Rejected car purchased from Dealer - who pays for return?
Discussion
The brother in law purchased a car last year from Scotland, but lives in the East of England so a long way from the dealer. Purchased remotely, but collected in person and driven back.
The vehicle was sold with a new clean MOT but the started developing multiple and serious faults in the first week. He then got another MOT done locally a couple of weeks later which it failed plus got a proper long list of faults (more than 10) in various categories. The issue of the apparently dodgy MOT is not the issue here.
The dealer has accepted the return of the car as long as it is in the same condition as supplied due to the numerous faults. As the car has been off the road for most of the time this is not an issue, and it remains off the road now. As such, BiL had to hire a car today to travel to a funeral.
The dealer is not currently willing to pay the approx £500 to get the vehicle returned as it is a non-driver due to MOT failure. Vehicle was circa £8k FWIW.
The only question here is who should pay for the return of the vehicle?
The vehicle was sold with a new clean MOT but the started developing multiple and serious faults in the first week. He then got another MOT done locally a couple of weeks later which it failed plus got a proper long list of faults (more than 10) in various categories. The issue of the apparently dodgy MOT is not the issue here.
The dealer has accepted the return of the car as long as it is in the same condition as supplied due to the numerous faults. As the car has been off the road for most of the time this is not an issue, and it remains off the road now. As such, BiL had to hire a car today to travel to a funeral.
The dealer is not currently willing to pay the approx £500 to get the vehicle returned as it is a non-driver due to MOT failure. Vehicle was circa £8k FWIW.
The only question here is who should pay for the return of the vehicle?
Fresh Air Ian said:
The brother in law purchased a car last year from Scotland, but lives in the East of England so a long way from the dealer. Purchased remotely, but collected in person and driven back.
The vehicle was sold with a new clean MOT but the started developing multiple and serious faults in the first week. He then got another MOT done locally a couple of weeks later which it failed plus got a proper long list of faults (more than 10) in various categories. The issue of the apparently dodgy MOT is not the issue here.
The dealer has accepted the return of the car as long as it is in the same condition as supplied due to the numerous faults. As the car has been off the road for most of the time this is not an issue, and it remains off the road now. As such, BiL had to hire a car today to travel to a funeral.
The dealer is not currently willing to pay the approx £500 to get the vehicle returned as it is a non-driver due to MOT failure. Vehicle was circa £8k FWIW.
The only question here is who should pay for the return of the vehicle?
I would say;The vehicle was sold with a new clean MOT but the started developing multiple and serious faults in the first week. He then got another MOT done locally a couple of weeks later which it failed plus got a proper long list of faults (more than 10) in various categories. The issue of the apparently dodgy MOT is not the issue here.
The dealer has accepted the return of the car as long as it is in the same condition as supplied due to the numerous faults. As the car has been off the road for most of the time this is not an issue, and it remains off the road now. As such, BiL had to hire a car today to travel to a funeral.
The dealer is not currently willing to pay the approx £500 to get the vehicle returned as it is a non-driver due to MOT failure. Vehicle was circa £8k FWIW.
The only question here is who should pay for the return of the vehicle?
It isn't the dealers fault that the purchaser was from a long way away.
BIL has to bear the costs of return.
Assuming the MoT failure isn't dangerous, can he not book it in for test at the dealer's in Scotland and drive it up?
Edit: Actually, isn't the original MoT still valid as it hasn't expired?
Edited by No ideas for a name on Tuesday 9th February 16:33
An MOT failure means the vehicle is not in roadworthy condition. An MOT certificate confirms that status at the exact moment in time, even though it is valid for 12 months.
A subsequent failure of the MOT demonstrates the vehicle is not in roadworthy condition at a later point in time than a previous test.
This is not the issue here, the vehicle is not safe to drive, MOT or not.
Now to the question in hand.
A subsequent failure of the MOT demonstrates the vehicle is not in roadworthy condition at a later point in time than a previous test.
This is not the issue here, the vehicle is not safe to drive, MOT or not.
Now to the question in hand.
Oceanrower said:
Also. No it doesn’t.
If you drive with 'dangerous' problem(s) listed in your MOT you can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points.Is that clear enough? This is not the topic for discussion anyway. A car with 3 brakes with issues is not one to drive on the road, legal or not.
I also suspect the cost to return the vehicle should be that of the purchaser but was looking for legal confirmation from someone who could provide an educated response.
The previous MOT Certificate would only be valid if the failure points had been rectified - So if the car failed an MOT on a bald tyre, and then you had that replaced but couldnt book a new MOT, then you could continue on the old Certificate.
