rejecting car after 8 weeks

shaun_from_Africa

AdrianC wrote: »

B'sides, if we're relying on consumer rights, remember that it's outside the 30 days, so there is no immediate right of rejection. They have a right to repair

so, they "have a right to repair" but earlier you stated that:

AdrianC wrote: »

so is all outside the remit of the CRA.

So if as you believe, it's outside of the remit of the CRA, why would the seller have to repair the vehicle?

AdrianC wrote: »

Except the supplier can show that the fault was not present.

And without examining the vehicle and determining what has failed and why it failed, how exactly can they show that there wasn't an inherent fault?

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, because it's quite simply the situation.



Except the supplier can show that the fault was not present.


We come back to reasonable expectations for used goods of that age/type/apparent condition. Is it reasonable for a fault of this kind to occur on a 6yo/70k car? Yes.


B'sides, if we're relying on consumer rights, remember that it's outside the 30 days, so there is no immediate right of rejection. They have a right to repair.

No, they can't. They can show the fault wasn't apparent at the time of sale. That doesn't mean it wasn't present.

As for your last point, as the OP has already had a repair and the goods still fail to conform, he has the final right to reject. A retailer only gets 1 attempt at a repair now before the consumer has the right to reject the goods.

arcon5

Could just be a dodgy battery

shaun_from_Africa

arcon5 wrote: »

Could just be a dodgy battery

The dealer has had the car for a week now and hasn't been able to work out what the problem is so if it was simply a duff battery and they couldn't suss this out, I definitely wouldn't trust them any further and would definitely want a full refund.