Car dealer problems - can I return the car?
Discussion
On 5 August I viewed s/h Jaguar (2011, 33K miles) from a non-Jaguar dealer, paying a £500 deposit before I left so the car would be held for me until I arrived. On the test drive I found the a/c was completely failed, and after a few miles the 'restricted performance' light came on. I liked the car but told the salesman the faults would need to be fixed before I could complete the sale. He agreed to do this and to deliver the car to me when ready (the dealer is 110 miles away).
They diagnosed a 'chipped condenser' and replaced it in-house, but the 'restricted performance' light was beyond them and they took the car to a local Jaguar dealer for the fix (I was told it was a turbo sensor).
On 15 August the car was delivered, and it seemed fine so I accepted it. Three days later the a/c failed. The warranty states that I can get repairs done locally so, with the approval of the dealer's sales manager, I took it to an a/c specialist about 12 miles away. He had to dismantle a lot to find the real fault - corroded pipes - and not only is my car currently undriveable but the pipes are on back-order and therefore unattainable.
The warranty says 'Your Supplying Dealer will supply you with a replacement vehicle up to 7 days subject to availability' - they have one car but it's not available until 19 Sep - and it woudl be 110 miles away.
So I have no transport and my car is in pieces 12 miles away waiting for parts. Two questions:
1) Can I make the dealer pay for a hire car?
2) Can I reject the car and get a refund? Sales manager says not, only repair.
Thanks all!
They diagnosed a 'chipped condenser' and replaced it in-house, but the 'restricted performance' light was beyond them and they took the car to a local Jaguar dealer for the fix (I was told it was a turbo sensor).
On 15 August the car was delivered, and it seemed fine so I accepted it. Three days later the a/c failed. The warranty states that I can get repairs done locally so, with the approval of the dealer's sales manager, I took it to an a/c specialist about 12 miles away. He had to dismantle a lot to find the real fault - corroded pipes - and not only is my car currently undriveable but the pipes are on back-order and therefore unattainable.
The warranty says 'Your Supplying Dealer will supply you with a replacement vehicle up to 7 days subject to availability' - they have one car but it's not available until 19 Sep - and it woudl be 110 miles away.
So I have no transport and my car is in pieces 12 miles away waiting for parts. Two questions:
1) Can I make the dealer pay for a hire car?
2) Can I reject the car and get a refund? Sales manager says not, only repair.
Thanks all!
Thanks all for the input; perspective is always welcome.
I think AndyMC is right; broken a/c doesn't make the car unfit for purpose - though I suspect it was a known fault either before they sold it to me or when they took it in p/ex.
So I will just have to chill out and wait a bit longer. Thanks again for the views.
KevinCamaroSS said:
How would propose to make a non-marque dealer 110 miles away pay for a rental car?
In fact as they had only one courtesy car that wasn't available, they did offer to pay for a 'CHEAP!' hire car as a gesture of goodwill. I haven't invoked it yet as getting and returning that would involve some difficulty and the a/c man tells me the pipes arrived today. So I'll tough it out until tomorrow when hopefully the car is finished.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It seems he's had to dismantle quite a lot to find the fault. I can't see what he's up to as he's in unit in the country 12 miles away! One pipe has failed and the other is almost failed, apparently. I have no reason to doubt him. I used him once before a few years ago and he did a good job.I think AndyMC is right; broken a/c doesn't make the car unfit for purpose - though I suspect it was a known fault either before they sold it to me or when they took it in p/ex.
So I will just have to chill out and wait a bit longer. Thanks again for the views.
Yes you can reject it if the fault occurred within the first 30 days. If it's not, then you have to give the dealer one opportunity to repair it in a reasonable amount of time.
If the repair is unsuccessful, you can still reject the car if you wish. Remember that the 30 day short time right to reject period goes on hold.
If the repair is unsuccessful, you can still reject the car if you wish. Remember that the 30 day short time right to reject period goes on hold.
andymc said:
does the right to rejection only apply if the car is not suitable for purpose? would be nice if there was some case law on this
(1)Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—
(a)any description of the goods,
(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and
(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).
(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;
(b)appearance and finish;
(c)freedom from minor defects;
(d)safety;
(e)durability.
(4)
There's no issue with the car's fitness for purpose. The air-con being broken doesn't affect its function as a car. If the OP had told the dealer specifically that he intended to use it as a cold store, things might be different but I think this is unlikely :-)
I would say on balance that it is not satisfactory quality though. The dealer could try to argue that 'some issues are to be expected in a 5 year old car and the air con isn't that important' to wriggle out but in this case the fact that it was expressly agreed that he was to get the air con working would work strongly against him if he did try this line.
Not being satisfactory quality gives access to the CRA's remedies, including the short term right to reject. You have thirty days from, in this case, the delivery date to reject so you would still be in time.
However, you've taken the thing to bits and say it's going to have to stay that way until parts arrive on back order. I'm not sure exactly what legal effect that has. It can't extinguish the short term right to reject in the same way as it would have done under the Sale of Goods Act, but other questions would arise, such as what state you'd need to give it back i. I wouldn't know the answers to these without looking into it.
From a purely practical point of view though, on account of the above I'd say best to forget about rejection. Get it fixed and if you need transport out of necessity, get yourself a cheap hire car. Send the trader the bill for all of it.
If he doesn't pay, I wouldn't think you'd have too much trouble claiming these sums in the small claims court as losses resulting from his breach of contract, so long as you were armed with evidence of what the fault was (photos, engineer's report) and are able to demonstrate that 1) you needed the the hire car (rather than wanted one) and 2) you got the repair done as economically as was sensible.
Of course, if you think you can, it would be preferable to agree this course of action in advance.
Good luck!
I would say on balance that it is not satisfactory quality though. The dealer could try to argue that 'some issues are to be expected in a 5 year old car and the air con isn't that important' to wriggle out but in this case the fact that it was expressly agreed that he was to get the air con working would work strongly against him if he did try this line.
Not being satisfactory quality gives access to the CRA's remedies, including the short term right to reject. You have thirty days from, in this case, the delivery date to reject so you would still be in time.
However, you've taken the thing to bits and say it's going to have to stay that way until parts arrive on back order. I'm not sure exactly what legal effect that has. It can't extinguish the short term right to reject in the same way as it would have done under the Sale of Goods Act, but other questions would arise, such as what state you'd need to give it back i. I wouldn't know the answers to these without looking into it.
From a purely practical point of view though, on account of the above I'd say best to forget about rejection. Get it fixed and if you need transport out of necessity, get yourself a cheap hire car. Send the trader the bill for all of it.
If he doesn't pay, I wouldn't think you'd have too much trouble claiming these sums in the small claims court as losses resulting from his breach of contract, so long as you were armed with evidence of what the fault was (photos, engineer's report) and are able to demonstrate that 1) you needed the the hire car (rather than wanted one) and 2) you got the repair done as economically as was sensible.
Of course, if you think you can, it would be preferable to agree this course of action in advance.
Good luck!
I think some people forget that a 5 year-old car is not new, and therefore items fail under wear and tear. This is why, on normal cars, it is better to walk away from one that has obvious issues, rather than buy it and for it to be fixed. A/C is nice to have, but does not affect the usability of the car so does not affect it's fitness for purpose.
KevinCamaroSS said:
A/C is nice to have, but does not affect the usability of the car so does not affect it's fitness for purpose.
I would disagree strongly. A/C makes driving massively more comfortable in hot weather and keeps the inside of the windows mist free in wet conditions.
I can think of many similar reasonable-to-silly examples ("well, we did say your new house came with central heating, but it still keeps the rain off, so just use the fire in the living room, what you moaning about"), but the fact is these days I would not consider a buying car without working A/C. It does have a major impact on usability and fitness for purpose in my view.
singlecoil said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
but does not affect the usability of the car so does not affect it's fitness for purpose.
Which of course, as has already been pointed out, is not the only valid reason for rejecting a car.It's fairly inconceivable for a type approved road car to be of satisfactory quality, but not fit for the purpose of providing personal transport.
KevinCamaroSS said:
I think some people forget that a 5 year-old car is not new, and therefore items fail under wear and tear. This is why, on normal cars, it is better to walk away from one that has obvious issues, rather than buy it and for it to be fixed. A/C is nice to have, but does not affect the usability of the car so does not affect it's fitness for purpose.
Would a reasonable person expect the aircon to be working on a car when they bought it? Of course they would, which is why the OP arranged for it to be repaired with the dealer. If the dealer can't or won't, even if a third party is doing it, the OP has a right to reject.
bmw535i said:
Yes you can reject it if the fault occurred within the first 30 days. If it's not, then you have to give the dealer one opportunity to repair it in a reasonable amount of time.
If the repair is unsuccessful, you can still reject the car if you wish. Remember that the 30 day short time right to reject period goes on hold.
No you can't. This bit of legislation is going to end up the same as no MOT, insurance invalid myths.If the repair is unsuccessful, you can still reject the car if you wish. Remember that the 30 day short time right to reject period goes on hold.
What the Consumer Protection Act says is that if a fault occurs within the first 30 days and the purchaser can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase, then he MAY have the option of rejecting the purchase.
TVR1 said:
No you can't. This bit of legislation is going to end up the same as no MOT, insurance invalid myths.
What the Consumer Protection Act says is that if a fault occurs within the first 30 days and the purchaser can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase, then he MAY have the option of rejecting the purchase.
bWhat the Consumer Protection Act says is that if a fault occurs within the first 30 days and the purchaser can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase, then he MAY have the option of rejecting the purchase.
ks - you even got the name of the law wrong.The Consumer Rights Act says you can reject within 30 days for loads of reasons, amongst them is the car not meeting the description (ie it doesn't have working a/c) and not being of satisfactory quality. Also, the onus is on the seller to show that any faults appearing within 6 months weren't present at the time of sale.
Having said that, OP has two issues - first is that repairs are underway, second is enforcing his rights under the Act. If the dealer gets arsy then only option is to sue them, and that ain't going to be quick.
KevinCamaroSS said:
I think some people forget that a 5 year-old car is not new, and therefore items fail under wear and tear. This is why, on normal cars, it is better to walk away from one that has obvious issues, rather than buy it and for it to be fixed. A/C is nice to have, but does not affect the usability of the car so does not affect it's fitness for purpose.
I agree with th sentiment of this, but think you're confusing fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality. With regard to the latter, I have been the first to point out when posting on previous posts that things do break and expectations have to be relative to the age of a car. The key question is whether or not the failure was due to a fault that caused the failure was present when the purchase was made or if it was something that happened afterwards.Aside from whether or not a five year old car would fail to be reasonable quality if the air con wasn't working though, legally, a key point here was that it sounds very likely that it was an express term of the contract that the problem with the air con would be fixed, and it wasn't.
TVR1 said:
No you can't. This bit of legislation is going to end up the same as no MOT, insurance invalid myths.
What the Consumer Protection Act says is that if a fault occurs within the first 30 days and the purchaser can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase, then he MAY have the option of rejecting the purchase.
Stop talking rubbishWhat the Consumer Protection Act says is that if a fault occurs within the first 30 days and the purchaser can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase, then he MAY have the option of rejecting the purchase.
bmw535i said:
TVR1 said:
No you can't. This bit of legislation is going to end up the same as no MOT, insurance invalid myths.
What the Consumer Protection Act says is that if a fault occurs within the first 30 days and the purchaser can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase, then he MAY have the option of rejecting the purchase.
Stop talking rubbishWhat the Consumer Protection Act says is that if a fault occurs within the first 30 days and the purchaser can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase, then he MAY have the option of rejecting the purchase.
It's a self forfilling statment, it will become one of those myths if people keep spreading misinformation like this.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff