Broken car refund refused.

shaun_from_Africa

dentedporsche wrote: »

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.

.
By showing the dealer the airbag light and the non working windscreen washers, you were proving that there were faults with the vehicle.
The OP on the other hand doesn't have any obvious faults such as a warning light or non functioning item to show the dealer hence they will have to prove the fault in another way.

dentedporsche

I think you're all missing my point.
The time to prove the fault is if, or when, the dealer disagrees.
There's no need to take it for independent inspections and run up expense before then.

As to the Nissan, the battery state dropping from 70% to 20% in 2 miles would suggest a problem to me.

George_Michael

dentedporsche wrote: »

I think you're all missing my point.
The time to prove the fault is if, or when, the dealer disagrees.

I don't think anyone is missing anything, simply that they are disagreeing with what you have posted.
You have stated on numerous occasions that there is nothing written into the relevant legislation that states the consumer has to prove a fault exists when rejecting the goods.

dentedporsche wrote: »

There is no onus to prove the fault before rejection.

This statement is incorrect.

dentedporsche wrote: »

There's nothing in the act says the customer has to prove the fault.

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

These statements are incorrect.

dentedporsche wrote: »

No, the dealer has to prove there isn't a fault.

And this statement is incorrect.
The dealer does not have to prove anything. The onus is on the consumer to prove the fault exists.

neilmcl

dentedporsche wrote: »

I think you're all missing my point.
The time to prove the fault is if, or when, the dealer disagrees.
There's no need to take it for independent inspections and run up expense before then.

As to the Nissan, the battery state dropping from 70% to 20% in 2 miles would suggest a problem to me.

:wall: There's nobody missing the point but you.

unholyangel

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.

It is always for the party alleging breach of contract to prove the breach. The 6 month bit is a sort of exception to that rule rather than the rule itself.

shaun_from_Africa

dentedporsche wrote: »

I think you're all missing my point.
The time to prove the fault is if, or when, the dealer disagrees.
There's no need to take it for independent inspections and run up expense before then.

What the dealer does or doesn't do regarding the alleged fault doesn't detract from the fact that the law states that the onus is on the purchaser to prove a fault.
In reality it's no different to when you return something because it failed 6 or more months from purchase.
The law again states that that the consumer must prove an inherent fault but in many cases the retailer will simply accept the goods without the consumer needing to prove anything.
Just because that retailer is doing something that they are not required to do doesn't change the interpretation of the law.

Don't forget that this forum is about consumer rights (and therefore, consumer obligations when availing themselves of those rights), so it's always best to inform people of what the law requires of them irrespective of whether or not a retailer may or may not follow those laws to the letter.