Help please

Grumpy_chap

sweetsand said:

I hope it all works out OP but reject the car.  

The OP has simply not given us sufficient information to establish that rights to reject are available to the OP as a route forward.

• paintwork had not been touched up = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• stone chips visible  = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• it had not been valeted seats were filthy = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• they hadn’t put a mot on it = able to be verified prior to purchase, not grounds to reject if there is any valid MOT remaining at purchase.  If there was no MOT at all, the OP should not have driven out of the garage FULL STOP.
• a bulge in the tyre which could of had a blow out and they were aware of this = may have been visible at the time of purchase, may have developed on the drive home and therefore not grounds to reject.  How does the OP establish the second part of this claim "and they were aware of this"?
  

Even if there may be grounds to reject the vehicle, the dealer should be given the opportunity to resolve first and 'resolving' a bad tyre is easy.

Sadly, it seems as though the OP has simply purchased a car with no proper consideration or due diligence and now showing buyer's remorse?  What is the resolution the OP would actually like?

Mercdriver

I'm not sure it is buyer's remorse.  I  think it's just buying without doing what is the responsibility of the buyer: to thoroughly check the car before agreeing to purchase and agreeing (preferably with agreement in writing on an order form) what will be done before completion of purchase.  The seller can literally face the customer out on this and put him to proof on the basis of probabilities in a court.  If the seller has a good reputation then the OP could struggle to make this stick.  

The OP hasn't stated that on inspection of the vehicle that there was a bulge at point of delivery.  If he failed to check the car, then the garage can simply say it wasn't there on delivery.  If the OP didn't inspect the vehicle carefully enough to check - and I'm sure he wouldn't have driven it away WITH a bulge in the tyre, so he must have failed to spot it.  As for the promised full year's MOT, he could certainly push for this, but the bulge will make it fail.  

Mercdriver

Grumpy_chap said:

sweetsand said:

I hope it all works out OP but reject the car.  

The OP has simply not given us sufficient information to establish that rights to reject are available to the OP as a route forward.

• paintwork had not been touched up = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• stone chips visible  = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• it had not been valeted seats were filthy = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• they hadn’t put a mot on it = able to be verified prior to purchase, not grounds to reject if there is any valid MOT remaining at purchase.  If there was no MOT at all, the OP should not have driven out of the garage FULL STOP.
• a bulge in the tyre which could of had a blow out and they were aware of this = may have been visible at the time of purchase, may have developed on the drive home and therefore not grounds to reject.  How does the OP establish the second part of this claim "and they were aware of this"?
  

Even if there may be grounds to reject the vehicle, the dealer should be given the opportunity to resolve first and 'resolving' a bad tyre is easy.

Sadly, it seems as though the OP has simply purchased a car with no proper consideration or due diligence and now showing buyer's remorse?  What is the resolution the OP would actually like?

During the first 30 days, the customer doesn't have to give opportunity to resolve, though things can be better if customer is pragmatic as then not having to start again with finance if the finance cannot be transferred across to another vehicle.

sweetsand

Grumpy_chap said:

sweetsand said:

I hope it all works out OP but reject the car.  

The OP has simply not given us sufficient information to establish that rights to reject are available to the OP as a route forward.

• paintwork had not been touched up = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• stone chips visible  = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• it had not been valeted seats were filthy = visible prior to purchase, not grounds to reject
• they hadn’t put a mot on it = able to be verified prior to purchase, not grounds to reject if there is any valid MOT remaining at purchase.  If there was no MOT at all, the OP should not have driven out of the garage FULL STOP.
• a bulge in the tyre which could of had a blow out and they were aware of this = may have been visible at the time of purchase, may have developed on the drive home and therefore not grounds to reject.  How does the OP establish the second part of this claim "and they were aware of this"?
  

Even if there may be grounds to reject the vehicle, the dealer should be given the opportunity to resolve first and 'resolving' a bad tyre is easy.

Sadly, it seems as though the OP has simply purchased a car with no proper consideration or due diligence and now showing buyer's remorse?  What is the resolution the OP would actually like?

For you, possibly not. For me, having read the OP, I have more than enough info to state that the car should be rejected if that is what they want. 

Mercdriver

You can't just reject a car because you want to.  You have to have grounds.  These have to be based on a certain level of evidence.  Because the OP didn't think it necessary to do a check on the vehicle before buying it, he didn't spot a bulging tyre (if it was indeed bulging before purchase - if it was why did he drive it away in a dangerous condition?).  If it had bald tyres and he drove it away and got stopped by the police, he would not have had a defence - the responsibility is his to check the condition of the car before he drives it - even on a test drive.

Grumpy_chap

sweetsand said:

For you, possibly not. For me, having read the OP, I have more than enough info to state that the car should be rejected if that is what they want. 

Thank you Sweetsand, but I think this post is incorrect and therefore of limited use to either the OP, or any future readers with a similar situations.  Whether a car can or cannot be rejected is not just down to you or I thinking the car is not a good one and the right to reject is not simply a "want".

Based on the condition of the car at (before) the time of purchase, I (and probably you) would likely not have proceeded with the purchase.  That was the time to "reject" the vehicle, as it were.  The OP did assess the condition of the vehicle and decided to proceed with the purchase on an informed basis.  There is nothing the OP has stated that could not reasonably have been assessed prior to purchase - the bulging tyre may well have developed after purchase.

It is important to accept that the right to reject is specific and

Mercdriver said:

You can't just reject a car because you want to.  You have to have grounds.  These have to be based on a certain level of evidence.  

If you disagree with my assessment, please outline where the grounds for rejection are, not just "rejected if that is what they want".

sweetsand

Grumpy_chap said:

sweetsand said:

For you, possibly not. For me, having read the OP, I have more than enough info to state that the car should be rejected if that is what they want. 

Thank you Sweetsand, but I think this post is incorrect and therefore of limited use to either the OP, or any future readers with a similar situations.  Whether a car can or cannot be rejected is not just down to you or I thinking the car is not a good one and the right to reject is not simply a "want".

Based on the condition of the car at (before) the time of purchase, I (and probably you) would likely not have proceeded with the purchase.  That was the time to "reject" the vehicle, as it were.  The OP did assess the condition of the vehicle and decided to proceed with the purchase on an informed basis.  There is nothing the OP has stated that could not reasonably have been assessed prior to purchase - the bulging tyre may well have developed after purchase.

It is important to accept that the right to reject is specific and

Mercdriver said:

You can't just reject a car because you want to.  You have to have grounds.  These have to be based on a certain level of evidence.  

If you disagree with my assessment, please outline where the grounds for rejection are, not just "rejected if that is what they want".

Sorry, but I stand by what I have stated. You are correct in a long route way but I'm spot on and the OP can easily reject the car. I suggest the OP goes in armed with concise info how to reject a car and their rights as the dealer does not sound like a main dealer and I have never trusted a small dealer rightly or wrongly.

elsien

sweetsand said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sweetsand said:

For you, possibly not. For me, having read the OP, I have more than enough info to state that the car should be rejected if that is what they want. 

Thank you Sweetsand, but I think this post is incorrect and therefore of limited use to either the OP, or any future readers with a similar situations.  Whether a car can or cannot be rejected is not just down to you or I thinking the car is not a good one and the right to reject is not simply a "want".

Based on the condition of the car at (before) the time of purchase, I (and probably you) would likely not have proceeded with the purchase.  That was the time to "reject" the vehicle, as it were.  The OP did assess the condition of the vehicle and decided to proceed with the purchase on an informed basis.  There is nothing the OP has stated that could not reasonably have been assessed prior to purchase - the bulging tyre may well have developed after purchase.

It is important to accept that the right to reject is specific and

Mercdriver said:

You can't just reject a car because you want to.  You have to have grounds.  These have to be based on a certain level of evidence.  

If you disagree with my assessment, please outline where the grounds for rejection are, not just "rejected if that is what they want".

Sorry, but I stand by what I have stated. You are correct in a long route way but I'm spot on and the OP can easily reject the car. I suggest the OP goes in armed with concise info how to reject a car and their rights as the dealer does not sound like a main dealer and I have never trusted a small dealer rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps you could then signpost the OP to the relevant concise information which gives them the rights you are so sure about? 

Grumpy_chap

sweetsand said:

You are correct in a long route way but I'm spot on and the OP can easily reject the car. 

That sentence is anything but clear.  We can't both be correct.

sweetsand said:

 I suggest the OP goes in armed with concise info how to reject a car and their rights 

Perhaps it would be helpful to the OP, and an education for anyone else reading this thread, if you outlined which are the relevant rights that the OP has and what the information is on how to reject a car.
As far as I can tell, the OP has not demonstrated from the information provided that they have grounds to reject the car.

Mercdriver

The problem as I said is that the OP didn't check the car thoroughly before purchase, so he has effectively tied his own hands behind his back,