dealer won't accept rejected car

Manchee

So we bought a second hand car a week ago and it's in the garage already with possible clutch issues. Spoke to the dealer about rejecting it or them paying to get it fixed but he doesn't wanna know. Basically blamed it on me. Anyway, my commute to.work is now a 6 hour round trip on public transport, so I really need this sorted asap.

I know I need to write to him but what's the best way to get this sorted asap? Should we get repairs done and claim the money back through small claims? Or do I have to give him the opportunity to ignore numerous letters and do nothing about it for months on the possibility that he might play by the rules?

I just really need transport, the dealers not helping, we can't afford endless hire cars or taxis. I just don't know what to do for the best.

spacey2012

Do you have a receipt and if so what is the trading status of the dealer. LTD company or trading under his own name.

How did the advert you read describe the car in terms of its robustness, good runner, no faults, great car, needs work ?

What is the value paid / make of car .

Manchee

Basically the ad just described it, the features. The dealer told us it was good working condition, it test drove fine and engine looked ok (laymans check). It's a Peugeot 206, 10 years old, 1000 quid. No issues with noise and no burning smell when we first got it but now there is.

spacey2012

And the receipt and trading type example :
Dodgy auction bangers LTD...
Barry the bangers car sales.
This trading type is important as it dictates how likely any pressure applied is to yield fruit.

However a clutch is generally taken as a wear and tare item.

maninthestreet

Burning smell from the clutch??

Rain_Shadow

Manchee wrote: »

Basically the ad just described it, the features. The dealer told us it was good working condition, it test drove fine and engine looked ok (laymans check). It's a Peugeot 206, 10 years old, 1000 quid. No issues with noise and no burning smell when we first got it but now there is.

Well, you could easily have worn the clutch to that state in a week if you have driven it inappropriately. Not saying you have, just that you could have. Very hard for you to prove you aren't responsible for wear and tear like that.

ballyblack

10 years old, 1000 quid

This is banger territory and the dealer will be well used of people wanting to reject their cars

colino

Even though it is a banger, you bought it from a trader, had a problem, took it to a different garage want the trader to pay for their work or accept rejection on their say so? You know that was never going to happen.

motorguy

This is the inherent problem with the SOGA. You have the *right* to reject the car and be entitled to a full refund, however if you and the trader disagree over the terms of that rejection, the only way to exercise that right is to go to court.

And of course in the meantime you're without the car.

Personally, the trader should resolve this as its happened so soon after the sale (irrespective i would have fixed it as a goodwill gesture), BUT sounds like hes not going to play ball

Manchee

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

Well, you could easily have worn the clutch to that state in a week if you have driven it inappropriately. Not saying you have, just that you could have. Very hard for you to prove you aren't responsible for wear and tear like that.

That's totally contrary to everything we've been told. So a perfectly good clutch could be wrecked in 5 days? Seriously?

colino wrote: »

Even though it is a banger, you bought it from a trader, had a problem, took it to a different garage want the trader to pay for their work or accept rejection on their say so? You know that was never going to happen.

No actually, we took it to the garage after basically being told to !!!!!! off by the dealer. What other choice did we have, it needs to be looked at as we don't actually know what's wrong? I need a car for work. If this was wrong what should we have done? Gotta say, the tone of your message is quite unhelpful tbh.

motorguy wrote: »

This is the inherent problem with the SOGA. You have the *right* to reject the car and be entitled to a full refund, however if you and the trader disagree over the terms of that rejection, the only way to exercise that right is to go to court.

And of course in the meantime you're without the car.

Personally, the trader should resolve this as its happened so soon after the sale (irrespective i would have fixed it as a goodwill gesture), BUT sounds like hes not going to play ball

Guess we're kinda !!!!ed then?

Joe_Horner

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

Well, you could easily have worn the clutch to that state in a week if you have driven it inappropriately. Not saying you have, just that you could have. Very hard for you to prove you aren't responsible for wear and tear like that.

Thanks to SOGA, it's not up to the OP to "prove" anything. Within the first 6 months after sale the dealer has to prove the fault wasn't there at sale.

That said, as Motorguy says, having that in the law and getting it acted on in practice are two very different matters because laws work at a societal level, not an individual one.

SOGA can be very effective at tackling dodgy traders but only if individual consumers are willing (and able!) to face a lot of aggravation to keep bringing cases against them and society is willing to keep track of those individual cases until there's enough evidence that it wasn't a "one off".

Trading Standards do keep files to track bad trading, but they mostly have to rely on the individual to (a) take action in the first place and (b) report it to them (they don't actively watch for cases) regardless of whether or not it helps directly in that case. Meanwhile, the dodgy traders know that most consumers won't bother with either so they carry on as normal.

How often on here do you see people saying "don't bother with TS, they won't do anything"? It's true that they probably won't in your particular case (unless you happen to be the last of a long line) but each case adds up until they can eventually act.

If everyone who'd been stung by a particular trader before you were had reported it (even knowing that direct action was unlikely), they may well have been closed down before they got to you!