Purchased used car from dealer....9 months later still problems

newcomers

I purchased a used ca from a well known dealer in September last year. 3 days later I reported some faults with the car. It has since been to various other garages within their group and no repair has been carried out, and now I have many more problems with the car.

I paid 50% cash 50% HPI. What are my rights? Can I ask for a full refund?

Thanks

almillar

Generally under the Sale of Goods Act the retailer gets 3 chances to rectify the fault - has this happened yet?
After that, a REPLACEMENT (at least as good) or refund can be provided.
Obviously if your car is a high spec low mileage Focus, for example, a high miler, low spec, or Fiesta would not be a suitable replacement.

malkyh

Who is the dealer?

I had a woeful time with Arnold Clark with a car I bought. It took them 5 attempts over a 5 month period to sort the car to a satisfactory conclusion.

neilmcl

almillar wrote: »

Generally under the Sale of Goods Act the retailer gets 3 chances to rectify the fault - has this happened yet?
After that, a REPLACEMENT (at least as good) or refund can be provided.
Obviously if your car is a high spec low mileage Focus, for example, a high miler, low spec, or Fiesta would not be a suitable replacement.

Really, care to quote the exact bit of the SOGA that states this!

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

Really, care to quote the exact bit of the SOGA that states this!

I dont think it specifies 3 times, but it does say the dealer should be given reasonable opportunity to make good the repairs. This is generally considered to be 3 times.

motorguy

newcomers wrote: »

Can I ask for a full refund?

Thanks

As per another thread running at the minute, getting a refund after this period of time is going to be long winded. Also, they will most likely offer you trade value for your car, which of course you will reject, but at best you can expect fair market value, which may be thousands less than you paid.

neilmcl

pgilc1 wrote: »

I dont think it specifies 3 times, but it does say the dealer should be given reasonable opportunity to make good the repairs. This is generally considered to be 3 times.

It actually states that a remedy should be carried out within a reasonable period and without causing a significant inconvenience. So I think stating a dealer is allowed 3 times to repair according to he SOGA is far to black and white and factually incorrect.

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

It actually states that a remedy should be carried out within a reasonable period and without causing a significant inconvenience. So I think stating a dealer is allowed 3 times to repair according to he SOGA is far to black and white and factually incorrect.

It also states "Any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined by reference to the nature of the goods"

It is generally accepted this is three times when relating to cars.

Whilst almillar directly attributed this to the SOGA, it is indirectly attributed.

And saying as we're now just arguing about semantics, i'll leave it at that.

almillar

Neil, pgilc1 - read my post again. I said 'generally under' - I didn't explicitly (directly) say that it's in black and white in the act, and the act is deliberately vague as has been stated (reasonable time, and not significant inconvenience), but certainly with electronic goods, 3 chances to repair seems to have become established as giving the retailer a reasonable chance to repair.
But can we agree that OP can't ask for a full refund YET?