What is reasonable deduction when faulty car is being bought back?

Artegal

My friend bought a VW Scirocco 2011 for £8,250 in September 2018 from a VW dealership. It soon (within 3 months) developed faults and was returned to the dealer for repair. It has been backwards and forwards for the past 6 months. As one issue is resolved, another develops.

My friend has now lost all faith in the car and said it will be returned under the Consumer Rights Act. The dealer has offered to pay £4,500 for the car, in effect taking £3,750 for wear and tear. This seems extortionate. Is there a standard formula to calculate wear and tear?

Thank you.

motorguy

Artegal wrote: »

My friend bought a VW Scirocco 2011 for £8,250 in September 2018 from a VW dealership. It soon (within 3 months) developed faults and was returned to the dealer for repair. It has been backwards and forwards for the past 6 months. As one issue is resolved, another develops.

My friend has now lost all faith in the car and said it will be returned under the Consumer Rights Act. The dealer has offered to pay £4,500 for the car, in effect taking £3,750 for wear and tear. This seems extortionate. Is there a standard formula to calculate wear and tear?

Thank you.

Sounds like they've offered to buy the car back at trade price.

I'm not sure after nigh on a year they'll be able to do a return under the CRA.

Artegal

Yes, it does sound like a trade price. And yes it is almost a year, but my friend raised the issues very early after the purchase. I believe under the CRA the dealer has one opportunity to rectify the issue. Through my friend’s goodwill they’ve had 7 or 8 opportunities. Each time an issue is sorted, another one crops up. That’s why 11 months has elapsed. I believe they should have it back under CRA but how much are they allowed to withhold from the original price?

david_a

https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/rejecting-a-car/

Rejecting a car after six months

You are legally entitled to pursue a rejection after the first six months, but the law swings from being in your favour to being in the dealer’s favour.

The onus on you is now to prove that the fault was present when you bought the car, and that is difficult when you have had the car for a reasonable length of time and probably covered thousands of miles in that period.

In practice, this is difficult unless you have some solid proof that the fault was there at time of purchase – which is not easy. Trying to prove that a fault was present at time of purchase rather than occurring the day afterwards is very difficult when you’re several months down the line.

tacpot12

There is no generally accepted formula for wear and tear, but I would expect an average car to lose about 20% of its value every year. So I would have expected the deduction to be about half what the dealer is proposing. Perhaps they need reminding that this is a quality German motor car they getting!

alfie1950

I would say that he will probably only get the current part ex value of the car .
It is also the buyers fault that he gave the garage several attempts to rectify the fault , he should have rejected it after the first failed attempt. His goodwill has taken him outside the CRA window .

wgl2014

How much are similar cars up for now?

Although the dealer is likely to offer the lowest justifiable amount they can (trade price) it would seem to me that a reasonable figure would be the retail on the car. If they offer less and then fix and sell on they are effectively making a double profit.

motorguy

I think the point being that the dealer is only taking it back on the basis that its effectively a trade price - they're not submitting to any "refund" option under the CRA.

Also, the car seems to have suffered a string of small faults, not one continuous fault.

DoaM

motorguy wrote: »

I think the point being that the dealer is only taking it back on the basis that its effectively a trade price - they're not submitting to any "refund" option under the CRA.

Also, the car seems to have suffered a string of small faults, not one continuous fault.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it doesn't matter. A seller is allowed one chance to make the goods conform to contract. If the goods still fail to conform (and it does not have to be for the same reason) then the consumer can reject the goods for a refund. the amount of refund then depends on the nature of the goods and the time of ownership.

The timeline of events is important - what the dealer is offering is wholly unreasonable (IMHO). I'd expect at most a reduction of £1,000. If the OP's friend pursued this to court I'd expect a judge would award a far higher amount, in line with my estimate.

motorguy

DoaM wrote: »

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it doesn't matter. A seller is allowed one chance to make the goods conform to contract. If the goods still fail to conform (and it does not have to be for the same reason) then the consumer can reject the goods for a refund. the amount of refund then depends on the nature of the goods and the time of ownership.

The timeline of events is important - what the dealer is offering is wholly unreasonable (IMHO). I'd expect at most a reduction of £1,000. If the OP's friend pursued this to court I'd expect a judge would award a far higher amount, in line with my estimate.

Interesting.

Though i would have thought this falls outside any meaningful timescale - at this point the O/P would have to prove they were there at the time of sale.

I think £1,000 deduction after a year is unrealistic. I would have thought closer to 20%. If the O/P was selling the car today, they would certainly lose more than £1,000. Definitely not the 50% or so the dealer is suggesting though.

I think the issue here is the dealer is effectively offering a buy back / trade price purchase option, not an acceptance that this is a CRA related issue.

DoaM

motorguy wrote: »

I think the issue here is the dealer is effectively offering a buy back / trade price purchase option, not an acceptance that this is a CRA related issue.

We can argue (discuss in a friendly manner ) what a reasonable reduction may be, and whether the timeline matters (I believe it does, as faults were reported within 3 months), but the quoted bit above is the crux of the matter - OP's friend needs to raise this with the dealer else start court proceedings on the basis of CRA 2015.