Consumer Rights Act - Faulty Vehicle

Lob-Leg

Hi Everyone


I looking for some thoughts on my case here and expected chance of success and pointers as to what I need to do.


I recently purchased a car which had long MOT and was described as "mechanically perfect." Its not a new car so a bold statement but that's what it said.


It was purchased from a sole trader.


I took the car for a short test drive and all seemed ok but on taking the car home, on the motorway at higher speeds, the brake vibrated violently. I immediately informed the vendor who asked me to take it to a garage which I did. The upshot is that the discs were badly warped which would have resulted in an MOT failure. It also didn't feel safe at higher speeds and therefore I could not use the car as intended.


I got a quote from my local garage and the vendor said that they would ask for a quote from theirs too. Its a specialist car and the price was expensive and the garage said they could get it done for half the price. I asked for the details of the garage so I could speak to them directly as it seemed cheap and I did not want inferior parts being used. I was not given the details and communication from the garage was poor. After some research, I found that the parts alone were more than the price they were quoting.


Anyway, to cut a long story short, I never did get the details of the garage and after three weeks of backwards and forwards (with the vendor saying that they would generously contribute to the cost) and having messages ignored, I had the car repaired myself. The car wasn't safe at high speeds and with my father in hospital, I needed it sorting out quickly.


My argument is that


1. The car was not fit for purpose as I could not drive it safely above 50mph


2. The car was not as described since it was not mechanically perfect


3. the car was not of satisfactory quality since it would have failed an MOT on the day I bought it.


The vendor is now saying that they will not contribute anything to the cost and has withdrawn from all communication.


I have found the pre-small claims letter on the Which? website but would appreciate thoughts from people with more knowledge than myself before proceeding.


Many thanks


Lob

Lob-Leg

Sorry - I forgot to say that I am looking to recover the cost of the repairs only.

forgotmyname

You failed to return it or give them the chance of repairing it.

Have a good whinge and move on..

Mechanically perfect for a xx year old car with xxxx miles on the clock?

bris

They offered to repair it, you refused, you have greatly diminished any chance you have of winning. You didn't need to know the details, all you needed to know was that they were willing to fix it.


You got a quote from a garage that would make a lot of money from you. They would have in house mechanics so would have saved all that labour and with trade parts the cost would have been much lower for them.


The resolution they offered was fair and within their rights, if they failed to fix it properly then you would have had recourse. As it stands you are struggling.

ess0two

Warped discs, MOT failure??

steampowered

bris wrote: »

They offered to repair it, you refused, you have greatly diminished any chance you have of winning. You didn't need to know the details, all you needed to know was that they were willing to fix it.

This used to be the case under the old Sale of Goods Act 1979.

But under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Op is entitled to reject goods which are not fit for purpose within 30 days.

The trader does not have the right to insist on repair/replacement unless the goods were bought more than 30 days ago.

bris

steampowered wrote: »

This used to be the case under the old Sale of Goods Act 1979.

But under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Op is entitled to reject goods which are not fit for purpose within 30 days.

The trader does not have the right to insist on repair/replacement unless the goods were bought more than 30 days ago.

But he didn't reject the goods, he got it repaired. if he wanted to reject the goods he should have done so

TyreLever

steampowered wrote: »

This used to be the case under the old Sale of Goods Act 1979.

But under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Op is entitled to reject goods which are not fit for purpose within 30 days.

The trader does not have the right to insist on repair/replacement unless the goods were bought more than 30 days ago.

Does that apply to motor vehicles too?