Rejecting a faulty/dangerous car to Arnold clark

arcon5

How old is the car?
How many miles have you covered?

Smoggyuk

Car is a 65 plate, on PCP with a yearly allowance of 12k. I've done 2000 miles in 5 months.

The finance company have now raised a complaint with the branch and will be dealing with it from there.

AdrianC

So a 4yo car - how many miles in total?

If the finance company are behind you, then great.

If not, then you'll have to physically return the car then take the supplier to court for your money back. Whether the reasoning for rejection stands up there is down to the court. 208 GTis of a similar age to yours are generally around the £10k mark, the threshold for a small claim.

Smoggyuk

I'll be trying every Avenue.

The car has a total of 24k miles on the clock.

arcon5

So a 5 year old car.... so depending on the nature of the fault you wouldn't be entitled to reject anyway. The law accounts for wear and tear and unreasonable expectations.

Smoggyuk

Incorrect, I've already checked this and the consumer rights act applies to both new and used vehicles. The rejection of the vehicle may include some deductions for wear and tear.

The finance company have confirmed my right to reject and are on my side, I've confirmed this in a previous post. The car has had 1 major repair and is now needing another, they have had their chance within a 6 month period.

AdrianC

Smoggyuk wrote: »

Incorrect, I've already checked this and the consumer rights act applies to both new and used vehicles. The rejection of the vehicle may include some deductions for wear and tear.

Yes, it does cover all goods, new and used. But the grounds for rejection of used goods are most certainly viewed in terms of what's reasonable to encounter on goods of that age, price and apparent quality. You have a car that's over a third of the way through the average life of a car in the country, and worth less than half of the price of a new equivalent.

Your electrical shenanigans are much less clearcut on a 5yo car than a brand new one - and their cause is also relevant. If, for example, it turns out that the cause is due to a blocked drain letting water onto the electrics, then all bets are off - would that be reasonable to expect on a 5yo car? Yes, absolutely.

Smoggyuk

The point you're missing is that the component replaced as brand new (wiring harness) is what is causing the issue. I am now verifying this through a third party at my cost. I had my friend take a look as hes a qualified tech who worked for a Peugeot branch for 6years, he has confirmed it.

AdrianC

Except you didn't pay for the wiring harness, so there's no separate warranty or consumer rights pertaining to it.

Smoggyuk

The repair subsequently caused another failure of the car. Right to repair covers me for the rejection of the vehicle.

It's as simple as that, I've also found that my ECO functionally doesn't work at all since the repair. If the car has failed and has subsequently failed it is not fit for purpose, it doesn't go deeper than that even if it's a new or used vehichle, it was bought in faith that it would be a reliable car, yes I understand some things go wrong, but I have zero faith in a car that can power off when it pleases.

I wont continue to post now until I get results, I will update afterwards.

I've been reasonable with arnold clark.