 2-3 weeks with reasons why they have no obligation to repair the car, I respond with counter arguments, they respond 2-3 weeks later with new reasons, rinse and repeat...It's got to the point I'm fed up of arguing with their solicitor and want to get an independent (e.g. a judge, an arbitrator) to look at the facts and decide accordingly.
TooMany2cvs said:
So get on with it. The longer you delay, the lower your chances.
Hence why I posted the thread... I wasn't sure whether Money Claim Online was the correct route to go down to enforce the short-term right to reject.I ended up going to Citizens Advice yesterday and have been told I need to send yet more letters, and then possibly look at court further down the line.
mx5tom said:
TooMany2cvs said:
So get on with it. The longer you delay, the lower your chances.
Hence why I posted the thread... I wasn't sure whether Money Claim Online was the correct route to go down to enforce the short-term right to reject.I ended up going to Citizens Advice yesterday and have been told I need to send yet more letters, and then possibly look at court further down the line.
mx5tom said:
Hence why I posted the thread... I wasn't sure whether Money Claim Online was the correct route to go down to enforce the short-term right to reject.
I ended up going to Citizens Advice yesterday and have been told I need to send yet more letters, and then possibly look at court further down the line.
Don’t take any notice of Citizens Advice they have very little knowledge of the real world and will only advise you on the bare facts of the CRA.I ended up going to Citizens Advice yesterday and have been told I need to send yet more letters, and then possibly look at court further down the line.
If your adamant to take this further then do it now get onto money claim make sure you have all your paperwork and evidence ready. It will take approx 6 months to get to court but you will have the opportunity to use arbitration which may help. It’s an old car and the judge will take this into consideration. Probably 40-60 in your favour of a win. But if the judge finds that you purchased the car as a weekend track day car then you won’t have a leg to stand on IMO as you may have damaged the engine yourself. How do you prove that you haven’t already done a track day in it and blown the engine.
chris52 said:
If your adamant to take this further then do it now get onto money claim make sure you have all your paperwork and evidence ready.
OP, before you light the blue touch paper read this Practice Direction first: in particular Sections 3 & 6.https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/...
chris52 said:
Don’t take any notice of Citizens Advice they have very little knowledge of the real world and will only advise you on the bare facts of the CRA.
😂 I’m guessing he’ll get better advocecrheee than from the barley literate masses on here!!Don’t see the issue to be honest. Old banger bought for TDs uses a bit of oil. So what?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff