Right to Repair/Reject on used car bought on Sale or Return

[Anonymous PH]

Recent car purchase circa ~£90k (Used Aston V12, advertised as practically new), deposit paid to a dealer end of Mar and delivery of the car taken on 2nd May.

A week after delivery I have noticed two issues, one the weather strip/ door seal around the A pillar is worn through on both sides (see picture) and more importantly it looks like the paint is starting to lift around one of the bonnet vents (see picture). Initially I thought this may just be the paint protection film but underneath the carbon grille under the bonnet it looks like the paint has started to lift.

I have contacted the dealer (9th and 12th May) and I’m pretty sure that the consumer rights act 2015 applies? Can anyone confirm if the sale or return makes a difference?

At this stage the dealer has said the body shop will be able to make an assessment on Thursday but they have initially said the bonnet may need to be repainted and PPF re-applied which they may have implied they wouldn’t cover and they have said as the rubbers are functional the same would apply (they wouldn’t cover).

I believe due to the value/price/mileage of the car (it is relatively expensive even compared to other cars) and the advertised condition I’m entitled to potentially reject the car within 30 days or a repair (which would be my preferred option).

Any thoughts or feedback would be greatly appreciated?

Pictures in greyscale just to keep the identity of the car private.

Edited by Anonymous PH on Wednesday 21st May 09:29

[Nickp82]

What’s the age and mileage of the car?

[darreni]

I believe the dealer has a legal responsibility for the sale, however, assuming the dealer has paid the seller the 90k(ish), they may not have the funds to take the car back.

I would have thought that you will get some firm pushback at mention of rejection. Having rights and the ability to exercise them can be hard going.

[Andy86GT]

Be interesting to establish the cost of replacing the door rubbers, I agree they don't look good on a £90K car

[skyebear]

I bought a car that was sale or return but I paid the dealer, received their invoice with company and vat numbers so there was no doubt in that case.

Who did you pay and what did they provide you? Do you have a copy of the dealer advert?

[Anonymous PH]

Nickp82 said:

What’s the age and mileage of the car?

Car is 2016 and mileage is low teens the advertised condition (I have a copy of the advert) states “almost new condition” (which for the most part it is).

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 13:58

[Anonymous PH]

Andy86GT said:

Be interesting to establish the cost of replacing the door rubbers, I agree they don't look good on a £90K car

Cost of the rubber is around £400 + fitting (which the dealer is capable of)… the paint is probably more of a challenge.

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 13:55

[Anonymous PH]

skyebear said:

I bought a car that was sale or return but I paid the dealer, received their invoice with company and vat numbers so there was no doubt in that case.

Who did you pay and what did they provide you? Do you have a copy of the dealer advert?

I have copies of the invoice, warranty, etc all from the dealer and I also paid them directly.

[skyebear]

Anonymous PH said:

skyebear said:

I bought a car that was sale or return but I paid the dealer, received their invoice with company and vat numbers so there was no doubt in that case.

Who did you pay and what did they provide you? Do you have a copy of the dealer advert?

I have copies of the invoice, warranty, etc all from the dealer and I also paid them directly.

No grey areas then, you bought a car from a dealer so CRA 2015 can help you. Whatever contract the dealer had with the seller is of no consequence.

If the dealer has done the SoR properly with the seller then they should be able to recoup some or all of the costs from them of fixing the car. So any damage not disclosed by seller to dealer, or if it was the dealer has already built costs to fix into their margin should it come up. Again, not exactly your concern but it's unlikely the dealer is backed into a corner and simply can't afford to help you.

[fbwinston]

I see it slightly differently. These are minor cosmetic issues on a nine year old car that would have been present at the time of inspection, prior to purchase. The dealer has supplied the car as presented to you prior to you agreeing to purchase it, unless you asked for these items to be resolved prior to delivery.

I don't think the CRA will be of much use to you.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

Was it a distance sale or did you see it before hand ?

If distance sale you have 14 day right of rejection.

If not then I don't think you have grounds. It is a 2016 car - so 9 years old and a small area of paint not right and a door seal are unlikely to constitute a reason to reject.

The car was described as in good condition but assuming not a distance sale then you would have seen the above faults on inspection and accepted them.

[Anonymous PH]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Was it a distance sale or did you see it before hand ?

If distance sale you have 14 day right of rejection.

If not then I don't think you have grounds. It is a 2016 car - so 9 years old and a small area of paint not right and a door seal are unlikely to constitute a reason to reject.

The car was described as in good condition but assuming not a distance sale then you would have seen the above faults on inspection and accepted them.

I wasn’t aware or made aware of the rubber or paint issue when buying the car. The paint issue could fall under misrepresentation (it’s clearly not practically as new) also for any car it isn’t commensurate for the paint to be lifting (its not of sufficient standard).

I’d regard both as latent defects that weren’t apparent under any reasonable inspection (the rubber is concealed and the paint issue is masked by the PPF).

Just to confirm the car was described “almost new”, given the type, age, price, mileage and description I don’t think it’s reasonable (again my opinion).

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 14:25

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 14:25

[fbwinston]

If you are determined to go down the rejection route, put it in writing to the dealer and deliver it back to them. Give them 7 days to issue a full refund before instigating legal action.

I still don't think you'll have a leg to stand on though.

[t.boydy]

Did you view the car?

Agree with others, it's a 9 year old car and you should expect the odd blemish...

Maybe the dealer didn't deem the seals and paint issue as a problem on a used car?

Apart from those issues, are you happy with the car and the price you paid? If so I wouldn't reject for these things

[Anonymous PH]

t.boydy said:

Did you view the car?

Agree with others, it's a 9 year old car and you should expect the odd blemish...

Maybe the dealer didn't deem the seals and paint issue as a problem on a used car?

Apart from those issues, are you happy with the car and the price you paid? If so I wouldn't reject for these things

fbwinston said:

If you are determined to go down the rejection route, put it in writing to the dealer and deliver it back to them. Give them 7 days to issue a full refund before instigating legal action.

I still don't think you'll have a leg to stand on though.

I briefly viewed/test drove the car and I was advised that the car is warrantied for any issues for 12 months (as stated both issues are fairly concealed and are a grey area as they could be considered cosmetic) my preferred option is that the issues are remediated as noted in the first post perfectly happy with the rest of the car.

If the car is being sold as practically as new and is very low mileage (and priced as such) then I’m not sure how paint lifting or seals worn through can be deemed sufficient standard/acceptable quality hence posting on here.

A blemish I would be fine with, ultimately if the paint is lifting this is likely to get worse over time or if I wanted to replace the PPF the paint would come away also, etc which is atypical.

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 14:53

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 14:54

[skyebear]

Anonymous PH said:

I briefly viewed and test drove the car (as stated both issues are fairly concealed) my preferred option is that the issues are remediated as noted in the first post

If the car is being sold as practically as new and is very low mileage (and priced as such) then I’m not sure how paint lifting or seals worn through can be deemed sufficient standard/acceptable quality hence posting on here.

A blemish I would be fine with, ultimately if the paint is lifting this is likely to get worse over time or if I wanted to replace the PPF the paint would come away also, etc which is atypical.

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 14:48

Edited by Anonymous PH on Tuesday 13th May 14:48

I'd agree with you. Acceptable blemishes (to me) would be a bit of road rash on the bumper/few minor stone chips.

Given that the dealer is already accepting that a bonnet repaint may be required it would seem to not be minor damage commensurate with a car described as near perfect.

[paul_c123]

If its 9 years old and you viewed it before purchase, I can't see any cosmetic defects as being issues you can validly claim back as reasons to reject under CRA2015. The description "practically as new" is one of those phrases that dealers write, but don't have much significance except for attracting those to look at it. But once you've actually seen it in the flesh, its somewhat superseded by the viewing.

If the dealer is being helpful to fix cosmetic issues, I'd grab that chance because he's going over and above what he needs to. Cause conflict, he could dig in and assert his rights and you'd be left sorting the issues out yourself (or not at all).

[Dog Biscuit]

fbwinston said:

I see it slightly differently. These are minor cosmetic issues on a nine year old car that would have been present at the time of inspection, prior to purchase. The dealer has supplied the car as presented to you prior to you agreeing to purchase it, unless you asked for these items to be resolved prior to delivery.

I don't think the CRA will be of much use to you.

I agree.

[OverSteery]

IANAL

I understand CRA is about "fit for purpose". It seems hard to make a case this car isn't fully fit for purpose - including looking awesome. As the buyer, you didn't spot anything!

So you now into breach of contract - did the dealer supply what he contracted? I think you have little claim on a 9 year old car, but I could be completely wrong

[Muzzer79]

Anonymous PH said:

If the car is being sold as practically as new and is very low mileage (and priced as such) then I’m not sure how paint lifting or seals worn through can be deemed sufficient standard/acceptable quality hence posting on here.

Then your argument is with the manufacturer who painted it and supplied the seals, not the dealer who sold you the car in good faith.

It's 9 years old. These are minor cosmetic blemishes. If you wanted them sorted, you should have gone through the car in more detail and agreed it in your purchase deal.

IMO.