Used car refund rights

salfar

Hello all,

I have been reading this forum and understand there are similar cases like mine. But I would be grateful if anyone can offer some advice. I will try to be simple and concise.

I bought a used car Nissan Tiida 2009 (41k mileage) about 3 weeks ago from a dealer in Bury, I am based in Barrow (100+ miles). I paid £3550.
The car was described to be in excellent condition but the advert on their website described the car as "Nissan Note Accenta", when asked why its Tiida and not Accenta they said its Japanese equivalent of the Note. We were led to believe that we are getting a Note but not as its sold in the UK. I was okay with that, the car looked fine and drives okay.
I paid £3550 using my debit card. extended warranty was offered but they discouraged saying the car is in good condition, you would not need the warranty.

On the way getting back to Barrow, I noticed some noise coming from the rear brakes, which got worse by the 3rd day and and I contacted the seller, he promised to repair it. I was happy with the offer but thought I would check how bad the problem was and if anything else was wrong. I have checked the car at 3 local garages including Halfords and finally did an AA inspection which confirmed the following -

1. central exhaust heavily corroded, needs replacing
2. all brake discs and pads need replacing (still within legal limit, just)
3. dry and rusty condition underneath
4. one drop link needs replacing
5. one lower arm needs replacing

AA also mentioned that the previous MOT, which was done 2 months ago, should have identified these issues, at least as advisories, which would have given me a chance to make an informed decision.

Issues with the car advert -

1. Car advert title was Nissan Note Accenta when they were selling Nissan Tiida
2. advert and during sale they said MOT with no advisories, when MOT had 3 advisories (none of the faults that were identified was there though)
3. advert said car in excellent and immaculate condition in and out

I have emailed the seller since saying I am rejecting the car under the regulations of sale of goods act 1979 (sections 13 and 14), but he is insisting on re-MOT the car and then take care of advisories.

My point is that I was sold a car that was not in a satisfactory condition and the faults were existing at the time of sale but nothing was mentioned. So I was sold a faulty car.
another concern is that, if they do minimum repair to take care of MOT advisories, that would still leave me with a car that could create issues later on. As the car is an import, the repair cost is high as well.

what are my chances if they refuse to refund. If i take them to court, is there any chance of getting my money back?

would really appreciate your wisdom on this issue.

Many thanks

ChumLee

He's offered to put right the faults you have since discovered. That would put you back in the postition you thought you were in at the time of the sale. You were happy with it being an import when you purchased the car.
Why do you now want to reject the car, a touch of buyers remorse?
Personally I think you'd lose in court if you rejected the car.

burlington6

I'd take what the AA inspector said with a pinch of salt. they really aren't worth the money and their knowledge is minimal. they are that paranoid about you coming back to them with problems that they slate vehicles and mention things that are just part of owning a used vehicle.

eg, the rust. We live in the UK. Unless you spray oil you vehicles they're going to have rust on them

TBagpuss

Car advert title was Nissan Note Accenta when they were selling Nissan Tiida

You knew this by the time you bought it. I don't think you can now raise it as an issue.

advert and during sale they said MOT with no advisories, when MOT had 3 advisories (none of the faults that were identified was there though)

It sounds as though they were correct. The MOT had no advisories. What you are saying is that an AA Man who saw the car 2 months after the MOT was done thought there ought to have been advisories on it. But the ad was truthful.

advert said car in excellent and immaculate condition in and out

I think this is the only one you might have an argument on, but I think would probably have to be read as ' advert said car in excellent and immaculate condition in and out for a 2009 car - at 6 years old I don't think you can expect it to be perfect. So I think the question would be whether it was in much worse condition that you would expect for a car of that age.

However, the seller has offered to repair it - presumably if they do 2,4 and 5 on your list you then have a car with brand new brake pads and disks and so on.

So far as the rust is concerned - I would expect any car to have rust on the under side - surely the issue is whether there is anything which is in a bad state - e.g. so badly corroded is i about to fall to pieces.

I think your best bet it to accept the offer to fix the brakes etc.

usefulmale

Why do these 'noises' only manifest themselves on the drive home and never on the test drive?

lincroft1710

usefulmale wrote: »

Why do these 'noises' only manifest themselves on the drive home and never on the test drive?

Probably because the test drive is shorter than the drive home.

ChumLee

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Probably because the test drive is shorter than the drive home.

Well in this case I don't doubt it was.

arcon5

Good luck finding a car that's not near new that doesn't have a rusty exhaust or rusty underside!!

None of these issues look particularly problematic to me, especially since it was MOTd 2 months ago and probably sat on a forecourt since then.

The noise will be rusted discs.

They've offered a fair enough solution to a small problem!

burlington6

usefulmale wrote: »

Why do these 'noises' only manifest themselves on the drive home and never on the test drive?

It's called buyers remorse