Section 75 - Help Required

grumbler

ferry18 wrote: »

So would the faults and the fact i am unable to drive the car,constitute a breach of contract under section 75?

Yes - if, and only if, they constitute a breach under the CRA.

Should i authorize repairs if the dealer fails to fix it or should i contact the Credit card?

Well, you can authorise repairs if you are 100% that you will win should the CC company rejects your claim and you have to sue them (or take the case to the FOS first).

Briefly, S75 is nothing but your right to sue the CC provider instead of of the dealer. In clear cases CC companies just pay out without getting a court involved.

bris

ferry18 wrote: »

So would the faults and the fact i am unable to drive the car,constitute a breach of contract under section 75? Should i authorize repairs if the dealer fails to fix it or should i contact the Credit card?
Many thanks.

No, again fair wear and tear is excluded, age and mileage is taken into consideration so a car costing just £1000 is going to be old.


You can try and get the ball rolling with a S75 claim but they are going to want you to prove the breach of contract.


You had 40 days trouble free so it wasn't sold to you with the problem but developed the fault the same way as any other car would given it's age. The joys of motoring is expensive.

twokcc

IMO a lot of the opinios given above are incorrect, if look on pistonheads forum will find plenty of threads regarding cars bought from a trader with faults, general consensus is
1) that any fault that occurs in first 6 months of car purchase is presumed a pre existing fault for which the trader IS liable
2) Buyers first recourse is to report fault to the trader and give then the responsibility to repair/correct the fault you should do this asap
3)If refuses to do this then can get trading standards involved and/or make a S75 against the credit card provider

Post back once you spoken to trader

HTH

Add
forum members on pistonheads inc solicitors etc who have detailed knowledge regarding legal situation

grumbler

twokcc wrote: »

...general consensus is
1) that any fault that occurs in first 6 months of car purchase is presumed a pre existing fault for which the trader IS liable...

Correct, but worn clutch needing replacement hardly is a fault.

twokcc

grumbler wrote: »

Correct, but worn clutch needing replacement hardly is a fault.

Go and look on pistonheads and you will find many similar threads-legally it is classed as a fault and buyers have made successfully claims against traders.
The law has swung in favour of the buyer and ca only see many small car traders going out iof business as a result

twokcc

Your claim is under The consumers right act which came into force Oct 2015 this is a brief summary from "Which"

If you are outside the 30-day right to reject, the retailer has an opportunity to repair or replace any faulty goods or digital content before offering a full refund.
If you discover the fault within the first six months from delivery, it is presumed to have been there from the time of delivery - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.
During this time it's up to retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of delivery - it's not up to you to prove that it was.
If an attempt at repair or replacement has failed, you have the right to reject the goods for a full refund or price reduction - if you wish to keep the product.
No deduction can be made from a refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement .


Have you contacted the trader yet