Grounds for rejecting a used car?

little_pup

My mum had a very similar scenario, she bought a used car from a small dealership and it broke down on the drive home. She informed them of the fault and that she intended to exercise her 30 day right to reject the goods as they weren't fit for purpose. The dealership agreed, so she paid £400 to have the car transported back to them, they received the car and a week after receiving it said there was no fault.

We had an awful battle to get the money back. The owner was ringing her and texting her constantly shouting and making threats, he said if she doesn't collect the car he will charge her a daily storage fee for it. He insisted there was no fault and she couldn't prove there was as it was her word against theirs. We got the financial ombudsman involved and they started collecting evidence, before they made a judgement the garage decided to refund her deposit and cancel her finance agreement. She was still out of pocket for the £400 transportation fee plus the full tank of petrol she put in when she collected the car. It was a lot of money for her and the whole thing was really stressful / upsetting.

My advice is to get evidence of the fault, don't return the car to them as they'll fix it then say the fault was never there. Not sure how you could do this - maybe agree an impartial garage to have an MOT / inspection done.

shaun_from_Africa

foxy-stoat wrote: »

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.

That is still incorrect.
When rejecting goods for being not as described, not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality, you are rejecting these under section 19 (3) of the consumer rights act:

3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, (satisfactory quality) 10, (fit for purpose) 11, (as described) 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer's rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—
(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);
(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and
(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

and when using your short term right of rejection under this part of the act, the onus is on the consumer to prove an inherent fault.

If this wasn't the case, imagine how easy it would be for someone to get 30 days totally free use of something.
Buy an item, use it for 30 days, break it then take it back and demand a full refund knowing that if the item isn't too costly, the retailer probably wouldn't pay to investigate the fault.