Found Fault cover up after owning car 2 days

70sthrowback

UPDATE

I received a reply in writing from the dealership today. The key points are that they say that I refused to bring the car in to them to check, when we spoke to the phone. Not strictly true, they said they would check the brakes nothing else, but the fact that the car isn't legally roadworthy was the reason I wasn't going to drive it to them, which I did tell them. We didn't resolve this on the phone as he hung up on me.

There is also a statement in there which they say that they I need to return the car for their inspection so any faults can be attended to. Any reasonable faults are repaired as per the law. Bit of a turn around from the man that put the phone down on me, ignored my emails and has taken a week to reply. Wonder if he has taken legal advice hence the delay.

Anyway as I have had some really valuable advice on here so far, I thought I would push my luck and ask for more (I will call CAB tomorrow when they open too). So my concern is that I cannot drive the car as its not legally roadworthy, which I have told them, and I don't want to have to pay to have it transported to them (about 50 miles). But moreover I just don't trust them to repair it correctly, a dealership that would sell a car that has had the instrument cluster tampered with, who knows what bodge jobs they may do to make it look ok.

What I don't want to do is prejudice any case in small claims court and be seen to be obstructive. My preference is to reject the car and get a refund. I don't trust them to do quality work on this car and would be worried about driving it after they had been near it. Does anyone know the legal position on this please?

Thanks in advance

bigjl

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's a difficult one to answer from a "real life" point of view. The lack of pretensioners won't in itself make them "unsafe" but they do increase the chance of airbag injury (which is why they're fitted) if they don't work.

The more worrying thing is why they've fired. It may have been some careless maintenance firing them by accident at some time, or it may have been an accident - in which case the belts themselves should have been replaced because they've suffered shock loading.

Even that doesn't mean they'll automatically fail and kill you - seatbelt webbing is pretty tough stuff - but it does mean they're less likely to protect you as well as they were intended to.

Regardless of that, the ABS light failing to light is enough to make the car "legally" unroadworthy (ie: unable to pass an MOT) which is all you need. That would technically be true even if it was just a case of a blown bulb - although in that case the dealer would be perfectly justified in fitting a new bulb, so you'd be hard pressed to reject it for that.

But, in this case, there's an ABS fault logged and the bulbs have been intentionally disabled. Regardless of who actually did that (the dealer or a previous owner) you have no way of knowing what else they may have done in a similar vein and that's plenty of reason to reject

Not meaning to be a pedant

But I always believed pre tensioned were there as a way to prevent submarining.

This seems to be backed up by the Clio, an early mk3 has pre tensiones, later mk3 Clios have airbags under your thighs to prevent submarining.

bigjl

70sthrowback wrote: »

UPDATE

I received a reply in writing from the dealership today. The key points are that they say that I refused to bring the car in to them to check, when we spoke to the phone. Not strictly true, they said they would check the brakes nothing else, but the fact that the car isn't legally roadworthy was the reason I wasn't going to drive it to them, which I did tell them. We didn't resolve this on the phone as he hung up on me.

There is also a statement in there which they say that they I need to return the car for their inspection so any faults can be attended to. Any reasonable faults are repaired as per the law. Bit of a turn around from the man that put the phone down on me, ignored my emails and has taken a week to reply. Wonder if he has taken legal advice hence the delay.

Anyway as I have had some really valuable advice on here so far, I thought I would push my luck and ask for more (I will call CAB tomorrow when they open too). So my concern is that I cannot drive the car as its not legally roadworthy, which I have told them, and I don't want to have to pay to have it transported to them (about 50 miles). But moreover I just don't trust them to repair it correctly, a dealership that would sell a car that has had the instrument cluster tampered with, who knows what bodge jobs they may do to make it look ok.

What I don't want to do is prejudice any case in small claims court and be seen to be obstructive. My preference is to reject the car and get a refund. I don't trust them to do quality work on this car and would be worried about driving it after they had been near it. Does anyone know the legal position on this please?

Thanks in advance

As others have said it is possible that the warning lights have been disconnected by a previous owner prior to trade in.

Though going by the fact he hung up I think there is a real possibility that it was the trader.

I don't know of any professional trader that doesn't ensure SRS and ABS lights come on and run their checks.

What kind of vehicle is it?

As some Renaults have issues with the pretensioners and have a small ECU that can sometimes be reset after an activation but not always.

You can deploy and airbag and pre tensiones at a really low speed if you bump it at the wrong place, I found this to my coat with a 98 Megane diesel years ago, the wife tapped the towbar of a parked vehicle as she didn't see it and the airbag and drivers pre tensioner activated, though I was lucky the Airbag was pretty cheap and I was able to get the ECU reset.

70sthrowback

Hi it's a mini.

My real query here is whether I can just reject the car and not have to through the process of having to give him chance to repair which would not be cost effective anyway

shaun_from_Africa

70sthrowback wrote: »

My real query here is whether I can just reject the car and not have to through the process of having to give him chance to repair which would not be cost effective anyway

You only have to allow the seller to carry out a repair once you have accepted the goods. Acceptance in this sense only occurs once you have had the car for a reasonable time (there is no actual time defined in the SOGA but a couple of weeks for a complex item is the sort of time that Trading standards suggested) and have had a chance to inspect and test it to ensure that it is as described.
If it's not as described or otherwise not in conformance with the sales contract then you have the legal right to reject it and get a full refund.

The only way that it can be deemed for acceptance to occur before the reasonable time has passed is if you had done something that "is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller" such as modifying or selling on the item.

70sthrowback

Thanks shaun from Africa, so in this instance when I called the dealership after 2 days of ownership and emailed them to say I wanted a refund, I should be pretty safe. Although obviously this could be down to the view of the court.

70sthrowback

spoke with CAB this morning. They have basically said the same as shaun from Africa. I am still within my rights legally to reject the car based on none acceptance under SOGA 1979. It shouldnt impact any court decision that now the dealer is willing to help, though obviously nobody can guarantee that.

70sthrowback

Just updating the thread, as its always good for other people to read the process.....

obviously got nowhere with the Dealership, so carried out my threat and raised a case through Money Claims Online. Had a letter through the post yesterday to say the claim is being disputed so looks like I am off to court at some point.

The dealers defence is that I inspected the car and drove it home with no warning lights. (he still seems to be missing the point that this is the whole issue). Also that I have refused to bring it in to him to inspect and he will not do anything until then.

From my point of view, I wrote to him before he completed his defence and attached the independent car report to verify what I was telling him, and also said that he could come to my home and inspect the car anytime he wanted to. I reiterated that I wouldn't be driving it to him as I had previously explained to him I had formally rejected the car, but also I could not be guaranteed I would be insured given the faults with the safety system and with the warning lights being tampered with. It was a risk I was not prepared to take.

I think that pretty much sums up the situation, so I just need to post my reply in and await a court date. I still can't believe its got this far. He is still going to have to repair it, so why not just take it back repair it and sell it again without all this hassle.

m0bov

In order to reject the car you need to return the car and keys with a letter. Keeping the car is not rejecting you could have had it recovered to them and then add that to costs. Judge might rule you have accepted goods and not given the dealer a chance to resolve.

70sthrowback

Really??? I have spoken with CAB the whole time and not once did they say I had to return it to reject it?