If your car failes an MOT, and you have a month left on the previous MOT, you cant just disregard the new failure and continue on the old MOT.
Also, as its all electronic, the new failure would be logged on the system straight away, so you would potentially get pulled by ANPR.
And from what I remember from the numerous posts I have read on here, the return is at the buyers expense.
If your car failes an MOT, and you have a month left on the previous MOT, you cant just disregard the new failure and continue on the old MOT.
Also, as its all electronic, the new failure would be logged on the system straight away, so you would potentially get pulled by ANPR.
And from what I remember from the numerous posts I have read on here, the return is at the buyers expense.
If the multiple faults leading to failed MOT have developed within a suspiciously short period of time from purchase of vehicle, as seems to be the case reading between the lines of the OP's description, I would definitely say it's for the dealer to pay for return/recovery, since they've clearly tried to pass off a badly over-priced lemon.
Smurfsarepeopletoo said:
The previous MOT Certificate would only be valid if the failure points had been rectified - So if the car failed an MOT on a bald tyre, and then you had that replaced but couldnt book a new MOT, then you could continue on the old Certificate.
If your car failes an MOT, and you have a month left on the previous MOT, you cant just disregard the new failure and continue on the old MOT.
Also, as its all electronic, the new failure would be logged on the system straight away, so you would potentially get pulled by ANPR.
And from what I remember from the numerous posts I have read on here, the return is at the buyers expense.
If your car failes an MOT, and you have a month left on the previous MOT, you can just disregard the new failure and continue on the old MOT. (As long as it hasn't failed on a 'dangerous').If your car failes an MOT, and you have a month left on the previous MOT, you cant just disregard the new failure and continue on the old MOT.
Also, as its all electronic, the new failure would be logged on the system straight away, so you would potentially get pulled by ANPR.
And from what I remember from the numerous posts I have read on here, the return is at the buyers expense.
FTFY
CoolHands said:
I’d rather make sure I got 7.5k back and then worry about the 500 later
I think the top and bottom of it is for a sale rejection it's the buyer's responsibility to return the vehicle,and yes I'd be getting it back asap and pocketing the £7500 before things start getting messy...This is the BiL's responsibility, it isn't the dealers fault he isn't local to the dealer.
Buy local next time or suck it up if things go wrong.
I would ask if they have a branch in the same group that is closer he can deal with instead of the dealer in Scotland or do the distance selling regulations have anything to say on this.
Buy local next time or suck it up if things go wrong.
I would ask if they have a branch in the same group that is closer he can deal with instead of the dealer in Scotland or do the distance selling regulations have anything to say on this.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 9th February 18:42
The fact that you picked it up from the dealer means that the Distance Selling side of things doesn't apply so it's likely to come down to how much of an appetite you have for a battle. I have to say that if I were in your position I would get my money back and write off the cost of getting the car back to the dealer.
With the best will in the world you chose to buy the car from the other end of Scotland and for what you paid this isn't something that is likely to be particularly rare. You mention the brake issues but I would suggest that you try to apply an objective perspective on this and look at how much it would cost to put things right. If these brake issues are potentially consumables such as pads and discs then it might well be that you're going to incur these costs in any car you buy. Are you able to share more specific information about the nature of the brake (and other) issues?
If you want to fight out the costs of transporting the car back then I would imagine you'll need to mitigate this cost where possible but perhaps go in with a sensible offer rather than demanding the full amount.
With the best will in the world you chose to buy the car from the other end of Scotland and for what you paid this isn't something that is likely to be particularly rare. You mention the brake issues but I would suggest that you try to apply an objective perspective on this and look at how much it would cost to put things right. If these brake issues are potentially consumables such as pads and discs then it might well be that you're going to incur these costs in any car you buy. Are you able to share more specific information about the nature of the brake (and other) issues?
If you want to fight out the costs of transporting the car back then I would imagine you'll need to mitigate this cost where possible but perhaps go in with a sensible offer rather than demanding the full amount.
Your BiL seems to have painted himself into a corner by getting an unnecessary MOT. Maybe he was hoping to use it as leverage against the garage.
In any case, if he wants his money back for the car, he's going to have to return it, one way or another.
1. Seek a cheaper method of transporting the car to the garage.
2. Fix the dangerous issue and drive the car.
Whatever is cheapest.
In any case, if he wants his money back for the car, he's going to have to return it, one way or another.
1. Seek a cheaper method of transporting the car to the garage.
2. Fix the dangerous issue and drive the car.
Whatever is cheapest.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff