Returning a second-hand car

Owenr91

My partner recently bought a £3000, second-hand 2008 Ford Fiesta from a dealership in Bristol. A few days after buying it, the car wouldn’t start. Eventually the problem just went away, so we thought nothing of it.

Then on Monday, while on the motorway, the car wouldn’t shift into gear. After breakdown recovery took it to the garage, we’ve been informed it needs a new gearbox and clutch for £1000.

After the other problems we’ve had, we’ve decided to just ask for a refund. It was bought on September 19th, and we originally informed the dealership by phone and email on Tuesday 16th October (within our 30 day window).

After being palmed off by the salesman saying the boss wasn’t in to make a decision for a few days, he’s finally rung back (with no caller ID) claiming that they don’t need to refund it, they have a right to try and fix it first. They won’t pay the costs of the garage the cars at, and want us to tow the car ourselves from Wrexham to their place in Bristol.

We know he’s lying, he won’t put anything in writing, and don’t expect him to refund us. Small Claims Court is the next step, but a lot of stories I’ve read have been the claimant winning the case but never seeing the money.

What’s everyone’s suggestions? Keep pushing through a Small Claims Court procedure? Or get them to fix the car and part-exchange it somewhere else, taking the financial hit but at least making some money back?

Thanks

neilmcl

Small claims isn't your next step. First you need to send them an LBA outlining your legal position and exactly what you want happen. You also need to bear in mind that if you want to exercise your short-term right to reject under the CRA 2015 then the onus is on you to prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

EdGasketTheSecond

I thought the onus is on the trader to prove the fault was not present at time of sale?

Richard53

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

I thought the onus is on the trader to prove the fault was not present at time of sale?

I thought the onus was on the trader to prove the fault was *not* present for the first six months, and after that the onus on the buyer to prove it *was* present.


But can't the vehicle be rejected within 30 days in any case?

Herzlos

He has a right to try and fix it first, and when that doesn't happen you'd be able to seek a refund.


He also has no obligation to collect the car from anywhere other than you bought it. It's not his fault or problem you bought it from 150+ miles away. Nor does he have any obligation to pay bills from any other garage without prior consent.


So it's up to you; get it taken back up to him for repair, scrap it or get it fixed locally (I'd get a proper inspection first to see if it's worthwhile).


And then next time don't buy a 10+ year old car from (a) a dealer (with a £1000 markup) (b) 150 miles away. You must be able to find a 10 year old Fiesta locally for less.

Owenr91

My partner was driving to Wrexham, we don’t live there. That’s just where it broke down.

According to Trading Standards, you don’t have to accept a repair, you can deny the offer and you’re owed a full refund. I’m just concerned it they do ”repair” it, and something else goes wrong shortly after, then we’re beyond 30 days.

EdGasketTheSecond

Yes exactly; don't accept a 'repair' as it will waste time and you'll be stuck.
I think you have to return the car and keys; everything to them and leave on their premises if they won't agree with or talk to you. Then claim the refund, through small claims court if necessary. Document as much as you can, take pictures of returned car.

unholyangel

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

I thought the onus is on the trader to prove the fault was not present at time of sale?

Richard53 wrote: »

I thought the onus was on the trader to prove the fault was *not* present for the first six months, and after that the onus on the buyer to prove it *was* present.


But can't the vehicle be rejected within 30 days in any case?

That assumption (that any fault found in the first 6 months is inherent unless proven otherwise/incompatible with how they fail to conform) only applies to the right to repair/replacement or the final right to reject/price reduction.

It does not apply to the short term right to reject. But likewise, the deduction rule (allowing traders to reduce refunds to account for use had) only applies to the final right to reject.

unholyangel

Herzlos wrote: »

He has a right to try and fix it first, and when that doesn't happen you'd be able to seek a refund.


He also has no obligation to collect the car from anywhere other than you bought it. It's not his fault or problem you bought it from 150+ miles away. Nor does he have any obligation to pay bills from any other garage without prior consent.


So it's up to you; get it taken back up to him for repair, scrap it or get it fixed locally (I'd get a proper inspection first to see if it's worthwhile).


And then next time don't buy a 10+ year old car from (a) a dealer (with a £1000 markup) (b) 150 miles away. You must be able to find a 10 year old Fiesta locally for less.

As the goods didn't conform within 30 days, the OP has the right to reject and doesn't have to allow them to repair. Although as neil said, its up to the OP to prove the faults inherent.

Also, the consumer rights act specifically states that the trader is liable for any necessary costs involved in providing a repair/replacement.

As for returning rejected goods, unless the consumer agreed to return them then their only obligation is to take reasonable care of the goods and make them available for collection. If they agreed to return rejected goods then generally the trader will be liable for costs except for costs the consumer incurs returning them in person to the place they took physical possession. However, the explanatory notes also stipulates that subsection 8 does not prevent a consumer bringing a claim for damages and that a consumer may wish to do so where returning the goods in person incurs quite substantial costs for him.

neilmcl

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

I thought the onus is on the trader to prove the fault was not present at time of sale?

Richard53 wrote: »

I thought the onus was on the trader to prove the fault was *not* present for the first six months, and after that the onus on the buyer to prove it *was* present.


But can't the vehicle be rejected within 30 days in any case?

It doesn't apply when exercising your short-term right to reject, the onus is on the buyer.

neilmcl

Owenr91 wrote: »

My partner was driving to Wrexham, we don’t live there. That’s just where it broke down.

According to Trading Standards, you don’t have to accept a repair, you can deny the offer and you’re owed a full refund. I’m just concerned it they do ”repair” it, and something else goes wrong shortly after, then we’re beyond 30 days.

They're only allowed a single attempt at repair so even if it breaks down again after 30 days you then have a final right to reject, however you won't be entitled to a full refund at this stage.