Rejection of vehicle - Consumer Rights Act

mattyprice4004

While I agree with your other issues, I don’t believe the dealer is obliged to tell you if it was an ex lease car.
A huge proportion of used cars on the market have at some stage been leased.

lju

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

While I agree with your other issues, I don’t believe the dealer is obliged to tell you if it was an ex lease car.
A huge proportion of used cars on the market have at some stage been leased.

Do dealers have to reveal that cars are ex-rentals?

Yes. Under the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, dealers are obliged to tell you if a car they're selling is an ex-rental. Failure to do so could result in them answering to Trading Standards and facing a hefty fine.

https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/should-you-buy-an-ex-rental-car/

neilmcl

lju wrote: »

Do dealers have to reveal that cars are ex-rentals?

Yes. Under the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, dealers are obliged to tell you if a car they're selling is an ex-rental. Failure to do so could result in them answering to Trading Standards and facing a hefty fine.

https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/should-you-buy-an-ex-rental-car/

But it's not covered by the CRA so you may well have to transport this car back to them if you want a resolution.

lju

neilmcl wrote: »

But it's not covered by the CRA so you may well have to transport this car back to them if you want a resolution.

My understanding is that under the CRA the vehicle should be "As Described", in my case I believe it hasn't been.

The fact the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 stipulate the dealer should have made me aware of the previous use of the vehicle and failed to do so, should work alongside the CRA and strengthen the case for rejection, in which case the dealer is responsible for the return.

neilmcl

lju wrote: »

My understanding is that under the CRA the vehicle should be "As Described", in my case I believe it hasn't been.

The fact the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 stipulate the dealer should have made me aware of the previous use of the vehicle and failed to do so, should work alongside the CRA and strengthen the case for rejection, in which case the dealer is responsible for the return.

So what's the evidence of that?

waamo

lju wrote: »

My understanding is that under the CRA the vehicle should be "As Described", in my case I believe it hasn't been.

The fact the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 stipulate the dealer should have made me aware of the previous use of the vehicle and failed to do so, should work alongside the CRA and strengthen the case for rejection, in which case the dealer is responsible for the return.

Personally I've never seen this argument being successful. There have been a few posters say the same thing before but i don't recall any of them reporting a success. This is from memory though so don't take it as gospel.

If anyone has any reports of success, or otherwise, it may be helpful.

lju

neilmcl wrote: »

So what's the evidence of that?

The accident damage, the damage to the vehicle inside and out, the previous usage and the mileage discrepancy.

lju

waamo wrote: »

Personally I've never seen this argument being successful. There have been a few posters say the same thing before but i don't recall any of them reporting a success. This is from memory though so don't take it as gospel.

If anyone has any reports of success, or otherwise, it may be helpful.

I recall reading an article sometime ago about a dealer being taken to court by trading standards over this.

Ultimately, it would be up to a judge to decide once all the evidence has been presented to them.

waamo

lju wrote: »

I recall reading an article sometime ago about a dealer being taken to court by trading standards over this.

Ultimately, it would be up to a judge to decide once all the evidence has been presented to them.

Then give it a go and report back. It would help others no end.

Gavin83

lju wrote: »

The accident damage, the damage to the vehicle inside and out, the previous usage and the mileage discrepancy.

So they specifically said in the advert it had no damage (or something along those lines) or said it hadn’t been previously leased? Alternatively when you asked these questions did they confirm otherwise?

I honestly don’t see the deal with an ex lease car but seeing as it’s clearly so important to you I’m assuming you did ask them?

Just to be clear people are asking you if they’ve actually lied at any point about this car. Have they?