Rejecting a used car

motorguy

withthebestwillintheworld wrote: »

Thank you. The law doesn't state you have to let them fix it. The law states that you can choose one of three remedies; refund, repair, replace. If you choose a refund you have to prove the damage to the car was there at the time of sale.

No. Its up to the trader to decide if he wants to repair, refund or replace.

What you are doing is different though - you're attempting to reject the car. Which you're perfectly entitled to attempt to do. However if the garage dont accept that then you may have to go to court to get your rights enforced.

withthebestwillintheworld wrote: »

The brake discs were not a fail. Don't know why, they have a 2mm lip on them. There are no guidelines for the wear apparently so it's up to the tester.

So basically, the brake discs arent an MOT fail, the car needs a £20 track rod end, and there was a slow puncture?

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

No. Its up to the trader to decide if he wants to repair, refund or replace.

[...]

So basically, the brake discs arent an MOT fail, the car needs a £20 track rod end, and there was a slow puncture?

Not quite. the customer is entitled to his choice of remedy but the seller can refuse that choice if it's disproportionately expensive for him.

So, you can't insist on them putting a new engine in a £500 banger - they can refund instead because it's cheaper for them. Similarly, you can't insist that they lose money on the sale (bank fees, extra owner on the log book etc) by refunding if £60 in parts and an hour labour will put it right.

I'm a bit puzzled about why the OP felt the need to put a 2 1/2 year old car in for an MOT though - even with the apparent faults, a simple garage (or probably dealer at that age) report would have been more appropriate seeing as you'd be entitled to expect a car of that age to be considerably above MOT standard.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not quite. the customer is entitled to his choice of remedy but the seller can refuse that choice if it's disproportionately expensive for him.

So, you can't insist on them putting a new engine in a £500 banger - they can refund instead because it's cheaper for them. Similarly, you can't insist that they lose money on the sale (bank fees, extra owner on the log book etc) by refunding if £60 in parts and an hour labour will put it right.

Down to semantics then - the customer has "the right" to his choice of remedy, but the seller can disagee / over ride this and best suit himself (within reason) as to what they actually do about it.

So, as i said, its the sellers choice.

PsiDOC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I'm a bit puzzled about why the OP felt the need to put a 2 1/2 year old car in for an MOT though - even with the apparent faults, a simple garage (or probably dealer at that age) report would have been more appropriate seeing as you'd be entitled to expect a car of that age to be considerably above MOT standard.

Taxi perhaps? Taxis in most areas have to me mot tested and have a separate Taxi test annually from new.

bigjl

Could this be a simple trolling post?

But to play along i will comment.

Picking up a nail doesn't make a tyre illegal. So did the OP buy it without checking the tread depths?

Why would you MOT a 2.5 yr old car

Why would worn brake discs cause you to lose control?

Even with extremely worn discs and pads back to the backing a car would still stop

Personally it sounds like you either changed your mind after purchase and are looking for an out.

Or you were "enjoying" your new purchase and hit a kerb causing the damage to the suspension/steering component.

WTFH

You say in your original post that it has a "fair few" miles on it. How many miles did it have on the clock when you bought it?
What car is it? Make/model/engine/etc.