Right to Consequential Loss payment?

ThunderGav

Hi all, first post here so may as well make it a good one...

In January, we bought a car from a dealer near Bolton, who shall remain nameless for the time being. It was a Ford Kuga, and we paid £4600 for it after discovering it needed a cam belt. Happy with that, we drove home (a journey of 97 miles!) Slightly more to it than that but that's the condensed version.

When my other half took it out the next day she discovered a huge crack in the panoramic roof. I immediately told the dealer, and said i would rather get it repaired due to time, hassle and distance to bring it back. I got quotes which were in the region of £1600 to repair it and he refused and said bring it back for a refund. He offered (through the AA) to give us £100 as a goodwill gesture on top of the full refund to cover part of our costs, fuel to take it back, insurance (the insurance company did what they do best when we came to insure it's replacement, hiked the cost. Cost us an extra £160 that it wouldn't have done otherwise.) and tax on a vehicle we couldn't use. These were our primary costs and come to a total somewhere in the region of £230. I accepted his offer and took the vehicle back, to be told that he wouldn't be giving us the £100.

I tried to get this sorted out using the AA as a mediator but he refused, so i took the refund of £4600 and left, just to make sure that i actually got my money. I then wrote a letter to him and sent it recorded delivery to inform him i wanted to claim for the full cost of my consequential losses. I have had a letter back from a motor traders legal representative informing me i am not entitled to claim for any of this. I think this is wrong and they are trying to scare me into leaving it, but if anyone can shed any light on this it would be very welcome. I can provide more information if i have missed anything.

Trading standards have been kept informed throughout the whole saga and are advising me to use ADR as a next step. I'm feeling a little bit let down by the system at the minute! This has been a heavily watered down version of events and i will add more information as i remember its relevance.

Thanks everyone

Gav

photome

I am not an expert but IMO you got a refund and that is all you are entitled to

It could have been much worse you may have had to go to court for the refund

mattyprice4004

Unfortunately I have to agree with the above - YOU chose to buy the car from 97 miles away. That's not the dealer's problem.
Likewise, the insurance increase on another vehicle isn't their fault either. Even the same make and model of car in a different colour can increase or decrease a premium.
If your insurance company had offered a partial refund due to the new car being cheaper, would you have offered that to the dealer? Didn't think so.

In short, the £100 was a goodwill gesture and you've got their back up by dealing with it the way you have. I'd just take the refund and walk away, you've got your money back.

unholyangel

It is the dealers problem - and if OP chose to buy from 97 miles, then the dealer chose to sell to someone 97 miles away.

There are two limbs of damages which are recoverable:
1) Direct losses - these are losses that arise from the natural course of things and would (or should) be obvious to the world at large that such a loss would occur from the breach
2) Indirect (or consequential) losses - these are losses which do not arise from the natural course of thing but arise from special circumstances - if the retailer was aware of these special circumstances then these losses are also recoverable.

As VED & insurance are required by law for any car driven on the public road and the trader would have known the car was going to be driven on the road, then even if they were consequential losses (which isn't clear cut, they may well be considered direct losses)....they would be recoverable as having been in contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into.

Usually the first application of damages is to put you into the same position you would have been in had the contract not been breached. If that isn't possible, then the law would look to put you into the position you would be in had you not entered the contract.

In the first instance, you wouldn't be entitled to these losses but that isn't possible due to trader wanting to rescind the contract therefore (imo) you should be put back into the position you would have been in had you not entered the contract.

bris

Road tax you get back, so all you pay for is the month you use. Insurance too, you only pay for what you use and if the premium goes up for a different car that's not the dealers fault.


Why would the dealer be liable for unused tax and your years insurance?


You are entitled to the costs associated with getting the car back to them and returning home and the months tax you lost but that's it.

AndyMc.....

bris wrote: »

Road tax you get back, so all you pay for is the month you use. Insurance too, you only pay for what you use and if the premium goes up for a different car that's not the dealers fault.


Why would the dealer be liable for unused tax and your years insurance?


You are entitled to the costs associated with getting the car back to them and returning home and the months tax you lost but that's it.

So you think it’s reasonable to pay a months tax for two days?

bris

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So you think it’s reasonable to pay a months tax for two days?

Did you not read my post? I already said the months tax is a consequential loss so no to answer your question.

ThunderGav

Thanks for your replies everyone.

At that point, nobodies back had been 'got up. Things were quite amicable, we were just trying to find a solution.

Unholyangel, that was more or less my understanding of the situation and my interpretation of things. As the vehicle had to be returned, through no fault of mine, I should be returned to the same position I was before the purchase. The insurance is there because basically without this whole palace, we would not have incurred that extra £35 admin fee involved in changing vehicles on the policy and also extra money for changing again at short notice.

Thanks

steampowered

ThunderGav wrote: »

I have had a letter back from a motor traders legal representative informing me i am not entitled to claim for any of this.

This is the key part of your post. I think we need to know exactly why they are saying that. Did they give a reason?

I'm feeling a little bit let down by the system at the minute!

You haven't used the system yet. The system for resolving disputes is court.

The courts deal with matters like this through the small claims system. It is very easy to issue a small claim through the government moneyclaimonline website. Court is the only option that is legally binding on the trader - going to trading standards etc. over something like this is a bit of a waste of time to be honest.

ThunderGav

Letter text as follows:

We have recently been instructed by the above named Client in respect of your purchase of the aforementioned Vehicle. We confirm receipt of your letter of the 22 February 2018 addressed to our Client and we respond as follows.

We understand that you purchased the Vehicle from our Client in or around the 24 January 2018 for the total consideration of £4600. We understand that following purchase, you alleged the Vehicle suffered from a fault and as such you exercised your short term right to reject the Vehicle as per s22 Consumer Rights Act 2015 hereinafter referred to as the CRA. Our Client refunded you the total purchase price of £4600 in full and final settlement of any claims that you may have against them.

We understand from your letter that you believe you are entitled to consequential losses of £228.50. We can advise that you have no right to such monies.

As stated above the refund of £4600 was made in full and final settlement and therefore you have no right to any further claim.

In addition we respectfully refer you to s 20(9) CRA and s20(10} CRA 2015 which sets out how a consumers entitlement to a refund works. in essence you are entitled to receive back the same amount of money as the purchase price. We would aver that our Client can show that they have complied with the aforementioned provisions.

We further refer you to s20(19) CRA 2015 where it states that it may be open for a consumer to claim damages where there is no entitlement to receive a refund. In this instance you have received a full refund and therefore we deny that you are entitled to claim damages as per your letter.

Further and in the alternative you will be aware that you were obliged to return the
Vehicle to our Client In any event and therefore you have no entitlement to the fuel of
£30.

In relation to the insurance and vehicle tax you are not entitled to recover these monies as such costs would have been suffered by you regardless of vehicle that you were using at that time. It is this firms position that you have not suffered any consequential losses in any event.

We would also respectfully point out that our Client made a full repayment to you
without making any deductions for usage of the Vehicle.

In summary we can advise that you have no grounds upon to seek recovery of any
damages from our Client.

Please ensure that all future correspondence is sent directly to this firm.
We look forward to hearing from you.

Re. their position on the payments... I don't think i was actually obliged to return the vehicle, was i? I am sure i have read that if the customer rejects the vehicle on the grounds of a fault in the vehicle (and in this case, quite an important fault potentially affecting the structure of the car, and the safety of the car in the event of a crash - the roof was cracked front almost to back) then the customer can request that the vehicle be collected? Their position on insurance and tax - i was paying for a vehicle i could not use, and had this not happened i would not have incurred that extra admin fee and the extra cost of insuring another vehicle. They make a point about their client, the dealer, not charging me for usage. The only usage i got out of the vehicle was driving home and driving back, and a couple of miles before she saw the crack when she took it to see a friend.

Thank you for all your replies so far.

Gavin

JJ_Egan

(As stated above the refund of £4600 was made in full and final settlement)

Did you agree to that ??