Grounds for rejecting a used car?

merlin777

My friend (honestly - not me) bought a used car from a dealer on Friday afternoon for £850 . On Saturday morning after just a few 10s of miles it broke down and had to be recovered. It looks like the turbo has gone and might cost more than the car is worth to fix.

My question is, how can you prove the car was faulty to qualify for a rejection and full refund? It's most like it was already faulty but possible that it was a spontaneous failure.

How does the law view this? Given it had only done a few miles locally and it was within less than 24hrs, is it reasonable to argue that the car was sold with a fault? Where would he stand?

tacpot12

In all probability, the car wasn't sold with a faulty turbo, it was most likely sold with a worn turbo. And the wear is probably commensurate with the age of the car - you buy a car for £850 you have to expect quite a lot of wear. It's a lottery whether this wear causes a component to fail in the first day of ownership or after six months. Either way, the law doesn't gives your friend any protection if the cause of the failure is wear that it commensurate with the age of the car.

Now, if you could by examination determine that the oilways that feed the turbo were blocked and it failed because of oil starvation, the blockage would be a fault, and the law would entitle your friend to get a refund . So determining the cause of the failure is the process your friend needs to go through. They should pay an experienced mechanic to review the potential causes for the turbo to fail, and examine the engine to see what evidence he can find of any particular cause. His investigations and findings need to be documented in writing. If he can find evidence of a pre-existing fault, your friend can put this evidence to the dealer, or use it to go to court if the dealer will not refund their money.

Ectophile

It's well within the 30 day deadline to simply reject faulty goods and demand a refund.


It's also within the 6 months during which any defect is considered to be inherent, unless the dealer can show otherwise. Within this 6 month period, the dealer can offer a repair, replacement or refund.

AdrianC

Ectophile wrote: »

It's well within the 30 day deadline to simply reject faulty goods and demand a refund.

It's also within the 6 months during which any defect is considered to be inherent, unless the dealer can show otherwise. Within this 6 month period, the dealer can offer a repair, replacement or refund.

...but it still has to be a fault above and beyond reasonable wear and tear, and reasonable expectations for goods of that age/price/apparent condition.

And, for a sub-grand shed, that's a bloody low bar.

EdGasketTheSecond

AdrianC wrote: »

...but it still has to be a fault above and beyond reasonable wear and tear, and reasonable expectations for goods of that age/price/apparent condition.

And, for a sub-grand shed, that's a bloody low bar.

It doesn't matter, it's still a car and needs to function as such according to the legislation. If it only lasted 100 miles then it wasn't fit for purpose as a car was it?

DoaM

Ectophile wrote: »

It's well within the 30 day deadline to simply reject faulty goods and demand a refund.

In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.

foxy-stoat

DoaM wrote: »

In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.

You sure?

Within 30 days the vehicle must be of satisfactory quality and be fit for purpose....Paying sub £1000 for a car I would expect it to last longer than 24 hours without it breaking down...unless your mate drive it with no oil due to leak or damage.

Just get it towed back to the garage and reject it officially. Expect to have to wait for months to get your money back and buy another car, preferably off a private seller who has owned it and serviced it for a few years.

Arklight

DoaM wrote: »

In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.

No it wouldn't. It would be up to the vendor to prove that it didn't.

shaun_from_Africa

DoaM wrote: »

In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.

foxy-stoat wrote: »

You sure?

Arklight wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would be up to the vendor to prove that it didn't.

Doam is 100% correct.

Whilst it's true that any fault found within the first 6 months from purchase is generally deemed to have been there at the time of sale unless the trader proves otherwise, this doesn't apply when using your 30 day short term right of rejection.

97.Subsections (14) and (15) provide that, if a breach of the statutory rights – for example a fault - arises in the first 6 months from delivery, it is presumed to have been present at the time of delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the particular breach or fault. This applies where the consumer exercises their right to a repair or replacement or their right to a price reduction or the final right to reject. This does not apply where the consumer exercises the short-term right to reject. These subsections correspond to section 48A(3) and (4) of the SGA and section 11M(3) and (4) of the SGSA.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes

Arklight

I stand corrected and I am not ashamed to say so.

foxy-stoat

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Doam is 100% correct.

Whilst it's true that any fault found within the first 6 months from purchase is generally deemed to have been there at the time of sale unless the trader proves otherwise, this doesn't apply when using your 30 day short term right of rejection.



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes

Agreed....but if you want to reject due to the vehicle not meeting one of the 3 criteria then you wouldn't need to prove anything:

As described
Fit for purpose
Satisfactory quality

Dead turbo within 24 hours or a few miles of buying it would fail 2 of them - if you post the wording of the advert it may well fail all 3.