Please help...problem with car from dealership

needahol wrote: »

Many thanks for all the advice given, in particular about the joint responsibility of the finance company. I've not long been back in and have to go out again at 6.30 but will give a full update tomorrow morning.

Thanks again.

Really good to know we will get some feedback!

Fingers crossed it all went well - not sure about the 'joint' responsilbilty - think poss may be sole responsibility at this stage of the finance company. What programme was that on? Woman had bought a Mercedes thingy - and it went wrong and it was the finance company's responsibility - someone help me out here....

It wasn't on Watchdog... Oh I sort of know, I was off from work one day and caught a programme with that bald guy on, Dom somebody. He used to do er a programme about test driving houses.... Anyway, he took up the cause of this woman, who was pregnant, and found the finance company were responsible that her car had turned out to be a pile of poo and they got it fixed.

Not much help there really ....

Except, don't buy a Merc..

Did you notice that as soon as you started talking about the sale of goods act the dealer suddenly starts to offer to arrange for the vehicle to be picked up not asking you to bring it to them and offers you a courtesy car - check the excess on the courtesy car document, and don't take their word for it if they say your insurer will cover the excess on the courtesy car.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=43

You should be careful, on a few points. How much was the car? If it was more than £5000 & you reject it you will be looking at county court not small claims court.
Small claims court - you will not have to pay other sides legal cost if you lose.
County court, you may have to pay other sides legal cost if you lose, I say 'may' because I used to be of the opinion that you have to, but this post of mine has recently brought doubt on that..... you will have to read the thread to understand it then follow my links to the other forum and read that thread.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=12581009#post12581009

If the car was below £5K then you have nothing to worry about on that score.

Second thing to worry about is as per the 1st link in this post, Bernstein v/s Pamson Motors 1987 has held that the supplier must be given 3 chances to repair a fault....This is called "case law". I have been reading up on the case and actually have not found ANY reference to the alledged 3 repair attempts except on honestjohn. You will need to do your own research to find out more on this. But to me it looks like HonestJohn is wrong.

Reading your previous report it is arguable that they have had 2 chances to repair it.

1. It failed and was returned
1a) They fixed it and called her to collect it, it would not start. (first failure to repair )

2. She left it with them for further repair (second attempt to repair but arguably the vehicle remained with them, could be a bit sticky on this point).
2a) She picked up repaired car

3) The car has failed again.
Are they entitled to attempt repair No.3?

You are also entitled to - under the SOGA - repair within a reasonable time (not defined) so when (if) you accept a third attempt at repair you should specify and both agree (you and dealer) to what time scale the repair will take.

Case law (Rogers v/s Parrish 1987) has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject a car and obtain a full refund.

Both cases referred to were for new cars not used cars. But see below an example of used car.

Another thing to note,
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C5JJxTSZ2iMC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=bernstein+pamson+three+repair+attempts&source=web&ots=JEDcLrm9L2&sig=QeQbE6KPi13qLbxHJ6SSpBDc9Nk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA173,M1
You will note on page 173 - hopefully it will open on that page - it says

Porter v General guarantee corporation
Porter took delivery of a car on hire purchase at the end of January. On 4th March he tried to reject it. Attempts were made to repair but Porter finally rejected on 20th March
held The rejection was not too late.
NB This was not a sale governed by SOGA but a hire purchase agreement where the right to reject was governed by common law.

Also
Lutton V Saville Tractors limited (belfast)
A three year old Ford Escort was sold by a dealer to a consumer with a three month warranty. The car had or developed many minor faults and many attempts to rmedy themhad been made by the dealer. After seven weeks and having covered 3 - 4K miles, the buyer rejected the car claiming inter alia that it was not of merchantable quality.
Held The rejection was not too late. The buyer had not 'accepted' the goods under s35 SOGA by assenting to repairs beforehand. Further, he had not affirmed the contract for the purposes of rescission for misrepresentation by agreeing to repairs.
NB Although this car was second hand it was unmerchantable. Emphasis was placed on the issue of a warranty which was evidence that the parties expected a period of trouble free motoring from the car

Farnworth Finance v Attryde (1970)
Farnworth supplied a new motorbike on hire purchase to Attryde. Delivery was made in July. From the beginning the motorcycle gave trouble and was returned to the dealers and manufacturers for repairs. These were only partially succesful and the motorbike cont. to give trouble until November when Attryde rejected it He had paid 4 installments. The motorbike had covered 4K miles and given 7 weeks use since delivery, 4 months earlier. Farnworth disputed the right to reject.
Held Attryde was entitled to reject. He had not affirmed the contract; in fact he made it plain that he would not affirm unless the defects were remedied.
NB This was not a sale governed by SOGA but a hire purchase agreement where the right to reject was governed by common law.

Thain v Anniesland tradecentre (1997)
Ms Thain purchased a car from a dealer, Anniesland the car was 5 - 6 yrs old Renault 19 and had cocered approx 80K miles.
Ms Thain paid £2995 for the car, she declined an option to buy a 3 month warranty, after 2 weeks she discovered a gearbox bearing was worn and decided to reject the car, a repair being uneconomic, the dealer offered a number of replacement cars, but Ms Thain insisted on a full refund claiming the car was not of satisfactory quality, the dealer refused.
Held The relevent aspects of s14. were 'fitness for purpose' (S 14(2B)(a)) and 'durability' (S 14(2B)(e)). The gearbox bearing was not faulty at the time of sale and so the car was at that time fit for its purpose, the defect could have emerged at any time due to normal wear and tear given the age and mileage of the Renault. Therefore the cars durability was a matter of luck. The price was reasonable, much less than the new model. In the circumstances a reasonable person would accept that there was a risk of expensive repairs. Ms Thain could have covered the risk by purchasing a warranty thus the car was of satisfactory quality.


When you deal with the dealer, you use SOGA, if and when you fight with the HP company, you deal in common law not SOGA.

Conclusion,
From all of that reading, I would say, as it has not been 6 months, you have the right to reject the car as not of "satisfactory quality" and obtain a FULL refund (assuming the car was sold with warranty - and maybe assuming the warranty is still valid). The fact that you have consented to repair attempts, does NOT mean that you have accepted the vehicle. Which means, if you have not "accepted" you are in your right to reject it tomorrow you have no responsibility to accept any further repairs.

If this is your intention to reject the car, I would suggest an urgent letter outlining that you reject the car under

and that you deliver the letter with the car to the dealer, and leave the car with them. They will no doubt refuse your rejection, and attempt a further repair. You will then have to decide what action to take.

Be very careful about rejecting a car costing more than £5000.

And be very careful of rejecting a car sold to you without warranty.

IANAL TINLA
I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice.


Good luck, keep us informed, even if it only gets resolved in 3 or 6 months, please come back and update the thread. And consider CAB or proper legal advice from a solicitor if you are considering rejecting the car.

Whats the latest

Still no update?

I notice Op has been posting on other threads so maybe no news yet?

Or is this one of those threads that never get answered/resolved, there are so many on the motoring thread