Who enforces the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

vancreef

This was our letter to Toyota;

November 18th 2016;
Whilst traveling home on the motorway the vehicle displayed an amber engine warning light and went into “Limp” mode. After speaking with Vantage Toyota they advised that we should bring the car in immediately for inspection. Once inspection had been carried out we were advised that the EGR Valve had failed and would require replacing. The work was completed approx a week and a half later due to the part being out of stock.

May 15th 2017;
The vehicle displayed an amber engine warning light for a second time and after the vehicle was inspected at Vantage Toyota we were advised that the fault had been down to a poor connection on the Air Flow Meter and had now been repaired.


May 25th 2017;
The vehicle displayed an amber engine warning light yet again but upon contacting Vantage Toyota we were advised that no courtesy cars were available and that we would have to continue to drive the vehicle whilst displaying the engine warning light until May 30th. The inspection of the vehicle revealed that it was a repeat issue with the EGR Valve which had only been fitted in November of 2016 and again it was replaced.

June 20th 2017;
The vehicle displayed an amber engine warning light and upon contacting Vantage Toyota we were again advised of a shortage of courtesy cars and that we would have to bring the car in and wait for it to be inspected.
We were advised that the issue was once again with the poor connection on the air flow meter and the only course of action had been to disconnect and reconnect it, which had extinguished the amber engine warning light. We were also advised that the reason for this repeat issue was yet unknown, but should it reoccur that Vantage Toyota would call the vehicle in for a extended period of time to allow a full investigation of the vehicle to be carried out which would hopefully reveal the route cause of the problem.

June 26th 2017;
The vehicle has again displayed an amber engine warning light and the earliest that Vantage Toyota can provide a courtesy car will be June 28th.
The reason for the amber warning light displaying on this occasion has yet to be established, however in the meantime I have sought legal advice from Trading Standards as I have lost all faith in this vehicle and wish to reject it.

unholyangel

If you agreed to their repair and the goods have now been repaired, you don't have a case.

Likewise as its over 6 months, it would be for you to prove the lack of conformity is inherent (rather than misuse or wear & tear).

vancreef

unholyangel wrote: »

If you agreed to their repair and the goods have now been repaired, you don't have a case.

Likewise as its over 6 months, it would be for you to prove the lack of conformity is inherent (rather than misuse or wear & tear).

Initially we did agree to it because we had yet to discvoer that we would have to go back to them a further 6 or 7 times for repeat repairs. It was at this point that I contacted Citizen's Advice who said that I am well within my rights to reject it because it had broken down more than once for the same reason. Toyota rejected this claiming that Citizen's Advice didn't know what they were on about, who I then called back to check that advice given and they also said that my final right to reject the car stands for several years and not only within the first 6 months as Toyota were incorrectly stating.

motorguy

vancreef wrote: »

It is at the dealership where it has been for the past 2 months. They are claiming that it doesn't need repairing as they can't replaicate the fault that I saw on a daily basis. They are also claiming that what I described as a fault is actually a chararteristic of the car in which the cruise control will repeatedly switch off. My question is; if it is indeed a charateristic and something that is normal behaviour then why is it now not doing it? It all seems very contradictive.

Is it at the dealership because of your attempt to reject it or because its currently awaiting repairs?

The radar cruise control on my 2016 Passat will on occasions switch itself off if you're in the wrong gear for too long, you brake, etc. Under what specific circumstances does the cruise control switch off on the Auris?

vancreef

motorguy wrote: »

Is it at the dealership because of your attempt to reject it or because its currently awaiting repairs?

The radar cruise control on my 2016 Passat will on occasions switch itself off if you're in the wrong gear for too long, you brake, etc. Under what specific circumstances does the cruise control switch off on the Auris?

Both really.
The cruise control works for an unknown period of time ranging from several seconds to several minutes, at which point it switches off entirely. I understand that it is normal behaviour for it to disengage should you brake, change gear etc but the light would normally stay on. With my case the light actually goes out completely and will not switch back on unless I park the car and restart it.
This symptom was the early sign of all the other problems I had with the car, so when the ECU was finally replaced about 3 months ago and within days the cruise control started to switch off again, I was concerned that it would lead up to yet more issues and contacted the dealer. They said that without the engine warning light displaying there was nothing they could do, but after several weeks of enduring this I got fed up and demanded that they look at the car. It was during this period that the Financial Ombudsman advised that by collecting the car back from the dealer I was harming my case against them as I was effectively "accpeting" the repair. This is the reason why I have chosen not to go back for it.

unholyangel

vancreef wrote: »

Initially we did agree to it because we had to discvoer that we would have to go back to them a further 6 or 7 times for repeat repairs. It was at this point that I contacted Citizen's Advice who said that I am well within my rights to reject it because it had broken down more than once for the same reason. Toyota rejected this claiming that Citizen's Advice didn't know what they were on about, who I then called back to check that advice given and they also said that my final right to reject the car stands for several years and not only within the first 6 months as Toyota were incorrectly stating.

Yes your final right stands for several years (cra doesn't impose a time limit but the limitation act/prescription & limitation (scotland) act does). But after 6 months the onus is on you not only to prove the goods don't conform to contract, but that the lack of conformity was inherent. The retailer is also entitled to make a deduction from the refund to account for the use you had of the goods.

ETA: Did you tell them when you handed the car over to them that you didn't want it repaired and wanted to reject? Or did you wait until they came back saying the goods had been repaired?

vancreef

Seeing as the car was bought brand new and none of the parts had been replaced prior to the issue, surely then the fault is inherent? I could understand it if I'd had a part replaced that had then failed but they were all original/ Also. when the EGR Valve failed for the 2nd time, the dealer stated that they were having loads of problems with them and that the part had actually had a re-design due to reliability issues. He also said that he doubted that they had actually sorted it for good and I may well find myself having it replaced yet again in the future. This wasn't very reassuring to say the least.

vancreef

I told the dealer I was rejecting the car at the point that I returned it for the 4th break down. At no point did Citizen's Advice tell me that I should advise the dealer not to repair it, otherwise I would have done.

vancreef

The only advice I got from CA during this was to simply wait until I received their response.

unholyangel

vancreef wrote: »

Seeing as the car was bought brand new and none of the parts had been replaced prior to the issue, surely then the fault is inherent? I could understand it if I'd had a part replaced that had then failed but they were all original/ Also. when the EGR Valve failed for the 2nd time, the dealer stated that they were having loads of problems with them and that the part had actually had a re-design due to reliability issues. He also said that he doubted that they had actually sorted it for good and I may well find myself having it replaced yet again in the future. This wasn't very reassuring to say the least.

Take a moment to think about the consequences of what you suggest. Think how that fits in given most items are going to be purchased brand new and not have any replacement parts. But really, you haven't had any parts replaced? Not even a filter?

Cars need regular maintenance to stay in good shape. How you drive can also damage the car (or at the very least, cause excessive wear on parts). A rat could chew on parts or wires (it happens more than you'd think - or perhaps more than I'd think at least).

Sorry, but buying new doesn't imply one way or another that the fault is inherent.