Yes it's The Car

mc303

I think your best bet is to provide evidence (or highlight it again) showing that you have already given the garage a number of attempts at fixing the problems and these have failed.

i sent the FO 2 reports showing the car had been in for repair with the dealers recommended garage?

naedanger

Your reply seems reasonable to me.

It might be worth speaking to the adjudicator as it looks like it is quite a saga. It might be helpful if the adjudicator can hear your version of events in person.

But you want to avoid getting into an argument. Just explain you want to talk through the series of events as you see them so he understands your side of the saga.

mc303

i wish i could upload the final telephone conversation, where she explains, why my case is refused because the dealer has offered a repair, again i stress after 3/4 failed attempts

mc303

she also said that CRA doesnt come into it?

wealdroam

mc303 wrote: »

i wish i could upload the final telephone conversation...

Stick it on youtube and post a link to it.

mc303

i am not allowed to post links as a new user lol and there is no facility to pm this format besides i would only want a few of you to hear it. i have the original decline from MBNA and the FO both say the same, the dealer has offered a repair, after their failed repairs!

the following txt is the voice of a CC employee
the merchants defence at no stage they have not been willing you to offer a repair which they are supposed to do under the sale of goods act, they are still willing and in a position to replace the differential they also confirm with documentation there was a valid MOT at the time of the sale there were no advisories on there they also got a third party to fit a centre bearing (not the fault i was claiming for) you had an initial repair and they did a test drive and it was the tyres, so they are still in a position there , they are offering to replace the differential, and that it didnt fail, it was just a recommendation to change it ??? our legal team have reviewed this think that this is fair for them to replace that for you and the offer is still there on the cards for them to do that, thats the reason we are not looking to take this further for you

DoaM

If the transaction was made after July (?) 2015 then the Sale of Goods Act was superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. So straight away the adjudicator has made a fundamental error in law.

mc303

Transaction was august 2016 , thank you for your reply

mc303

2 days ago:

my view on Mr xxx complaint about MBNA Limited (“MBNA”)

I sent out my first assessment of Mr xxx complaint on 23 February 2016.

Mr xxx didn’t agree with what I said. Mr xx still wanted have a final right to reject his car under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

why we can’t look at a remedy for Mr xxx under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 against MBNA

I explained to Mr xxx that a remedy under the Consumer Rights in his complaint against MBAN isn’t available. This is because the Consumer Rights Act applies to relationships between sellers and buyers. In Mr xxx complaint the seller is xxx xxx xxx (the dealership), and he is the buyer. Therefore he would need to pursue any remedy under the Consumer Rights Act against the dealership. But, we can’t look into complaints about car dealerships because they don’t carry out a regulated financial business.

So, his complaint concerns a section 75 and chargeback attempt with MBNA.

section 75 and breaches of contract

When I spoke with Mr xxx he said that he wanted a refund of his goods, because of the breach of contract, but MBNA didn’t agree to giving a refund. I explained to Mr xx that a refund is one of the remedies available under section 75. The dealership have offered to repair the rear differential, and this is why MBNA didn’t agree to a refund, because they thought this offer (of repair) was fair and reasonable.

I told Mr xxx that I also agreed with this.

naedanger

mc303 wrote: »

2 days ago:

my view on Mr xxx complaint about MBNA Limited (“MBNA”)

I sent out my first assessment of Mr xxx complaint on 23 February 2016.

Mr xxx didn’t agree with what I said. Mr xx still wanted have a final right to reject his car under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

why we can’t look at a remedy for Mr xxx under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 against MBNA

I explained to Mr xxx that a remedy under the Consumer Rights in his complaint against MBAN isn’t available. This is because the Consumer Rights Act applies to relationships between sellers and buyers. In Mr xxx complaint the seller is xxx xxx xxx (the dealership), and he is the buyer. Therefore he would need to pursue any remedy under the Consumer Rights Act against the dealership. But, we can’t look into complaints about car dealerships because they don’t carry out a regulated financial business.

So, his complaint concerns a section 75 and chargeback attempt with MBNA.

section 75 and breaches of contract

When I spoke with Mr xxx he said that he wanted a refund of his goods, because of the breach of contract, but MBNA didn’t agree to giving a refund. I explained to Mr xx that a refund is one of the remedies available under section 75. The dealership have offered to repair the rear differential, and this is why MBNA didn’t agree to a refund, because they thought this offer (of repair) was fair and reasonable.

I told Mr xxx that I also agreed with this.

My suggested draft:

Thank your [letter/email] of xx/xx/xx but I wish to reject your assessment of my case, and would like it escalated to a Financial Ombudsman.

From your assessment I think you are of the view that the seller is not obliged to offer me a refund and that a repair is an acceptable remedy. However that is not correct. Under section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 the consumer has a right to refund (rather than a repair) if the seller has previously attempted to repair the item and failed. As in my case the seller has failed to repair the car after three attempts they are now legally obliged to provide a refund. The offer of a further repair is not now sufficient remedy under section 24 of the CRA 2015.

For the record I will summarise my complaint again. There are two points to it.

Firstly that the seller (not MBAN) is in breach of contract because they have failed to honour my statutory rights under the contract. In particular they have failed to provide a refund for my car under Section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (sometimes referred to as a consumer's “final right to reject”). As you know under that section I am entitled to insist on a refund, and am not obliged to accept a repair, as the seller has previously attempted and failed to repair the car.

My second point is that MBAN under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are jointly and severally liable for my claim against the seller . Therefore MBAN are liable to me for the refund of £xxx. My complaint against MBAN is that they are refusing to provide this refund.