When rejecting a broken down car - who pays for transportation of vehicle?

panvulcon

You missed the previous statement which reads…

The consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

i.e, only if it was made clear that it was the customers duty to return the car upon sale would it be the customers responsibility to return it (this is what the purpose of her topic is about).

The second paragraph that you posted related to such instances that there was in fact an agreement in place. I’m which case the consumer should still have no costs above and beyond returning the item. Ie no paying for repair or haulage.

So in my case there was no such agreement.

panvulcon

neilmcl said:

panvulcon said:

Yes I chose do this, however It’s broken down NOT drivable 😂 … on day 2 of ownership on a 9k car! It’s not like I’ve change my mind and just don’t fancy the colour or something!

… and you don’t need to prove anything within 30 days, it’s for the dealer to prove otherwise.

to answer your question, it had 9 months MOT.

Wrong. When exercising your short term right to reject the burden of proof lies with the buyer.

You’re correct my bad!

Still, the purpose of the section 20 of the consumer rights act from my understanding, is to add additional protection for consumers, preventing some unscrupulous traders from selling unfit cars.

Advocado

panvulcon said:

The consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

You're missing out some fairly vital information.

How did you buy the vehicle?  Purely online?  Did you collect the car or did they deliver it?  How did you pay?  Online or in person?

Advocado

panvulcon said:

The consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

You're missing out some fairly vital information.

How did you buy the vehicle?  Purely online?  Did you collect the car or did they deliver it?  How did you pay?  Online or in person?

panvulcon

AdrianC said:

panvulcon said:

I’m not asking if you find it reasonable, morally correct or attainable to send such a car back. The fact is, consumer law covers this. I’m confident of that … 

What age and type of vehicle? £9k could be 3yo, and the MOT in question is its first. Or it could be a 15-20yo expensive and temperamental car.

Springs crack - is it reasonable to expect a cracked spring on, say, a 5yo+ car? Yes.
Coolant can leak for a myriad of reasons, including foreign object damage while driving. If a stone's gone through your rad, is that the supplier's problem? No.

In addition, I hope you had the supplier's agreement to get your mechanic to work on it... Because it could be easy for them to disclaim responsibility on the basis of your guy's bad workmanship.

All true but a trader cannot sell a car as working, excellent condition drives smooth etc if it is not of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. A cracked spring is dangerous and significant coolant leak render it un-drivable. That’s why the legislation exists, to mitigate such things.

Is it possible for the spring to have cracked and coolant leaked and drained on the way home, yes. Is it reasonable for the age and mileage of the car, possibly; HOWEVER, traders have a responsibility to make sure a car is of satisfactory quality free from major defects and as described. Therefore, the question should be, is it likely that the car didn’t have these issues before I drove it home, thus on my drive home the spring cracked and coolant leaked. Unlikely. 

Good point regarding mechanic, he has not started and won’t until I speak with the trader.

boobyd

You had been asked how the sale was completed either distance or on premises.
In the post above you said **drove it home, thus on my drive home **.
That would suggest you need to return it back

AdrianC

The coolant leak was clearly not present at the time of your purchase.
Was the cause present, or could the cause be external and have occurred on the 200 mile drive home post-collection?
If the cause was present, would it be reasonable to expect on a car of that age?

(How old a car are we talking about, anyway?)

The spring may have been cracked undetectably for years - until worsened (or caused) by a pothole on the way home. The MOT man clearly didn't see it three months ago.

Are these rejection-worthy issues? No. The repair cost is <5% of the purchase price. It would not be reasonable to reject the car completely for such minor issues.

So, if the trader is not willing to provide a contribution to the costs, is it worth the trip to physically return the car and then likely be faced with a court claim for the money which you may well not win?

panvulcon

AdrianC said:

The coolant leak was clearly not present at the time of your purchase.
Was the cause present, or could the cause be external and have occurred on the 200 mile drive home post-collection?
If the cause was present, would it be reasonable to expect on a car of that age?

(How old a car are we talking about, anyway?)

The spring may have been cracked undetectably for years - until worsened (or caused) by a pothole on the way home. The MOT man clearly didn't see it three months ago.

Are these rejection-worthy issues? No. The repair cost is <5% of the purchase price. It would not be reasonable to reject the car completely for such minor issues.

So, if the trader is not willing to provide a contribution to the costs, is it worth the trip to physically return the car and then likely be faced with a court claim for the money which you may well not win?

The coolant leak may have been present tbf, it’s hard to say. Its gradually gotten worse. It started with a noticeable puddle, which at the time I assumed was aircon related. I managed to drive to work. No coolant light. At lunch I noticed a significant puddle. I topped up the coolant at a garage, drove home coolant light came on, topped up drove back to the garage and asked to bring it back when they’re free. So been sat at work in a puddle since.

If the cause was present, would it be reasonable to expect on a car of that age?

In my book a car with a significant coolant leak is not of satisfactory quality regardless of age.

The law doesn’t determine what is and isn’t significant based on how much something costs to put right; imo £400 in fortnights ownership is a significant cost.

Hopefully it doesn’t come to rejecting it and if it came to it, I would have to insist it was collected. There’s always small claims court for a reimbursement of costs for repairs should things turn sour too but again I’m not wanting to take any legal action at this stage. Reimbursement of repair costs is what I’m looking for.

On the flip side, I’ve also been advised of a small transmission leak and slight play in the rear axel. However im in agreement that these are both wear and tear items that are to be expected and do not cause any drivability or safety issues.

AdrianC

panvulcon said:

In my book a car with a significant coolant leak is not of satisfactory quality regardless of age.

That's not how it works.

Would it be reasonable to expect a leak to develop on a car of that age, mileage, apparent condition, relative price?
If you had owned that car from new, would it be reasonable to have a coolant leak and a cracked spring?

Once again... How old a car, what car are we talking about? You have been asked for this several times, and not answered once. This is very relevant information, without which we are talking in utter generic theory.

neilmcl

panvulcon said:

You missed the previous statement which reads…

The consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

i.e, only if it was made clear that it was the customers duty to return the car upon sale would it be the customers responsibility to return it (this is what the purpose of her topic is about).

The second paragraph that you posted related to such instances that there was in fact an agreement in place. I’m which case the consumer should still have no costs above and beyond returning the item. Ie no paying for repair or haulage.

So in my case there was no such agreement.

There's no such correlation. In fact paragraph 8 clearly states at the beginning "Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them......".

So unless the goods were delivered to you, you have a duty to return them to the place where you physically took possession of them in the first place.