Rejection of car due to paint

fivetide

steve-L wrote: »

they can ignore it as they don't need to reply.

If however they get a letter and do not respond then that is their problem if it comes to court.

Much SAFER to use post....

Surely the only way to prove a letter went to them is to send it as signed for post. The recipient can refuse to accept can they not? If you don't use that, you still can't prove they ever recieved it as items do get lost in the mail.

I take your point on the Magistrate but if someone has an advertised e-mither address and as the OP says in this case, acknowledges it, then the two are not that far apart.

As an aside I successfully got Trading Standards to get me a refund from a firm based purely on email exchanges as evidence.

I'd do both if possible with something of this value though. Keep a paper trail and make sure the balance of probability is on your side.

motorguy

spacey2012 wrote: »

it turns out the car has been accident repaired and this was not mentioned by the dealer to the buyer.
Then The sale of goods act does have provisions for this.

No.

There is no provision in the SOGA for the fact the car has previously had an accident and has been repaired to an acceptable standard.

The dealer is not obliged to mention a previous repair.

This is not a reason for rejection.

Nerja_2

steve-L wrote: »

Because you can't force someone to have eMail.
Hence you can't by default expect someone to reply to one....

If you write a contract that specifically states that correspondence will be through eMail, that's different... but if it doesn't (as the OP's almost certainly doesn't) then they can ignore it as they don't need to reply.

If however they get a letter and do not respond then that is their problem if it comes to court.

Also, this is Small Claims territory.. you could well end up with a magistrate doesn't acknowledge email even exists.

Much SAFER to use post....

Emails are just as legally binding as post. The OP says they acknowledged his email, so clearly they got it.

They may well wriggle out of this on another basis, but him having informed them of his problem by email is not one of them.

Relentless01

The dealership will not want to take the car back under a rejection. They have not been given the chance to repair the vehicle. As a few people have said they could quite easily claim that you have done the damage.

I would speak to the used car sales manager directly and also call Vauxhall to register the complaint. Pressure from the manufacture will also help. I think the best you will be offered is a repair.

Wig

You should think about the the long term consequences of your actions before you reject.

Rejection means that you are asking for a full refund plus costs. = £7400 and if it goes to court upto £8500

This is not small claims court territory - where your court fees are cheaper and the other side usually cannot claim back their fees if you lose. - this will be at a different court where the other side WILL claim back their fees if you lose.

Whereas if you change tactic and ask for a repair, and they refuse, then you have a number of options, you could get it repaired yourself and claim for the cost of repair in Small Claims Court. Or you could sell it and buy an identical car and sue them for the your losses in Small Claims. Where they usually cannot claim their fees from you if you lose.
IANAL

My advice, is to do as suggested above get it checked for accident damage, though I'm not sure how this would help you as I doubt they have a duty to disclose (assuming they knew of it), but it might help in the court's viewing of everything, it would help to prove the reason for the discolouration and that the price paid was perhaps too much. Or you could maybe contact previous owners.? But the inspection could bring to light other things that have not been repaired properly.

And speak to a solicitor

Wig

Relentless01 wrote: »

The dealership will not want to take the car back under a rejection. They have not been given the chance to repair the vehicle. As a few people have said they could quite easily claim that you have done the damage.

I would speak to the used car sales manager directly and also call Vauxhall to register the complaint. Pressure from the manufacture will also help. I think the best you will be offered is a repair.

The whole point of rejection is that you don't want it repaired,....you just don't want it at all. Some will agree to repair first and then reject, but you don't have to.

Retailers don't have an option to repair in a rejection scenario. A rejection notice is a final demand for a full refund or "I will see you in court" and it is up to the court to decide who wins.

Wig

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

They could claim both, what's to say it hasn't been repaired in the time the op has had the car?

Probability.

steve-L

fivetide wrote: »

Surely the only way to prove a letter went to them is to send it as signed for post. The recipient can refuse to accept can they not? If you don't use that, you still can't prove they ever recieved it as items do get lost in the mail.

Actually it proves nothing ... you could stick 3 blank bits of paper in an envelope and send it registered mail.
But actually, for the point of legal stuff letters are deemed delivered when correctly addressed, stamped and posted.
(There is a correct term for this)

I take your point on the Magistrate but if someone has an advertised e-mither address and as the OP says in this case, acknowledges it, then the two are not that far apart.

Nope, I agree .... they are not... indeed in many ways an email through a 3rd party ISP is ULTIMATELY far more provable about what you sent or didn't .....

Did the OP say they got it because they replied or because 'outlook' or their mail client said it was delivered? (Not quite the same thing)

As an aside I successfully got Trading Standards to get me a refund from a firm based purely on email exchanges as evidence.

If I (in some parallel universe) was somehow a magistrate I'm sure I would be taking email as evidence.... however it seems unlikely me or you will be in this one

I'd do both if possible with something of this value though. Keep a paper trail and make sure the balance of probability is on your side.

Absolutely .....
My aside is we went to CC (small claims), the DEFENDANT (car dealer) claimed they had 'kept us regularly informed' by telephone...

I had specifically (and this is why it's important) asked that they contact me in writing over the matter....
They claimed they hadn't because we had been kept informed by telephone.

I know beyond any doubt that number of calls over 3+ months they had the car after the 1st letter until the day we submitted the court papers was exactly zero.

I can prove I did not call them.... or I can print out my itemised phone bills (since I can edit them this is a funny use of proof but hey ho.. its like the blank papers in a recorded letter)

HOWEVER I can't prove they didn't phone me!

I asked that if they maintain (in their written DEFENCE it stated they had called me 'several times') that they called me they should bring their itemised bill to court. I also asked the court that if they were to accept this DEFENCE they issue a court order for the phone records

Bottom line.... magistrate decides to trust the DEFENDANT did... regardless of the fact they submitted a sworn statement with this and several other lies....

What I'm saying is it didn't bother the magistrate that they had lied enough to ask them to prove they had made the calls. It was within his power to check... he couldn't be bothered!

They also had done a lot of other illegal things, some of it very very easy to check.... they had their wrong address registered at companies house and part of their DEFENCE was they didn't receive the court papers because it was 'the wrong address'.

Didn't bother the magistrate how many laws they were breaking in not having their correct registered office address .... even after I showed a printed page from companies house showing the address we sent the letters to and filled out on the form....

In the end we settled before the actual hearing after an initial meeting with the magistrate...(he was actually quite sympathetic to me) the point I'm making is the garage were allowed to get away with numerous criminal offences quite apart from the civil case I brought....

About 5-6 points on their DEFENCE were within the courts power to check.... they tried in writing to tell me I had no right to REJECT the car (criminal offence) ... etc. and they lied about the phone calls that could have been checked....

So my advice... the more paperwork the better... email/fax and post ....

(We sent every letter registered and a copy in a different envelope and different handwriting 1st class as the registered they just refused to sign for after the 1st letter)

Rouge traders are experts at this...

lozmk1

All the garage have to do is put the defect right, they are not obliged to provide you with a replacement vehicle and it is not grounds for rejecting the car as it is not a major defect or safety related. Judging by the price you paid it is a used car, if you wanted a perfect vehicle you should have bought a brand new one.allow the dealer the opportunity to put the defect right using a vauxhall approved repairer (you will find your nearest one on their website)

Relentless01

Wig wrote: »

The whole point of rejection is that you don't want it repaired,....you just don't want it at all. Some will agree to repair first and then reject, but you don't have to.

I understand the point of why you want a rejection ie you do not want that car but the dealership will not take it back. I used to be a sales manager for Ford and we would not take a used car back for minor bodywork damage. All I saying is in my view a repair is the best outcome they are going to get. Plus the fact why would they need to reject if the dealer offer a repair?