We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Advice on rejecting a used car.
Comments
-
I don't understand why you keep referring to the 6 month time period?
Because the whole crux of the SOGA that people are referring to on here is based around six months, hence why i used that in this particular example.
Also, if you look at the context i was referring directly to the SOGA NOT directly to the O/Ps situation
Regardless of whether it's reasonable to demand a main dealer repair be paid for, the OP is entitled to reject. It was within 24 hours! Different rules apply pre-acceptance and post-acceptance.
The O/P has accepted that the car is to be repaired however wants to reject on the basis that the supplying dealer wont pay a main dealer to do the work.
For such a 'grey area' there's been some very black and white statements from those in the trade in the earlier posts in this thread telling the OP they have no right to their money back and the supplier MUST be given an opportunity to repair.
Because they have accepted that the car is to be repaired, they have 'at this stage' given up their right to their money back. If the repair is not done to a satisfactory standard, then that is another trigger point for asking for their money back - which the dealer may or may not agree to.
There is a grey area around what is the timeframe of 'acceptance' of the car. It may well be that 24hrs is not an acceptable period for the car not to develop a fault and that the buyer IS entitled to a full refund BUT they may well have had to go to court to get that.
Again this is all because of the greyness of the SOGA and the lack of inforcability of it by anyone other than the courts.0 -
Not true if the OP hasn't accepted the car, which I don't believe he has given the short time involved. The six month burden of proof would come into play after acceptance.Because the whole crux of the SOGA that people are referring to on here is based around six months, hence why i used that in this particular example.
He's entitled to reject in the first instance. If the supplying dealer offers an option the OP is happy with then he can take that up. If they don't agree on an option the OP is still entitled to reject.The O/P has accepted that the car is to be repaired however wants to reject on the basis that the supplying dealer wont pay a main dealer to do the work.
No repair has yet taken place yet. Not too late to reject.Because they have accepted that the car is to be repaired, they have 'at this stage' given up their right to their money back. If the repair is not done to a satisfactory standard, then that is another trigger point for asking for their money back - which the dealer may or may not agree to.
I'd always agree it's better to come to an amicable agreement. But it's not correct to tell the OP they have no rights to reject. It only has to go to court if the supplier is not complying with their obligations, which seem pretty clear in this case.There is a grey area around what is the timeframe of 'acceptance' of the car. It may well be that 24hrs is not an acceptable period for the car not to develop a fault and that the buyer IS entitled to a full refund BUT they may well have had to go to court to get that.
Again this is all because of the greyness of the SOGA and the lack of inforcability of it by anyone other than the courts.0 -
funkycoldribena wrote: »Trouble is you are part of that stereotype because there are so many pain in the @£" car dealers,theres swathes of garages with bunting near me and I wouldnt touch them with a bargepole because I know if the gearbox fell out 50 yards down the road I'd be in for the fight of my life.
Problem is, there are also lots of private folk out there who sell/px "brilliant" cars to dealers...
Back to the OP though, they notified the seller of a fault, was invited to call in for them to look at, but decided they'd get it looked at else where, fell for scare tactics (think Kwik Fit) and now wants to reject the car.
The seller has agreed to repair the car, so can't see any Trading Standards being interested to be honest.
OP "Hello, my car is faulty and I'd like to reject it"
TS "OK yes that is something that can be done under SOGA. What was the fault and how many times has the dealer attempted to fix the fault...?"
OP" Erm, they said they'd fix it as soon as I seported the problem."
TS "Erm..... ok. Thanks for calling..."0 -
I think the OP should establish exactly what is involved in the repair. To be honest I'm finding it difficult to believe they are actually going to take the engine out and replace the block. As someone has already said, isn't it more likely they'd opt to put a different engine in from a written off car. Alternatively they may find some other way to repair the block. Either way I'm not sure I'd be too happy if I was the OP - its not like this is a small problem.0
-
Or in the real world.
"Hello, trader sold me a used car, trader agrees it needs the engine taking out, and a new short engine from another car putting in, less than 24 hours later. Not driveable at all at present. Can I ask for a refund"
"Less than 24 hours, no problem, if you have any trouble call us back"
"Trader insists they have a right to repair, and won't entertain a refund"
"We do know of a few rogues who try that line, who are they, we'll have a word with them"0 -
when are people going to get it into their thick skulls here that the OP's right have not been breached in anyway.
when are poeple going to open their eyes and realise TS will not become involved in this situation because the level of standards the seller has brought forward is withing obligations.
seller hasnt yet refused a refund.
OP unfair as to expect a used car to be fixed at the sellers expense by a MAIN DEALER not happy by responses by the seller to inspect and repair the vehicle to a main dealer standard wants to reject.
main dealer used scare tactics to put forward the vehicle is in dangerous condition and is a majour failure, for the work to be completed by the main dealer.
this problem is not unique, VW/ajm AJM engines have this weakness its a common problem for the engine mount to snap its mounting point on the block, the block isnt cast iron, it can be repaired, but the option on offer the seller is willing to replace the short block, new timing belts tensioner water pump etc etc, that offer benefits the OP.
OP has already stated the car is in for repair, and accepted that, the OP HAS THE RIGHT TO REJECT AFTER THE REPAIR FAILS.
consumer direct, trading standards OFT courts love fairness, fairness applies on both party's the OP being fair as to LET THE SELLER INSPECT, and the seller be fair as to offer repair refund or replacement. if a repair is agree'd from what i gather has and as mickey has already said the rejection rights takes a back foot and the seller has to honour his obligation to the agreement and repair it, if the repair fails the recjection right then comes back into play.
at them moment theres calmness on the OP's and seller parts, going in now with this agreement in place would tarnish that so that advice is should not be keenly advised at this point, rejecting the vehicle at point of repair failure or substandard repair quality would be the advice i would give because that would be the customer right.
all this bickering about SOGA rules etc etc and OP has the right because of acceptance etc is fool hardy, i agree with all like i have said mickey pjilc stugib you are all right in respects to soga, and the OP can indeed fall back on that when this agreement falls through for what ever reason.
it easy to just go in guns blazing shouting soga says this and you have to give my money back and thats a given right dont get me wrong, but that attitude would put the back up of any trader or dealer and they will punish you for your attitude by refusal leaving you with no option but to do the letters and court rout, but the end result may not be to SOGA with a judge at the helm of the case if he deems the OP has acted unfairly.
by negotiating (TS AND CD both recommend you do this first) calmly, listening to the seller and the seller being fair as to listen back and act FAIRLY towards the customer there should be no need to reject a vehicle and then go down the court rout.
we all can speculate how the seller will approach the repair, using a block from write off or second hand etc etc, whats not to say the seller buys a fully reconditioned short block fits new timing belt kit and water pump and mount.
i would be over the moon with that repair as it means the head is next to brand new and the timing blet and water pump has been done so i can forget about it.0 -
I'd say stugib in post #74 has it pretty much spot on.
a fault that requires a major engine repair/block replacement after 24 hours is automatically grounds for rejection and if the dealer isn't prepared to honour this obligation under sog would you really trust him not to bodge a welded repair to the block or use a 100k engine from a scrapyard to "get out of jail"?0 -
atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »......... using a block from write off or second hand etc etc,
.............. a fully reconditioned short block fits new timing belt kit and water pump and mount.
As the car has to last six months, lets have a vote on what a used car dealer would do with a secondhand car.
As to thick skulls..........if you want to suggest the second route for your business plan......0 -
Not true if the OP hasn't accepted the car, which I don't believe he has given the short time involved. The six month burden of proof would come into play after acceptance.
Again, i was talking about the SOGA in a general context, rather than specific - i've already said that? Did you miss it?
He's entitled to reject in the first instance. If the supplying dealer offers an option the OP is happy with then he can take that up. If they don't agree on an option the OP is still entitled to reject.
As they have already left the car in to be repaired, then they have agreed to that, so at the moment they have no right to reject.
No repair has yet taken place yet. Not too late to reject.
As they have already left the car in to be repaired, then they have agreed to that, so at the moment they have no right to reject.
I'd always agree it's better to come to an amicable agreement. But it's not correct to tell the OP they have no rights to reject. It only has to go to court if the supplier is not complying with their obligations, which seem pretty clear in this case.
As they have already left the car in to be repaired, then they have agreed to that, so at the moment they have no right to reject.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards