Car Rejection & Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Dealer wrong?

[Cupradupra]

I know this has been done to death, but each case has it's own unique parts.

I believe I am 100% correct, but the dealer doesn't agree.

What is the Pistonhead collective thoughts on the below?

- Car collected 21st Feb (flew from Northern Ireland to England and collected car and drove back home)
- 6th March - car flagged up "low oil - top up 1 litre" I contacted dealer to let them know and ask them what they wanted me to do. They advised follow cars instruction, which I did.
- 14th March - checked oil level again. It had dropped significantly after approx 350 miles and was down close to the minimum. I again contacted the dealer to let them know it seemed to be using oil at quite a rate and it was not leaking (nothing on the driveway). They tried to fob me off to the 3rd party warranty company. I pushed back and told them that as it was within the 30 days it was their responsibility. They asked for diagnostics, which I agreed to and booked the car in with the main manufacturer dealer, earliest appointment 9th April.
- 9th April - Manufacturer Dealer confirms car is burning oil and they have checked and found no leaks. Common issue of piston rings. Car requires new short motor at £13,000. Another fault was picked up, intake manifold needs replaced due to sticking actuators at approx £900.
-13th April, after taking the weekend to consider things, I sent the supplying dealer my formal rejection of the car, citing that it was not fit for purpose and there is an inherent fault, present at time of sale, namely that it was buring oil (I topped up 3 litres of oil in approx 2600 miles...). The dealer was told the car was no longer in use and was ready for collection.
16th April, after a couple of back and forth emails where the dealer pushes for further inspection, including engine strip down....they reject my rejection.

Key points:

- I believe that even though 30 days have passed since purchase, I notified the dealer of the fault well within the 30 day period, and I can still reject using my Short term right to reject.
- The earliest available slot for formal diagnostics was 9th April, I believe this is a reasonable delay to obtain formal, credible diagnostics.
- I could not make a decision to reject the car until formal diagnosis took place.
- dealer states they have right to one repair as it is now in the 30 day to 6 month period.
- Citizens advice are in agreement with me that the "clock" effectively "pauses" while there is a wait for diagnostics.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you side with the dealer on this one or with me?

Has anyone experienced similar?

Edited by Cupradupra on Monday 20th April 10:36

[helmutlaang]

I believe you need to give the dealer a chance to repair. If this dosent work then you can reject.

I think the law says ‘fit for purpose’ and there is an unwritten guideline of 6months(maybe)

Where you may encounter difficulties is I’m sure the dealer can insist it’s returned to them for diagnosis and repair.

I’m with you though I’d be pushing for rejection regardless.
Good luck either way.

[Cupradupra]

helmutlaang said:

I believe you need to give the dealer a chance to repair. If this dosent work then you can reject.

I think the law says fit for purpose and there is an unwritten guideline of 6months(maybe)

Where you may encounter difficulties is I m sure the dealer can insist it s returned to them for diagnosis and repair.

I m with you though I d be pushing for rejection regardless.
Good luck either way.

Thanks for the reply.

My understanding is that I don't have to give the dealer an opportunity to repair. If the fault had presented itself in the 30 day to 6 month period then yes, I would have to give them a chance to repair.

This fault was inherent and present at the time of sale, and that is my argument for using my short term right to reject. That it took to just outside the 30 day period to wait for diagnostics doesn't, I believe, affect my rights.

[Muzzer79]

helmutlaang said:

I believe you need to give the dealer a chance to repair. If this dosent work then you can reject.

I think the law says fit for purpose and there is an unwritten guideline of 6months(maybe)

Where you may encounter difficulties is I m sure the dealer can insist it s returned to them for diagnosis and repair.

I m with you though I d be pushing for rejection regardless.
Good luck either way.

There's no legislation saying you have to give the dealer a chance to repair, however it's considered reasonable (and therefore applied) that you should.

However, the OP reported the issue within the first 30 days, which means he can theoretically reject the car without such a stipulation.

The dealer appears to be trying to fob that off citing it's now outside of the 30 days but I think if this went all the way, reasonable heads would agree that the OP reported the issue within 30 days and diagnosis took unavoidably longer.

If the dealer is stubborn, the OP may need to take formal legal advice and have then engage with the dealer. Dealer may then back off or decide to be stubborn about it, in which case you need to assess your viability of taking it further.

[Cupradupra]

silentbrown said:

I suspect you may be out of luck on the 30 day period - I don't think CRA has any get-out for diagnostics.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/secti...

20/20 hindsight, you could have agreed an extension on the rejection period penidng the diagnostic results.

Thanks Silentbrown. It would seem to me unfair to expect a consumer to make a big decision without having all the facts/information in place. That diagnosis took me outside the 30 window penalises the consumer in this regard. Therefore any dealer who has a customer returning to them with a serious issue just after purchase need only tell the purchaser that the earliest available slot for diagnosis is after their 30 days have passed. Thus lumping the consumer with a car that is unfit for purpose.

[ADJimbo]

Both yourself and the Citizens Advice are correct. The clock does pause, once a fault has been highlighted within the short term right to reject window.

The Dealer gets one opportunity to repair the vehicle from faults which present themselves from day thirty-one to six months, before you can reject on a final right to rejection.

[Cupradupra]

ADJimbo said:

Both yourself and the Citizens Advice are correct. The clock does pause, once a fault has been highlighted within the short term right to reject window.

The Dealer gets one opportunity to repair the vehicle from faults which present themselves from day thirty-one to six months, before you can reject on a final right to rejection.

Thanks for the reply - I am in agreement and that is the basis for my arguement. The Dealer does not agree.

[Jamescrs]

I too beliee the dealer is in the wrong here, of course enforcing it is a different matter when they won't play ball and you may have to pursue legal channels.

As an aside the main dealer quoting £13'000 to replace the whole block is also scandalous but I suspect down to the fact that main dealers are now fitters and don't have the knowledge to rebuild the engine with new piston rings. I suspect an independent specialist would be far cheaper

[Cupradupra]

Jamescrs said:

I too beliee the dealer is in the wrong here, of course enforcing it is a different matter when they won't play ball and you may have to pursue legal channels.

As an aside the main dealer quoting £13'000 to replace the whole block is also scandalous but I suspect down to the fact that main dealers are now fitters and don't have the knowledge to rebuild the engine with new piston rings. I suspect an independent specialist would be far cheaper

Thanks for the reply! I appreciate that it may have to be enforced.

My thoughts behind going to the manufacturer main dealer for diagnosis was to provide an clear manufacturer backed diagnosis that should carry weight.

[dundarach]

I think by not letting them try to repair the car, you look unreasonable

I suspect this will count against you, especially if the dealer seems to doing their best to try and resolve things

Why wouldn't you want the car you came all this way for repairing, it might even look as though you just don't want it any longer and have changed your mind.

[Cupradupra]

dundarach said:

I think by not letting them try to repair the car, you look unreasonable

I suspect this will count against you, especially if the dealer seems to doing their best to try and resolve things

Why wouldn't you want the car you came all this way for repairing, it might even look as though you just don't want it any longer and have changed your mind.

I like the car. Do I want a car with 100,000 miles on it that needs this amount of work carried out on it? That's another question. In my opinion, I have exercised my rights as a consumer. I was reasonable such that I paid out of my own pocket for a main dealer diagnosis. I don't believe that I am required by law to allow a repair, when exercising my short term right to reject.

[Fastpedeller]

Cupradupra said:

dundarach said:

I think by not letting them try to repair the car, you look unreasonable

I suspect this will count against you, especially if the dealer seems to doing their best to try and resolve things

Why wouldn't you want the car you came all this way for repairing, it might even look as though you just don't want it any longer and have changed your mind.

I like the car. Do I want a car with 100,000 miles on it that needs this amount of work carried out on it? That's another question. In my opinion, I have exercised my rights as a consumer. I was reasonable such that I paid out of my own pocket for a main dealer diagnosis. I don't believe that I am required by law to allow a repair, when exercising my short term right to reject.

Absolutely - It seems with any purchase it's best to reject, and the law has that option. Allowing the supplier to 'repair' opens the gate to repeated 'repairs' which muddy the waters and weakens the consumer's case (from what I've seen)

[Cupradupra]

Fastpedeller said:

Absolutely - It seems with any purchase it's best to reject, and the law has that option. Allowing the supplier to 'repair' opens the gate to repeated 'repairs' which muddy the waters and weakens the consumer's case (from what I've seen)

Thanks! This was a car for my wife to ferry about our 3 young children. I was told that the intake manifold needs replaced ASAP as the actuators inside can stick and become a fire hazard. That along with a potential long string of repairs and future issues.

[silentbrown]

ADJimbo said:

Both yourself and the Citizens Advice are correct. The clock does pause, once a fault has been highlighted within the short term right to reject window.

I think it depends how the comms on 14th March went. If it was "It's using a bit of oil, I'll get it diagnosed and let you know", that probably wouldn't constitute a "request for the repair or replacement", but as OP says they asked for diagnostics and were trying to push him towards the warranty, that would be pretty clear evidence that he was asking them to fix the problem. Hopefully there's a paper/email trail?

CRA: "If the consumer requests or agrees to the repair or replacement of goods, the period mentioned in subsection (3) or (4) stops running for the length of the waiting period."

If it does fall outside the short-term rejection, OP is likely to get significantly reduced refund due to the mileage he's covered.

What's the car, OP? Some Audi 2.0 petrols are renowned for extreme oil consumption and both rings and pistons need replacing.

[mmm-five]

Sorry if this has already been stated, as I didn't spot it, but how old, what model, what mileage is the car, and how much did you pay for it?

Are we talking about a £5000 15 year old car, or a £25,000 5 year old car?

I'm not saying that this has anything to do with your right to reject, but it may have an impact on the reasonableness of asking for / getting a brand new engine from a main dealer, when a local / seller repair is feasible.

[mmm-five]

Cupradupra said:

Thanks! This was a car for my wife to ferry about our 3 young children. I was told that the intake manifold needs replaced ASAP as the actuators inside can stick and become a fire hazard.

If the dealer is spinning you that sort of line about it being dangerous to drive, then was there a manufacturer recall for this known fault?

[Muzzer79]

dundarach said:

I think by not letting them try to repair the car, you look unreasonable

I suspect this will count against you, especially if the dealer seems to doing their best to try and resolve things

Why wouldn't you want the car you came all this way for repairing, it might even look as though you just don't want it any longer and have changed your mind.

OP, what exactly is the dealer's position?

If it needs a new engine block at 13 grand are they going to pay for it or send you to the warranty company?

What sort of dealer is this? Main dealer? Supermarket/Cinch? Independent?

[AbbeyNormal]

just send a second letter to the dealer, tell them if they dont collect and refund with x days then you will sell the car and chase them for the difference between the sale price and the asking price.

Give them 14 days to respond. Send the letter registered / recorded.

If they dont respond, sell the car and see them in court.

It wont be quick but you will win.

[Cupradupra]

silentbrown said:

I think it depends how the comms on 14th March went. If it was "It's using a bit of oil, I'll get it diagnosed and let you know", that probably wouldn't constitute a "request for the repair or replacement", but as OP says they asked for diagnostics and were trying to push him towards the warranty, that would be pretty clear evidence that he was asking them to fix the problem. Hopefully there's a paper/email trail?

CRA: "If the consumer requests or agrees to the repair or replacement of goods, the period mentioned in subsection (3) or (4) stops running for the length of the waiting period."

If it does fall outside the short-term rejection, OP is likely to get significantly reduced refund due to the mileage he's covered.

What's the car, OP? Some Audi 2.0 petrols are renowned for extreme oil consumption and both rings and pistons need replacing.

I expressed concern that it was using Oil abnormally, including photos of oil level, mileage etc. I asked them how they'd like to proceed. They suggested speaking with the warranty company and organising a diagnostic check. They then wanted sent a copy of the diagnostics. As this was within the 30 day period I pushed back against using a 3rd party warranty and stated it was their responsibility as the supplying dealer. I booked Diagnostics with Volvo out of my own pocket and forwarded the report.

It is a 2017 Volvo XC90 D5.

[Cupradupra]

mmm-five said:

Sorry if this has already been stated, as I didn't spot it, but how old, what model, what mileage is the car, and how much did you pay for it?

Are we talking about a £5000 15 year old car, or a £25,000 5 year old car?

I'm not saying that this has anything to do with your right to reject, but it may have an impact on the reasonableness of asking for / getting a brand new engine from a main dealer, when a local / seller repair is feasible.

2017 Volvo XC90 D5 - 109,000 at purchase. £20k