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

Herzlos

Legally, the dealer would be obliged to repair it, but realistically given they haven't bothered registering the warranty it's probably less hassle and cheaper to just get it fixed locally.

It sounds like you collected the car, so you're on the hook to return it to the dealer and collect it again. So that's 2x 200 mile drives, plus a bus/train or another 2x 400 mile round trips if you're getting someone to give you a lift.

Or you can pay more than the £400 to get the car transported back to the dealer for them to stick some sealant in and send it back to you.

panvulcon

neilmcl said:

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.

I guess the article I posted is completely wrong then. Sorry you must be right

neilmcl

panvulcon said:

neilmcl said:

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.

I guess the article I posted is completely wrong then. Sorry you must be right

The article is a little misleading at best.

This is no different than if I went into town and bought a pair of shoes only to find them faulty a few days later. Do you really think I can then ring up the shop and demand that they come and collect them, of course not.

panvulcon

AdrianC said:

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.

Would it be reasonable for a car to be sold at £9k by a trader, advertised as excellent condition for it to be in a un-drivable on day 2 and found to be dangerous? Err no.

- satisfactory quality,
- fit for purpose
- as described

Are you both car traders by any chance? 😂 

As I’ve already said, I’m not looking to debate. So won’t be posting age of vehicle or type or anything else unrelated to my original question. 

To reiterate, If you have any real world experience of issues relating to transportation when rejecting a car or legislation that will help please post below. If you are here to debate then do so amongst yourselves or better still, start your own thread!

AdrianC

You have had the transportation costs question answered many times. You do not seem to like that answer.

neilmcl

So new poster comes along asking for advice and information regarding their rights, they're given the advice, they don't like said advice and now suddenly becomes a legal expert themselves and knows more than those that have been offering advice and knowledge for many years. They then go on to be rude to fellow posters and do the usual "you must be working in the industry, blah, blah, blah". Have I missed anything.

@panvulcon, nobody is getting in a debate with you, we've answered your question the best we can, if you don't like the answers then move on and pay for proper legal advice and take your chances at court.

Anthony147

I just don’t understand why things like this are posted - especially the attitude to questions or what they disagree with.

it’s quite simple:
If you picked it up, you need to bring it back - A good car dealer may do otherwise but that’s it.
If it’s delivered, they collect

Your expectations are tempered by the age, mileage and reasonable behaviours of a vehicles lifecycle.
If it’s 7 years + nothing you’ve mentioned wouldn’t be expected, if it’s younger than then you’ve got some wider expectations

If for a moment you don’t think age, mileage or anything else regarding the purchase affects your rights - you’ve clearly not understood what’s been said or why the questions have been asked.

Good luck.

Grumpy_chap

panvulcon said:

should the worst happen and I have to reject the car, who pays for transportation of the vehicle? 

If the purchase was a fully distance transaction and the vehicle delivered to the purchaser without the purchaser ever visiting the Dealer, then this is under CCR and there is a 14-day right to reject for any reason (or none) and the Dealer pays for return transport.  I don't think this applies in this case from my reading of the thread, plus the 14 days may have passed.

If the purchase was done in person at the Dealer's premises, then the costs for returning the vehicle fall to the purchaser.  This is most likely the case here, again based on reading the thread as a whole.  In this later case, the process around rejecting a faulty vehicle is described in the following article:

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

Not every fault is a right to reject, even under the 30-day short-term right to reject.  This has to be tempered by reasonable expectations for the age and condition of the vehicle.  The burden of proof lies with the purchaser that the fault was present or developing at the time of purchase, though the failure within two days may be sufficient to satisfy that aspect.

The OP refuses to say the age, mileage, make or model of the vehicle but is relying on wording in the advert that described the vehicle as "excellent".  £9k could be a barely run-in Picanto or a an absolutely ancient Morris Minor.  Reasonable expectations for faults vary widely between the two extremes.  IMO, advertising text such as "excellent" is only marketing spin and opinion, not factual, and cannot be relied upon in the way the OP seeks to.

Unfortunately, no-one can give much more support to the OP in the thread with the information provided.  The direct answer to the direct question about return transport has been answered several times, but the OP does not like the answer.  Not liking the answer will not change the answer.  I wish the OP luck in reaching an amicable solution with the Dealer, but I fear the OP may be their own worst enemy on this if they approach the Dealer with the same belligerence shown to posters on this thread.

jimjames

panvulcon said:

AdrianC said:

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.

As I’ve already said, I’m not looking to debate. So won’t be posting age of vehicle or type or anything else unrelated to my original question. 

Except that the information requested repeatedly is extremely relevant to the question you've asked. Was it a fully distance sale?
I'm assuming by the fact that you've chosen not to answer means that it wasn't and you collected the car.

How do you expect people to be able to help if you miss out the most vital information that affects their advice?

ontheroad1970

panvulcon said:

AdrianC said:

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.

Would it be reasonable for a car to be sold at £9k by a trader, advertised as excellent condition for it to be in a un-drivable on day 2 and found to be dangerous? Err no.

- satisfactory quality,
- fit for purpose
- as described

Are you both car traders by any chance? 😂 

As I’ve already said, I’m not looking to debate. So won’t be posting age of vehicle or type or anything else unrelated to my original question. 

To reiterate, If you have any real world experience of issues relating to transportation when rejecting a car or legislation that will help please post below. If you are here to debate then do so amongst yourselves or better still, start your own thread!

But the type of vehicle and age is very relevant.  The law tempers responsibility on this basis.  £9k for a 3 year old Romanian car owned by the French would be one thing, and would put you in a much stronger position than if it was a 10 year old BMW X5.  Very relevant.