Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

[bluebottle]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

Unfortunately, as has been found, VOSA won't get involved unless they catch you driving a dodgy vehicle. If the Arthur Daley you bought the car from does MOTs as well, VOSA may well be interested as they are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the MOT test system. I will see if I can obtain an opinion on your Audi A4. The wear and tear sounds excessive for a 5 year-old car with 55k on the clock.

[sarebear]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

Cheers, my view is that the car is unfit for purpose for its age and mileage and on those grounds I have refused it to both the finance company and the dealer who I bought the car from.

John

[miliitant]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

the purchaser of the vehicle can return the vehicle in the first six months from the date of sale and requests a repair or replacement or a partial refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003

You have to invoke the Sale of Goods Act 1979 Part II Section 14, as modified by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, subsequently modified by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, contending that the supplier is in breach of contract to you for supplying a car which was not "of satisfactory quality", or did not remain so for a reasonable period of time. Appeal Court Case law (Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987) has held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so. The goods must be returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork. (Scott and Scott v Blade Motor Company 1997.) And the supplier (in the case of a car the dealer principal of the dealership) must be sent a letter by recorded delivery detailing why the car has been rejected as not "of satisfactory quality". Case law (Rogers v Parrish 1987) has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject a car and obtain a full refund, though lesser refunds, taking account of mileage covered, may be obtained outside that period. The price you pay compared to market value will be taken into account. So if you buy a cheap car on trade terms you cannot reject it under the Act. And if you buy a cheap car (under £2,000) on retail terms from a trader, you cannot reasonably expect it to be perfect.
The Supreme Court verdict in Clegg v Olle Anderson (trading as Nordic Marine) 11-3-2003 has caused some confusion which some believe to have overruled Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987. In this case a yacht was supplied with an overweight keel in breach of its specification which formed part of the original contract. It was held that Clegg could reject the yacht at more than 6 months from date of purchase even though Mr Anderson had offered to make modifications to try to correct the fault. Basically, because the yacht had originally been supplied "of unsatisfactory quality" and this was admitted, Mr Clegg retained the right to reject it. For Clegg v Olle Anderson to apply to other cases, it must be proven that the fault existed on the date of sale and constituted a breach of the original purchase contract. Clegg v Olle Anderson cannot apply where a fault develops at some time after purchase. In those cases, Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987 still applies and the dealer has to be given three clear chances to rectify the problem.

The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003. This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) contains a general prohibition against unfair commercial practices and, in particular prohibitions against misleading actions, misleading omissions and aggressive commercial practices. The Regulations are enforceable through the civil and criminal courts.
www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/buying-selling/sale-supply/sale-of-good-act/page8600.html , www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023045.htm and http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk
This creates an offence of misleading omissions which would not previously have been an offence if the consumer had not asked the right questions. So if a salesman knows a car has, for example, been badly damaged and repaired and does not tell the customer, he could later be held liable if the customer subsequently discovered that the car had been damaged and repaired. A recent case precedent over Misleading Omissions under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008/1378 was Regina (House of Cars) v Derby Car and Van Contacts Ltd, Derby Crown Court before HHJ Burgess on 12-6-2012, covered here: Regina (House of Cars) v Derby Car and Van Contacts Ltd

[sarebear]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

So according to this I have been given incorrect advice? They have 3 chances to fix a dog of a car and its tough luck for me!?

Thanks for the reply
John

[miliitant]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

NOW I AM CONFUSED

WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED ABOVE IS CASE LAW, BUT THIS BELOW IS FROM THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AND REMEMBER, IT IS ONLY ONLY GUIDANCE, NOT STATUTORY LEGISLATION. ARE WE TALKING CPUTR 1998

A consumer discovers that a one year old car he bought from a
dealer for £10,000 a few days ago has a major engine fault. He
takes it to a garage and they confirm that the engine was in a very
poor condition. The consumer provides the dealer with a written
report of the garage's findings and asks you for his money back. In
these circumstances the dealer must accept the car back and provide
a full refund, as well as paying for any reasonable losses suffered by
the consumer such as the cost of the written report.

8.16
Within the reasonable period after the sale, buyers do not lose their right
to reject the car and require their money back merely because they ask
for or agree to let you try to repair the car.

Where a consumer agrees to
allow you to repair the faulty car (within the reasonable period after the
sale) he is still entitled to a refund if the repair turns out to be
unsatisfactory or was not done promptly enough.
5

[GFP]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

Read the OFT guidelines, they are later than the case law.
I don't see 3 as a magic number.
See Page 28 (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...08/oft1241.pdf)
Full Refund
(Rejection): If vehicle has a serious fault, the consumer can request a full refund.
Burden of Proof is with the consumer to prove that the fault was present at time of sale.
What I see is if you REJECT directly then YOU must prove it was not fit for purpose... or you can give them the opportunity to REPAIR, REFUND or REPLACE.

My personal experience however is only in small claims track.... and you are well above the nominal £5,000.

[sarebear]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

I think it's a really grey area!!

Thanks for your help

[miliitant]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

read the oft guidelines, they are later than the case law.
I don't see 3 as a magic number.
See page 28 (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...08/oft1241.pdf)
full refund
(rejection): If vehicle has a serious fault, the consumer can request a full refund.
burden of proof is with the consumer to prove that the fault was present at time of sale.
what i see is if you reject directly then you must prove it was not fit for purpose... Or you can give them the opportunity to repair, refund or replace.

My personal experience however is only in small claims track.... And you are well above the nominal £5,000.

that is the problem

they are only guidlines

not statutory obligation

where is the law to quote to back up those guidelines

[GFP]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

NOW I AM CONFUSED

WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED ABOVE IS CASE LAW, BUT THIS BELOW IS FROM THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING AND REMEMBER, IT IS ONLY ONLY GUIDANCE, NOT STATUTORY LEGISLATION. ARE WE TALKING CPUTR 1998

OFT Guidance is of course only 'guidance' but then it was actually finally published 2010 so its much later.

OP MAY have to get an independent report (RAC/AA or similar) or they might not, the dealer might be enough.

The important thing is you are confused! So was I and so I believe are many dealers as the OFT report has probably not made it to their desks.

My case was a much smaller sum but if this was me I'd stick with a REJECT!

[miliitant]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

WHAT I RECOMMEND IS ABIDE BY THE CASE LAW QUOTED AND NOT THE GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE OFT

their will be a possibility you will end up burnt with costs otherwise

have a chat with your local trading standards in the morning and see what they say

[sarebear]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

Thanks, I will stick to my guns and follow up the reject of goods letter. I am prepared to get an independent report. Audi's was comprehensive and they were keen to help and were disappointed their brand was not up to their standards. Shame the dealer I bought the car from doesn't share the same views!

John

[miliitant]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

Please update on what trading standard suggest also please

i realy would like to know the answer to your question

[sarebear]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

Will do, thanks for your advice

[labman]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

Militant - the bit you posted initially is in line with the FOS view, and it is to them any appeal would be made (see my earlier link). Reject all the way with help from your local TS.

[miliitant]

Re: Returning a used vehicle after 17 days

thanks labman

why would an appeal need to go to the FOS

case law has allready decided this issue

what we also need to remember, the FOS can take 12 months and over for a decision while the OP has an outstanding finance agreement to contend with

rejecting the vehicle is fine but the finance agreement will still stand until it has been repudiated.

The only way to do that is using case law and

S.75 CCA 1974

MY OWN OPINION IS RETURN THE PIECE OF CRAP AND GET YOUR MONEY BACK

but you know me and statutory obligation with case law, i will not deviate


A recent hearing highlighted the importance of seeking sensible early legal advice in order to save unnecessary expense.

Darren Egan vs. Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (18 October 2007) is a Court of Appeal case which saw the consumer who attempted to reject his vehicle lose out dramatically.