CRA 2015 - Dealer insisting on repair after recurring EML
Discussion
Hi all,
I'd appreciate some opinions on where I stand.
I bought a used 2021 Mercedes E class from a large UK dealer. Around a month after purchase, the vehicle went back through the dealer during an MOT/service appointment (MOT due date less then 2.5 months which the vehicle was purchased from a large dealer), the amber EML came on during on the way to the dealer, where the EML appeared and the MOT could not be completed.
As they are not Mercedes network, they arranged for Mercedes to investigate.
Mercedes carried out diagnostics and a road test but couldn't reproduce the fault, and their invoice recorded "All OK". Unfortunately, the same EML returned the following morning under similar driving conditions.
I reported the recurrence to the dealer immediately and asked what the next steps would be. However, after around a week, I had still not given a proposed plan or repair arrangement, so I decided to submit a formal rejection request under the CRA.
The dealer has now responded saying I'm outside the 30- day right to reject. Their position is that the Mercedes visit was a diagnostic inspection rather than a repair(The invoice records it as investigation and some comment and "All OK") and they said the report proved no fault and no repair, so they believe they are entitled to a repair opportunity.
One point I'm particularly interested in is the "one repair attempt" position after the initial 30 days. Does the dealer position sound reasonable in these circumstances?
I'm interested in how others would approach this. Would you allow the dealer to proceed with diagnosis while reserving your rights, or would you take different approach? I already stopped using my car since EML has reoccurred, they told me the amber warning light is amber you can continue to drive it.
Thanks.
I'd appreciate some opinions on where I stand.
I bought a used 2021 Mercedes E class from a large UK dealer. Around a month after purchase, the vehicle went back through the dealer during an MOT/service appointment (MOT due date less then 2.5 months which the vehicle was purchased from a large dealer), the amber EML came on during on the way to the dealer, where the EML appeared and the MOT could not be completed.
As they are not Mercedes network, they arranged for Mercedes to investigate.
Mercedes carried out diagnostics and a road test but couldn't reproduce the fault, and their invoice recorded "All OK". Unfortunately, the same EML returned the following morning under similar driving conditions.
I reported the recurrence to the dealer immediately and asked what the next steps would be. However, after around a week, I had still not given a proposed plan or repair arrangement, so I decided to submit a formal rejection request under the CRA.
The dealer has now responded saying I'm outside the 30- day right to reject. Their position is that the Mercedes visit was a diagnostic inspection rather than a repair(The invoice records it as investigation and some comment and "All OK") and they said the report proved no fault and no repair, so they believe they are entitled to a repair opportunity.
One point I'm particularly interested in is the "one repair attempt" position after the initial 30 days. Does the dealer position sound reasonable in these circumstances?
I'm interested in how others would approach this. Would you allow the dealer to proceed with diagnosis while reserving your rights, or would you take different approach? I already stopped using my car since EML has reoccurred, they told me the amber warning light is amber you can continue to drive it.
Thanks.
komui said:
Hi all,
I'd appreciate some opinions on where I stand.
I bought a used 2021 Mercedes E class from a large UK dealer. Around a month after purchase, the vehicle went back through the dealer during an MOT/service appointment (MOT due date less then 2.5 months which the vehicle was purchased from a large dealer), the amber EML came on during on the way to the dealer, where the EML appeared and the MOT could not be completed.
As they are not Mercedes network, they arranged for Mercedes to investigate.
Mercedes carried out diagnostics and a road test but couldn't reproduce the fault, and their invoice recorded "All OK". Unfortunately, the same EML returned the following morning under similar driving conditions.
I reported the recurrence to the dealer immediately and asked what the next steps would be. However, after around a week, I had still not given a proposed plan or repair arrangement, so I decided to submit a formal rejection request under the CRA.
The dealer has now responded saying I'm outside the 30- day right to reject. Their position is that the Mercedes visit was a diagnostic inspection rather than a repair(The invoice records it as investigation and some comment and "All OK") and they said the report proved no fault and no repair, so they believe they are entitled to a repair opportunity.
One point I'm particularly interested in is the "one repair attempt" position after the initial 30 days. Does the dealer position sound reasonable in these circumstances?
I'm interested in how others would approach this. Would you allow the dealer to proceed with diagnosis while reserving your rights, or would you take different approach? I already stopped using my car since EML has reoccurred, they told me the amber warning light is amber you can continue to drive it.
Thanks.
On the 30-day point: if it’s genuinely been over 30 days since delivery, the short-term right to reject has likely lapsed — unless the clock was paused. Under s.22 CRA, time spent with the trader for a repair (that you formally requested) doesn’t count towards the 30 days, and the period can be extended. Worth checking exactly when you first reported the fault and whether that MOT/service visit could count as invoking a repair request within the window — that’s a live argument, not necessarily dead.I'd appreciate some opinions on where I stand.
I bought a used 2021 Mercedes E class from a large UK dealer. Around a month after purchase, the vehicle went back through the dealer during an MOT/service appointment (MOT due date less then 2.5 months which the vehicle was purchased from a large dealer), the amber EML came on during on the way to the dealer, where the EML appeared and the MOT could not be completed.
As they are not Mercedes network, they arranged for Mercedes to investigate.
Mercedes carried out diagnostics and a road test but couldn't reproduce the fault, and their invoice recorded "All OK". Unfortunately, the same EML returned the following morning under similar driving conditions.
I reported the recurrence to the dealer immediately and asked what the next steps would be. However, after around a week, I had still not given a proposed plan or repair arrangement, so I decided to submit a formal rejection request under the CRA.
The dealer has now responded saying I'm outside the 30- day right to reject. Their position is that the Mercedes visit was a diagnostic inspection rather than a repair(The invoice records it as investigation and some comment and "All OK") and they said the report proved no fault and no repair, so they believe they are entitled to a repair opportunity.
One point I'm particularly interested in is the "one repair attempt" position after the initial 30 days. Does the dealer position sound reasonable in these circumstances?
I'm interested in how others would approach this. Would you allow the dealer to proceed with diagnosis while reserving your rights, or would you take different approach? I already stopped using my car since EML has reoccurred, they told me the amber warning light is amber you can continue to drive it.
Thanks.
On “diagnostic vs repair attempt”: this is actually the dealer’s strongest point. Under s.23, the trader is entitled to one opportunity to repair (or replace) before you get the final right to reject. A visit where Mercedes ran diagnostics, found nothing, did no work, and recorded “all OK” is arguably not a repair attempt at all — no fault was identified, so nothing was fixed. On a strict reading of the Act, that means the dealer hasn’t used their one attempt yet, and they can reasonably ask for a proper repair opportunity now that the fault has actually manifested twice. It’s a reasonable legal position, even if frustrating.
Practically:
• I wouldn’t refuse a repair opportunity outright — CRA requires you to give the trader a reasonable chance, and refusing entirely could weaken your position if this ends up at the Motor Ombudsman or in court.
• Do it in writing: give a repair timeframe, state you’re reserving your rights, and ask for a written diagnostic/repair report each time.
• Get everything on paper — including the “it’s fine to drive on amber” comment. Amber EML can mean anything from emissions-related to more serious drivetrain/safety issues depending on the code; I’d want the actual fault code, not just a verbal assurance.
• If a genuine repair is then attempted and the fault recurs after that, you’re on much firmer ground for the final right to reject (with a deduction for use) or a price reduction.
• The Motor Ombudsman (if the dealer is signed up) or Citizens Advice consumer helpline can give a steer specific to your paperwork and dates — worth doing before you commit further, since the exact dates matter a lot here.
Chimune said:
Exact number of days from payment/collection to MOT/EML please.
And why would any normal dealer sell a car with 2.5 months of MOT left ???
Collection : Day 1And why would any normal dealer sell a car with 2.5 months of MOT left ???
Service date and scheduled MOT and EML 1st appeared : Day 37
Mercedes investigation : Day 51
EML reappeared : Day 52, reported same day but had't received any proposal until the vehicle notice sent.
Reject Vehicle Notice : Day 58 evening
Today : Day 60
MOT due : Day 74
I did question the MOT timing at the time. The salesperson checked with the Manager and came back to me saying that the MOT could only be done one month before expiry. I had concerns about this and was considering raising it separately, but the EML issue subsequently became the priority.
From a dealer POV. You have passed your short term right to reject period, the fault was not found by a Mercedes dealer, therefore there has been no ‘fix’ or opportunity to do so as a fault has not been found to fix.
I wouldn’t be accepting a rejection. I would be looking to repair the issue and cause you as minimal hassle as possible when doing so.
I wouldn’t be accepting a rejection. I would be looking to repair the issue and cause you as minimal hassle as possible when doing so.
komui said:
Collection : Day 1
Service date and scheduled MOT and EML 1st appeared : Day 37
Mercedes investigation : Day 51
EML reappeared : Day 52, reported same day but had't received any proposal until the vehicle notice sent.
Reject Vehicle Notice : Day 58 evening
Today : Day 60
MOT due : Day 74
I did question the MOT timing at the time. The salesperson checked with the Manager and came back to me saying that the MOT could only be done one month before expiry. I had concerns about this and was considering raising it separately, but the EML issue subsequently became the priority.
Thanks that timeline actually changes the analysis a bit.Service date and scheduled MOT and EML 1st appeared : Day 37
Mercedes investigation : Day 51
EML reappeared : Day 52, reported same day but had't received any proposal until the vehicle notice sent.
Reject Vehicle Notice : Day 58 evening
Today : Day 60
MOT due : Day 74
I did question the MOT timing at the time. The salesperson checked with the Manager and came back to me saying that the MOT could only be done one month before expiry. I had concerns about this and was considering raising it separately, but the EML issue subsequently became the priority.
The 30-day point is moot, not paused. The fault didn t appear until Day 37 a week after the 30-day short-term right to reject had already expired on Day 30. There s no clock to extend here (s.22 CRA only pauses the 30 days if you d already invoked a repair within that window). So the dealer is factually correct that Day 58 is outside the 30-day right but not because of anything to do with the Mercedes visit; it s simply because nothing happened until after Day 30 anyway. Your route now is the s.24 final right to reject, not the short-term one.
That means you need either:
one failed repair/replacement attempt (s.23), or
the dealer failing to repair within a reasonable time / without significant inconvenience.
Whether the Day 51 Mercedes visit counts as the repair attempt is genuinely arguable both ways. It found nothing and did no remedial work so the dealer s argument that no repair has actually been attempted yet has real force. But you could counter that the trader chose diagnosis as their remedy, it failed (fault recurred within 24 hours), and that itself is a failed attempt. This isn t clearly settled either way it s the kind of thing the Motor Ombudsman or small claims would have to weigh.
The stronger point for you is the week of silence between Day 52 (you reported recurrence) and Day 58 (rejection) with no repair plan offered that goes to reasonable time under s.23(2)(a).
Practical suggestion: don t concede the point, but don t block a genuine repair opportunity either. Respond in writing: dispute that the diagnostic-only visit satisfies s.23, but offer a defined window (e.g. 7 14 days) for an actual repair, state you re reserving your s.24 rights if that fails or drags on, and get the EML fault code in writing this time.
Edited by Mar5hall on Friday 17th July 08:16
komui said:
The salesperson checked with the Manager and came back to me saying that the MOT could only be done one month before expiry.
I know others have said it but just to add my weight to the fact that FFR this is 100% BS you can do an MOT at ANY point, most reasonable car sales outlets will do an MOT if the car has under 6 months left on the current test.Mar5hall said:
komui said:
Collection : Day 1
Service date and scheduled MOT and EML 1st appeared : Day 37
Mercedes investigation : Day 51
EML reappeared : Day 52, reported same day but had't received any proposal until the vehicle notice sent.
Reject Vehicle Notice : Day 58 evening
Today : Day 60
MOT due : Day 74
I did question the MOT timing at the time. The salesperson checked with the Manager and came back to me saying that the MOT could only be done one month before expiry. I had concerns about this and was considering raising it separately, but the EML issue subsequently became the priority.
Practical suggestion: don t concede the point, but don t block a genuine repair opportunity either. Respond in writing: dispute that the diagnostic-only visit satisfies s.23, but offer a defined window (e.g. 7 14 days) for an actual repair, state you re reserving your s.24 rights if that fails or drags on, and get the EML fault code in writing this time. Note MOT isn t an immediate pressure point a 2021 car doesn t need its first MOT until the 3-year mark, so you re not driving illegally regardless.Service date and scheduled MOT and EML 1st appeared : Day 37
Mercedes investigation : Day 51
EML reappeared : Day 52, reported same day but had't received any proposal until the vehicle notice sent.
Reject Vehicle Notice : Day 58 evening
Today : Day 60
MOT due : Day 74
I did question the MOT timing at the time. The salesperson checked with the Manager and came back to me saying that the MOT could only be done one month before expiry. I had concerns about this and was considering raising it separately, but the EML issue subsequently became the priority.
E-bmw said:
komui said:
The salesperson checked with the Manager and came back to me saying that the MOT could only be done one month before expiry.
I know others have said it but just to add my weight to the fact that FFR this is 100% BS you can do an MOT at ANY point, most reasonable car sales outlets will do an MOT if the car has under 6 months left on the current test.If you want to keep the same anniversary date, you need to present the vehicle 30 days in advance, if it passes you effectively get 13 months before the next one is due.
Mar5hall said:
Thanks that timeline actually changes the analysis a bit.
The 30-day point is moot, not paused. The fault didn t appear until Day 37 a week after the 30-day short-term right to reject had already expired on Day 30. There s no clock to extend here (s.22 CRA only pauses the 30 days if you d already invoked a repair within that window). So the dealer is factually correct that Day 58 is outside the 30-day right but not because of anything to do with the Mercedes visit; it s simply because nothing happened until after Day 30 anyway. Your route now is the s.24 final right to reject, not the short-term one.
That means you need either:
one failed repair/replacement attempt (s.23), or
the dealer failing to repair within a reasonable time / without significant inconvenience.
Whether the Day 51 Mercedes visit counts as the repair attempt is genuinely arguable both ways. It found nothing and did no remedial work so the dealer s argument that no repair has actually been attempted yet has real force. But you could counter that the trader chose diagnosis as their remedy, it failed (fault recurred within 24 hours), and that itself is a failed attempt. This isn t clearly settled either way it s the kind of thing the Motor Ombudsman or small claims would have to weigh.
The stronger point for you is the week of silence between Day 52 (you reported recurrence) and Day 58 (rejection) with no repair plan offered that goes to reasonable time under s.23(2)(a).
Practical suggestion: don t concede the point, but don t block a genuine repair opportunity either. Respond in writing: dispute that the diagnostic-only visit satisfies s.23, but offer a defined window (e.g. 7 14 days) for an actual repair, state you re reserving your s.24 rights if that fails or drags on, and get the EML fault code in writing this time.
Thanks, that's a really helpful perspective. I agree that, I'm leaning towards giving the dealer one more opportunity to investigate and repair. It's whether accepting the car back at the dealer now could weaken my legal position or be seen as me withdrawing my earlier rejection under section 24.The 30-day point is moot, not paused. The fault didn t appear until Day 37 a week after the 30-day short-term right to reject had already expired on Day 30. There s no clock to extend here (s.22 CRA only pauses the 30 days if you d already invoked a repair within that window). So the dealer is factually correct that Day 58 is outside the 30-day right but not because of anything to do with the Mercedes visit; it s simply because nothing happened until after Day 30 anyway. Your route now is the s.24 final right to reject, not the short-term one.
That means you need either:
one failed repair/replacement attempt (s.23), or
the dealer failing to repair within a reasonable time / without significant inconvenience.
Whether the Day 51 Mercedes visit counts as the repair attempt is genuinely arguable both ways. It found nothing and did no remedial work so the dealer s argument that no repair has actually been attempted yet has real force. But you could counter that the trader chose diagnosis as their remedy, it failed (fault recurred within 24 hours), and that itself is a failed attempt. This isn t clearly settled either way it s the kind of thing the Motor Ombudsman or small claims would have to weigh.
The stronger point for you is the week of silence between Day 52 (you reported recurrence) and Day 58 (rejection) with no repair plan offered that goes to reasonable time under s.23(2)(a).
Practical suggestion: don t concede the point, but don t block a genuine repair opportunity either. Respond in writing: dispute that the diagnostic-only visit satisfies s.23, but offer a defined window (e.g. 7 14 days) for an actual repair, state you re reserving your s.24 rights if that fails or drags on, and get the EML fault code in writing this time.
Edited by Mar5hall on Friday 17th July 08:16
The dealer also doesn't seem to regard Mercedes simply clearing the fault codes as a repair attempt or an attempt to remedy the fault, and they keep focusing on the 30-day short-term right to reject rather than my Section 24 argument.
As others have mentioned, would this situation generally be considered a repair attempt?
My understanding is that the issue is not just that the fault code was cleared, but that Mercedes had the opportunity which was arranged by the dealer to investigate the issue, cleared code, road test the car but unable to replicate fault, and return it after attempting to resolve it. They confirmed that they were unable to find a fault at the time and considered the vehicle OK to return, but the same warning light came back within 12 hours.
Just to add, during the first 30 days I raised some minor issues, but i was not looking to reject the car because of them, I was happy for the dealer to address them, i was told they had been dealt with, but noticed some issues remained and reported this next day.
I'm just trying to understand the correct position rather than assuming I'm right.
I think you should relax a bit. Let them actually find out what the problem is. Fix it, and give you your car back.
An intermittent EML on a 5 year old car is probably not a big deal at all. Your lawyer-up, buttercup! approach might not be the best one for getting people working for you, rather than against you.
An intermittent EML on a 5 year old car is probably not a big deal at all. Your lawyer-up, buttercup! approach might not be the best one for getting people working for you, rather than against you.
E-bmw said:
I know others have said it but just to add my weight to the fact that FFR this is 100% BS you can do an MOT at ANY point, most reasonable car sales outlets will do an MOT if the car has under 6 months left on the current test.
Thanks for your pointing that out. I was aware at the time that the explanation didn't really make sense, as I'm not a first-time car buyer and I've also bought cars from independent dealer before. To be fair, I didn't push the point at the time. I only raised my concerns. I also know someone who recently bought from the same group and their MOT was carried out on the day of collection, but I accept that this alone doesn't prove anything.komui said:
Thanks, that's a really helpful perspective. I agree that, I'm leaning towards giving the dealer one more opportunity to investigate and repair. It's whether accepting the car back at the dealer now could weaken my legal position or be seen as me withdrawing my earlier rejection under section 24.
The dealer also doesn't seem to regard Mercedes simply clearing the fault codes as a repair attempt or an attempt to remedy the fault, and they keep focusing on the 30-day short-term right to reject rather than my Section 24 argument.
As others have mentioned, would this situation generally be considered a repair attempt?
My understanding is that the issue is not just that the fault code was cleared, but that Mercedes had the opportunity which was arranged by the dealer to investigate the issue, cleared code, road test the car but unable to replicate fault, and return it after attempting to resolve it. They confirmed that they were unable to find a fault at the time and considered the vehicle OK to return, but the same warning light came back within 12 hours.
Just to add, during the first 30 days I raised some minor issues, but i was not looking to reject the car because of them, I was happy for the dealer to address them, i was told they had been dealt with, but noticed some issues remained and reported this next day.
I'm just trying to understand the correct position rather than assuming I'm right.
No it’s not a repair, and if the light isn’t on now then there is nothing to repairThe dealer also doesn't seem to regard Mercedes simply clearing the fault codes as a repair attempt or an attempt to remedy the fault, and they keep focusing on the 30-day short-term right to reject rather than my Section 24 argument.
As others have mentioned, would this situation generally be considered a repair attempt?
My understanding is that the issue is not just that the fault code was cleared, but that Mercedes had the opportunity which was arranged by the dealer to investigate the issue, cleared code, road test the car but unable to replicate fault, and return it after attempting to resolve it. They confirmed that they were unable to find a fault at the time and considered the vehicle OK to return, but the same warning light came back within 12 hours.
Just to add, during the first 30 days I raised some minor issues, but i was not looking to reject the car because of them, I was happy for the dealer to address them, i was told they had been dealt with, but noticed some issues remained and reported this next day.
I'm just trying to understand the correct position rather than assuming I'm right.
SpeckledJim said:
I think you should relax a bit. Let them actually find out what the problem is. Fix it, and give you your car back.
An intermittent EML on a 5 year old car is probably not a big deal at all. Your lawyer-up, buttercup! approach might not be the best one for getting people working for you, rather than against you.
I do understand your point, and I wish I could be that relax about it. And I agree that an intermittent EML does not always mean a major issue. However, in my case, at the very least, you probably wouldn't feel completely comfortable driving it around, another concern is that whether the issue keeps coming back with no fault has been identified every time and each time you are left waiting for the dealer to the Mercedes inspection, which can take time.An intermittent EML on a 5 year old car is probably not a big deal at all. Your lawyer-up, buttercup! approach might not be the best one for getting people working for you, rather than against you.
With a five-year-old high-performance vehicle, an intermittent EML can relate to many different systems, and some repairs can cost a small fortune. After spending tens of thousands of pounds on a vehicle, I think it's reasonable to want the underlying causing properly identified rather than simply accepting that it is still derivable. I think many owners would at least have to consider whether they would still feel comfortable keeping the vehicle even if you really like the car. As a customer, I see the CRA 2015 as a framework that protects both sides and provide clear process. Whether a customerchooses to give the dealer another opportunity to repair the vehicle or decides that rejection is the right option depends on the individual's decision. That's the spirit of the law.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff