Faulty vehicle

mab19827

Hi,
We recently purchased a camper van from a dealer, vehicle is an import with a brand new conversion. We paid the deposit in March on a credit card, due to complications with the vehicle registration and Vosa inspections, we were not able to collect the vehicle until mid June at which point we paid the remaining balance again by credit card.

Since collecting the vehicle some 3 weeks ago, it has had a number of faults with the conversion, and has been back already on 1 occasion for repairs, further faults have since come to light again with the conversion work.

We have spoken with the dealership and asked that we return the vehicle for a full refund, they have refused, and stated that they are only prepared to undertake repair work, that they have 3 opportunities to put right any defects, and we have no right to a full refund. I believe this is country to the provisions of the sale of goods act.

Any advise would be appreciated.

Thanks

maninthestreet

They are meeting their obligations to do you by repairing the faults.
What is the nature of the faults?

JJ_Egan

( believe this is country to the provisions of the sale of goods act.)

No not in this country .

mab19827

Thanks for the replies.

We have had faulty stitching on the seat
Screws popping within the conversion
faulty leisure battery
Pop up roof faulty repaired once but now broken again.
Broken fridge

This in the space of 3 weeks. The roof is main cause of concern, as this is to be our children's sleeping area. The amount of defective work has given us a crisis of confidence with the conversion itself.

To note mechanically the vehicle seems fine.

mab19827

JJ - can you expand on your comment?

arcon5

Well the first two comments are a little misleading.

You can reject defective goods that are not deemed to have been 'accepted'.

Acceptance.

(1)The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods [F35subject to subsection (2) below—

(a)when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or

(b)when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.

You've had the vehicle for just a couple of weeks so may be within this period.

It's only after this period they can reject your refund request if it's more cost effective to offer another remedy, repair in this case.

However, the types of faults are crucial, as the law also states

Where in the case of a contract of sale—

(a)the buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15 above, but

(b)the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them,

In cases where you are deemed to have acceptance the goods, then yes previous cases have shown up to 3 repair attempts to be reasonable.

arcon5

Just to add my personal opinion on this matter, having spent a lot of time and money already I think you should get the snags sorted and end up with a lovely vehicle as you wanted to before, but I wouldn't allow them to close any doors.


I would write a letter along these lines.

Dear __

Having consulted a legal advisor I am aware that after just x days a judge is unlikely to deem me to have 'accepted' this vehicle in the eyes of the law and that the faults collectively and some individually are unlikely to be seen an immaterial bearing in mind the nature of the purchase and its intended purpose.

Because of this i'm advised that I would legally be entitled to reject this vehicle for a full refund.

However, acting reasonably I am willing to allow you to opportunity to rectify my concerns as to the quality of the vehicle and the fitness of the components within. I will hereby advise though that this should not be taken as me accepting the goods.

I have enclosed a list of faults/snags which have not met my expectations. I believe my expectations to be reasonable.

__
__
__

I would hope you can arrange with me a time the vehicle can be returned and we can agree a time frame for which this can be acheived.

Regards

Nearlyold

mab19827 wrote: »

JJ - can you expand on your comment?

It was just a little dig at you for putting country instead of contrary in your original post

arcon5

That's because op meant country!

In laymans terms op said he/she thought this country has laws that protect consumers

Nearlyold

arcon5 wrote: »

That's because op meant country!

Actually I think you'll find the OP meant to say


I believe this is contrary to the provisions of the sale of goods act. (which makes perfect sense)


However the spell checker beat them and they ended up with


I believe this is country to the provisions of the sale of goods act. (which makes no sense not even to a layman):)

mab19827

Thanks for the advice. Special thanks to the grammar police

For the record the word in question was contrary, i was however beaten by a spell check!