Consumer Rights - Brand New Car

Hintza

arcon5 wrote: »

I disagree, a car experiencing this many problems in just 7 days doesn't really instill confidence.

From what I read it has had one problem. I don't think there are a list of problems. I would hope once the dealer has identified that problem then all will be fine.

You also have to be careful of trivial claims (now I am not saying this is trivial but if the problem is located and fixed then that could be how it was viewed).

See:- Darren Egan vs. Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (18 October 2007)

If the OP still feels they have a claim then they should seek professional guidance.

But I maintain we are not at that stage yet.

shaun_from_Africa

There are a couple of big differences between the case that you've linked to Hintza and the case being discussed here.

after numerous tests, adjustments and the like, the dealer said that there was nothing wrong with the car.

But in this case, the dealer has already admitted that there is a manufacturing defect and this alone gives the right not to accept the car.
In the linked case, the consumer had already accepted the car in question, and the legal action took place almost 2 years from the initial purchase and they were attempting to claim a % of the purchase price to cover the perceived loss in value.

The judge in the case in question also stated that :

The commercial possibilities are endless for finding an acceptable solution which would enable the parties to emerge, one with some satisfaction, perhaps a replacement vehicle

But the supplier of the car in question has totally dismissed the possibility of a replacement vehicle, simply stating that they are only entitled to a repair.

I know that if I purchased a brand new car and it failed to start 4 times in the first week due to a manufacturing defect, I wouldn't be happy with that car and would also push for a full refund.

Hintza

But it could be something as simple as a duff starter motor (although not likely here. If it was for example just a failed starter motor I think the claim would be seen as frivolous.

The OP can start legal proceedings if they wish but this is not a "small claims" action and I still stand by the point the OP should be pushing the dealer to fix the fault thoroughly at the first attempt as the most sensible course of action at this stage.

shaun_from_Africa

But it could be something as simple as a duff starter motor (although not likely here. If it was for example just a failed starter motor I think the claim would be seen as frivolous.

It definitely isn't the started motor.

Broken down same way each time - basically won't start - was found to be a fault in its security system.

Many modern cars have extremely complex security systems, and I for one wouldn't be happy to accept a car that has already had a problem with this, especially when it was only 1 day old.

vax2002

The choices are the consumers not the dealers.
The Consumers obligation is to act reasonably in allowing the retailer to Redeem the situation .
Once the offer of repair has not redeemed the situation the purchaser is entitled to demand a refund.
On a new item this is a stronger claim than say a 12 month old item .
The purchaser would need reasonable proof that they acted in accordance with the flavour of the sale of goods in allowing a repair which subsequently failed .
We are not told if this is the first repair or the 4th ?
If it is the case that the garage has had a few attempts at repairing the vehicle after it broke down and failed, then the purchaser would have a very good case for a full refund.
They would have to return the hire car and serve a notice of rejection upon the dealer in writing.
Take evidence of its service and if no refund is made, issue proceedings against the dealer at court.
So if this a first repair option, then if it works it works, if it is the end of a line of repairs that have failed, it could bee seen as the last.
What the dealer says, is immaterial, thats why we have legalisation in place.

Hintza

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It definitely isn't the started motor.

I know that it was an example

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Many modern cars have extremely complex security systems, and I for one wouldn't be happy to accept a car that has already had a problem with this, especially when it was only 1 day old.

You might have a point but how much money would you be willing to throw at it at this stage. £1K? £10K? £100k? We nor the OP knows exactly what the problem is at this stage.

George_Michael

vax2002 wrote: »

The choices are the consumers not the dealers.
The Consumers obligation is to act reasonably in allowing the retailer to Redeem the situation .
Once the offer of repair has not redeemed the situation the purchaser is entitled to demand a refund.
On a new item this is a stronger claim than say a 12 month old item

The consume has no obligation to allow a repair to be carried out when goods are faulty upon delivery or with a reasonable time afterwards.
This is because the SOGA allows these goods to be rejected and the contract of sale must be treated as if it never existed. (ie, a full refund must be given).

It is only after acceptance of the goods that the retailer is entitled to attempt a repair.

This has been stated by at least 3 different posters, along with the relevant section of the SOGA being shown.

arcon5

vax2002 wrote: »

The choices are the consumers not the dealers.

If the consumer is deemed to have 'accepted' the goods then the dealer can reject the consumers request if it is disproportionate in cost to another remedy. So although technically true, it effectively comes down to whats cheapest for the dealer.

The Consumers obligation is to act reasonably in allowing the retailer to Redeem the situation .

On a new item this is a stronger claim than say a 12 month old item .
The purchaser would need reasonable proof that they acted in accordance with the flavour of the sale of goods in allowing a repair which subsequently failed .

Not really.

If (consumer == "accepted goods") {
' retailer can offer the most cost-effective rememdy, which could include a repair
} else {
' consumer can reject for a full refund
' there is no requirement for the consumer to have allowed a repair or such
}

I doubt any reasonable person would deem op to have accepted a vehicle after 7 days that has broken down 4 times, thus op would be entitled to reject it.

Terrysdelight

Hello everyone

I can confirm the faults started less than 24 hours after purchase and has in fact been sitting in the dealership service dept since day 6.

We have sent a letter - hand delivered - formally rejecting the car.

I know a little about law (not a lot). I can see quite clearly, the car has not been accepted - customer is given a 'reasonable period of time' etc. We also now have a letter stating their is a manufacturing fault.

The garage have also apologised for not dealing with the problem properly - instead of taking the car into the garage - they told my 86 year old uncle to take it on a 40 mile drive and 'that should sort it out - it's probably only the battery'. Uncle did take it for the drive but was terrified he was going to get stranded somewhere.

Shall update this forum when we have more info.

Thank you.

arcon5

Get them to acknowledge the letter in writing or sign something to say they have received it.