Consumer Rights Act - Rejecting Car / Requesting Repair
Discussion
Posting this for a close friend of mine. He joined to post here on my recommendation but it turns out there is a waiting period before newbies can post.
If me posting this is against the rules then I apologise and request that it be deleted until he is eligible to post.
Heres the issue:
He bought a car (F430 so not a cheap car) from independent dealer 3/4 months ago & immediately took it for an inspection which found a number of issues which would be expensive to fix.
amongst other things the clutch reading showed it was requiring replacement despite driving fine. There was a small oil leak, and a couple of other little bits, but as always with car like this the costs to repair were in the thousands.
He then told them he wanted said issues fixed but they refused and said the only option would be for him to return the car, and gave him the usual chat about how the issues weren't as bad as the dealer suggested, they were just looking for work etc etc etc.
Stupidly, as he had been searching for a good example for the best part of a year he declined this offer and told them he would monitor the issues and get back in touch should the situation worsen.
As I am sure you can guess by now, the situation has worsened, the clutch has completely failed (300 miles later), and the other issues are still present of course.
So the question here is has he waived all rights to repair / replacement because he rejected the dealers initial offer to take the car back? Or can he still pursue them to rectify? A quick google reveals you are entitled to demand repairs within 6 months, but no mention what happens if you refuse to return the car....
I personally have no idea what the rules are regarding this, I wasn't even aware this law existed and have always just assumed you had to rely on a warranty if one is present!
If me posting this is against the rules then I apologise and request that it be deleted until he is eligible to post.
Heres the issue:
He bought a car (F430 so not a cheap car) from independent dealer 3/4 months ago & immediately took it for an inspection which found a number of issues which would be expensive to fix.
amongst other things the clutch reading showed it was requiring replacement despite driving fine. There was a small oil leak, and a couple of other little bits, but as always with car like this the costs to repair were in the thousands.
He then told them he wanted said issues fixed but they refused and said the only option would be for him to return the car, and gave him the usual chat about how the issues weren't as bad as the dealer suggested, they were just looking for work etc etc etc.
Stupidly, as he had been searching for a good example for the best part of a year he declined this offer and told them he would monitor the issues and get back in touch should the situation worsen.
As I am sure you can guess by now, the situation has worsened, the clutch has completely failed (300 miles later), and the other issues are still present of course.
So the question here is has he waived all rights to repair / replacement because he rejected the dealers initial offer to take the car back? Or can he still pursue them to rectify? A quick google reveals you are entitled to demand repairs within 6 months, but no mention what happens if you refuse to return the car....
I personally have no idea what the rules are regarding this, I wasn't even aware this law existed and have always just assumed you had to rely on a warranty if one is present!
The CRA unhelpfully has 2 sets of rights which run alongside each other
the first is the right to reject which must be done in the 30 days - if an offer of repair is accepted then that time period is paid. he has now lost this right as 30 days has passed
he still have the right to a repair/replacement or if not possible, a partial refund taking into account use.
so as long as he can show the defects were there when the car was bought he can ask for a repair - the 6 months thing just says if he can demonstrate a fault exists then the trader must prove it wasn't there on sale if it is in the first 6 months.
there are some very chunky guidance documents on the CRA online so i suggest he puts aside 2 hours and reads ones.
the first is the right to reject which must be done in the 30 days - if an offer of repair is accepted then that time period is paid. he has now lost this right as 30 days has passed
he still have the right to a repair/replacement or if not possible, a partial refund taking into account use.
so as long as he can show the defects were there when the car was bought he can ask for a repair - the 6 months thing just says if he can demonstrate a fault exists then the trader must prove it wasn't there on sale if it is in the first 6 months.
there are some very chunky guidance documents on the CRA online so i suggest he puts aside 2 hours and reads ones.
Ok yes we saw the 2nd option to request repair within 6 months but weren’t sure if by refusing the initial offer of a refund he had somehow had his chance and resolution and the case was now closed so to speak.
Would be interesting if the wording is how you say - 2 rules running alongside each other.
That would theoretically give him a fighting chance at least I think.
Would be interesting if the wording is how you say - 2 rules running alongside each other.
That would theoretically give him a fighting chance at least I think.
mrbon007 said:
He then told them he wanted said issues fixed but they refused and said the only option would be for him to return the car
They're offering a full refund on return of the car? Great. So take that, and he's back to where he'd be if he'd done the inspection before purchase. Cash in pocket, car-with-faults in dealership.They don't have to refund - post 30 days, they have a right to attempt repair, should they want to, but he doesn't have a right to INSIST they repair.
Its Just Adz said:
Why didn’t he have the inspection done before buying?
Ferrari inspections do throw up every tiny imperfection and some should just be put down to the age of the vehicle.
Dealer who sold is very reputable and he has a bit of history with them and no previous issues. Ferrari inspections do throw up every tiny imperfection and some should just be put down to the age of the vehicle.
To be fair they were shocked at the report themselves, although that shows they don’t put much effort into checking over the cars prior to sale!
TooMany2cvs said:
mrbon007 said:
He then told them he wanted said issues fixed but they refused and said the only option would be for him to return the car
They're offering a full refund on return of the car? Great. So take that, and he's back to where he'd be if he'd done the inspection before purchase. Cash in pocket, car-with-faults in dealership.They don't have to refund - post 30 days, they have a right to attempt repair, should they want to, but he doesn't have a right to INSIST they repair.
Nothing to say they’d be happy to drive him now.
REALIST123 said:
Where do you get that from? They offered a refund just after he bought the car. He declined their offer, kept and used the car.
Nothing to say they’d be happy to drive him now.
Yeah the offer of a refund was previously. Nothing to say they’d be happy to drive him now.
He just wants to know if that counts as a final offer of resolution by the dealer before going back to them
Its Just Adz said:
Why didn’t he have the inspection done before buying?
Ferrari inspections do throw up every tiny imperfection and some should just be put down to the age of the vehicle.
This. Its hardly good practice to buy it one place and then immediately have it inspected somewhere else, then take it back to the supplier to ask for free work to be done. For used goods that is not what is intended by the CRA.Ferrari inspections do throw up every tiny imperfection and some should just be put down to the age of the vehicle.
If the debate is about the clutch, then I think he will have to be nice to the supplying dealer and see what they're willing to offer him as a goodwill gesture.
It isn't a new car, and a clutch is a consumable part (especially on a high performance car) that was clearly working when he bought the car and has worn out 4 months later.
hutchst said:
Its Just Adz said:
Why didn’t he have the inspection done before buying?
Ferrari inspections do throw up every tiny imperfection and some should just be put down to the age of the vehicle.
This. Its hardly good practice to buy it one place and then immediately have it inspected somewhere else, then take it back to the supplier to ask for free work to be done........Ferrari inspections do throw up every tiny imperfection and some should just be put down to the age of the vehicle.
Dealers who normally deal with more "domestic" cars may well be less likely to be happy to have an independent inspection carried out.
My advice would be: If a dealer is reluctant to allow an independent inspection to take place, ask yourself why? - And then be prepared to walk away!
4rephill said:
Most reputable dealers who deal with supercars such as Ferrari's have no issue with an independent inspection being carried out by a specialist (the very good ones may even suggest getting an independent inspection done for the buyers peace of mind), and they don't always require the car to be taken somewhere else for inspection.
Dealers who normally deal with more "domestic" cars may well be less likely to be happy to have an independent inspection carried out.
My advice would be: If a dealer is reluctant to allow an independent inspection to take place, ask yourself why? - And then be prepared to walk away!
I agree entirely with what you say. The question is one of timing. The obvious time to do that, for an expensive supercar, is before you buy it. There is no suggestion that the supplying dealer objected to that. That way the dealer can factor replacement items like a new clutch into the final price that he is prepared to accept.Dealers who normally deal with more "domestic" cars may well be less likely to be happy to have an independent inspection carried out.
My advice would be: If a dealer is reluctant to allow an independent inspection to take place, ask yourself why? - And then be prepared to walk away!
To agree the price then bring it back and ask for more free stuff just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and this new dog eat dog race to the bottom world isn't for me.
hutchst said:
I agree entirely with what you say. The question is one of timing. The obvious time to do that, for an expensive supercar, is before you buy it. There is no suggestion that the supplying dealer objected to that. That way the dealer can factor replacement items like a new clutch into the final price that he is prepared to accept.
To agree the price then bring it back and ask for more free stuff just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and this new dog eat dog race to the bottom world isn't for me.
I think the assumption was & still is, that when you buy a car from a reputable dealer, you will not be buying a car that has (according to Ferrari) a 100% worn clutch. Not to mention oil leaks and whatever else was found.To agree the price then bring it back and ask for more free stuff just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and this new dog eat dog race to the bottom world isn't for me.
The inspection was not done prior to sale as he trusted the dealer, coincidentally after taking ownership he was invited for a free inspection by the main dealer (he has history with them), so he thought he may as well.
Obviously he wasn't expecting them to uncover a raft of serious issues! There was of course the usual stuff listed - you could do with new wipers, let us drill out the brake vent holes as some are blocked etc etc.
He plans to make contact with them again tomorrow so I will report back how that pans out.
This is a tricky one but I don’t think that he would now have any claim against the dealer.
The dealer offered him a very fair resolution to the issues reported by the main dealer. IMOP when he refused this he accepted the goods with theses known faults so now can’t really come back to the dealer and say it’s faulty as he was fully aware of these.
The dealer offered him a very fair resolution to the issues reported by the main dealer. IMOP when he refused this he accepted the goods with theses known faults so now can’t really come back to the dealer and say it’s faulty as he was fully aware of these.
catman said:
I'm not sure that the offer to take the car back would absolve the Dealer of all responsibility if the car goes wrong as predicted.
Tim
I’m curious about how you think this could be still be classed as an the dealers responsibility. The dealer is under no obligation to actually repair any thing. He is also not responsible for any wear and tear issues. The buyer had the car inspected post purchase complained about certain issues the dealer then offered a very fair resolution but the buyer declined. The buyer can not force the dealer to make repairs it’s the dealer choice how he resolves the complaint and by offering a full refund I think he does everything that he needed to do. Tim
The buyer had the car inspected so knows of the issues he chooses not to accept a refund or proceed with repairs but instead carries on using the car and is surprised when it all goes wrong.
We must take some responsibility for our own actions.
Edited by chris52 on Sunday 25th March 10:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff