Broken car refund refused.

wesleyad

I wouldn't mind betting the dealer will find no fault. As pointed out, the estimated range given on the dash is calculated using the previous 50-100 miles driving style. If the previous owner nursed it to the dealer at 50mph on the motorway it will push the estimated range up ( you can play this game in your own car,much fun!). When you drove it home in a normal driving style the car then used this to calculate a new range which was dramatically shorter than the previous. The car didn't suddenly "lose half its energy", it just changed its calculation for range.

Now you could argue that the battery is not up to scratch for it to have such a small range, but that would be much harder as batteries are renowned for losing capacity and could be regarded as replaceable items such as tyres.

z1a

If you bought another, would you have 2 Leafs or 2 Leaves?

Aylesbury_Duck

I saw a 2018 model rolled into a ditch last week.

That's right, the owner had turned over a new Leaf.

forgotmyname

Leaf it to the experts.

Who would have thought that a used electric car would come with
used batteries? :think::think::think:

dentedporsche

The customer has reported the fault and given the reasons why they think it's faulty.
Due to the fault, they've rejected the vehicle.
There's nothing in the act says the customer has to prove the fault.

Now it's up to the dealer to prove otherwise.

Chances here are the dealer will come back and say no fault found.
The 30 day clock will then begin ticking again.
At that point, it would be sensible to have an independent inspection done to confirm if there is an actual fault with the vehicle.

neilmcl

dentedporsche wrote: »

The customer has reported the fault and given the reasons why they think it's faulty.
Due to the fault, they've rejected the vehicle.
There's nothing in the act says the customer has to prove the fault.

Now it's up to the dealer to prove otherwise.

Chances here are the dealer will come back and say no fault found.
The 30 day clock will then begin ticking again.
At that point, it would be sensible to have an independent inspection done to confirm if there is an actual fault with the vehicle.

I'm sorry but you're absolutely wrong on this point as has been explained earlier.

Of course the legislation does not explicitly state the onus is on the buyer to prove the item does not conform to contract when exercising the short term right to reject but what it does say is the short term right to reject is excluded from the standard 6 month assumption of fault. You're simply not understanding how the legislation is written.

There's a very good reason why proof from the buyer is required from the 30 day right to reject. It's there specifically to prevent buyers using the law as a way to force retailers to refund them for goods for spurious change of mind or buyer's remorse reasons rather than for goods that genuinely do not conform to contract.

dentedporsche

Not wrong at all
If I buy a car and it has a fault, I reject it.
It goes back to the dealer who checks it.
If he states no fault i’d then have to prove the fault to go further and I can also claim the cost of doing so.

Six month regulation has nothing to do with it.

Scenario.
Buy car, drive it home.
Shortly after driving off, the air bag light comes on.
A few miles later, the windscreen washers fail.
I return the car and reject it due to the faults.
I don’t have to prove anything, the faults are there.
Dealer takes car, confirms faulty and refunds.

Before you quote anything else, that actually happened.
I al so helped my wife reject a vehicle she bought due to faults with the eco stop/start system not working.

There is no onus to prove the fault before rejection.

neilmcl

dentedporsche wrote: »

Not wrong at all
If I buy a car and it has a fault, I reject it.
It goes back to the dealer who checks it.
If he states no fault i’d then have to prove the fault to go further and I can also claim the cost of doing so.

Six month regulation has nothing to do with it.

Scenario.
Buy car, drive it home.
Shortly after driving off, the air bag light comes on.
A few miles later, the windscreen washers fail.
I return the car and reject it due to the faults.
I don’t have to prove anything, the faults are there.
Dealer takes car, confirms faulty and refunds.

Before you quote anything else, that actually happened.
I al so helped my wife reject a vehicle she bought due to faults with the eco stop/start system not working.

There is no onus to prove the fault before rejection.

This discussion, as is this forum, is about consumer rights and on that point you are completely wrong. Your own experiences are not really relevant.

John_Jones

As above, you can check the battery health of a Leaf, so should possibly ask the dealer to do that and tell you the condition.

It not being 100% is not reason to reject it, you have to assume it has used some of its useful life as it is a used car, but you need to decide what health level you feel is acceptable to you.

George_Michael

dentedporsche wrote: »

Not wrong at all

There is no onus to prove the fault before rejection.

Seeing as you won't believe anyone posting on here, will you believe this:
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/business/trading-standards/trading-advice-1/details/?doc_id=312237&cat_id=4

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

If the consumer chooses repair, replacement, price reduction or the final right to reject, and if the defect is discovered within six months of delivery, it is assumed that the fault was there at the time of delivery unless the trader can prove otherwise, or unless this assumption is inconsistent with the circumstances - for example, obvious signs of misuse. This rule is often known as the 'reverse burden of proof', as it reverses the normal rule that a person making a claim has to prove each aspect of that claim.

If more than six months have passed, the consumer has to prove the defect was there at the time of delivery. They must also prove the defect was there at the time of delivery if they exercise the short-term right to reject goods. Some defects do not become apparent until some time after delivery, and in these cases it is enough to prove that there was an underlying or hidden defect at that time.