Rejecting vehicle

iwb100

If your car has ‘lost’ £12K value in 8 months then either you’ve put an absolute shed ton of miles on it or you’ve massively overpaid in the first place.

In the current market no way is a second hand car depreciating at that rate without tens of thousands of miles or paying way too much for it up front….

Michael_J

shiraz99 said:

Michael_J said:

It seems that my only chance for them to take it back is the car to break down twice for the same reason. Or at least thats my understanding from reading again Customer Rights Act.

Bearing in mind the warranty expires in July, one of my neighbours said it might be a good ideea to drive it like a lunatic until then and hope that something will crack ))  Not the worst ideea, one might say

Your "reading" of the CRA is incorrect. It doesn't have to be the same fault every time, they're only allowed a single attempt to rectify any breach in contract. The rule was brought into law to avoid so-called 'lemons' being purchased and sent back multiple times for indefinite repairs.

Interesting... what would be the breach of contract?

Michael_J

Ibrahim5 said:

Haven't they failed to fix the "restricted performance fault". October they "fixed it" but it's back again?

Yeah, but the way they see it, the "restricted performance" could be from different faults. First, it was something with a fuel sensor. Now, it was something with a air leak of some sorts. So, different problem, but same effect

Herzlos

iwb100 said:

If your car has ‘lost’ £12K value in 8 months then either you’ve put an absolute shed ton of miles on it or you’ve massively overpaid in the first place.

In the current market no way is a second hand car depreciating at that rate without tens of thousands of miles or paying way too much for it up front….

I suspect a large part of the gap is retail price Vs trade; they are offering to buy it back at trade price.

Given they were first notified about the fault I'd be inclined to make more noise about them taking it back for a better fee, but it may be a lot easier for you to take the trade in offer and take them to small claims court for what you feel is the difference. That way you're not stuck with a car you can't use and is losing value constantly, especially since it could take over a year to solve.

shiraz99

Michael_J said:

shiraz99 said:

Michael_J said:

It seems that my only chance for them to take it back is the car to break down twice for the same reason. Or at least thats my understanding from reading again Customer Rights Act.

Bearing in mind the warranty expires in July, one of my neighbours said it might be a good ideea to drive it like a lunatic until then and hope that something will crack ))  Not the worst ideea, one might say

Your "reading" of the CRA is incorrect. It doesn't have to be the same fault every time, they're only allowed a single attempt to rectify any breach in contract. The rule was brought into law to avoid so-called 'lemons' being purchased and sent back multiple times for indefinite repairs.

Interesting... what would be the breach of contract?

Any of the faults in the car that would make the dealer liable under the CRA.

Michael_J

shiraz99 said:

Michael_J said:

shiraz99 said:

Michael_J said:

It seems that my only chance for them to take it back is the car to break down twice for the same reason. Or at least thats my understanding from reading again Customer Rights Act.

Bearing in mind the warranty expires in July, one of my neighbours said it might be a good ideea to drive it like a lunatic until then and hope that something will crack ))  Not the worst ideea, one might say

Your "reading" of the CRA is incorrect. It doesn't have to be the same fault every time, they're only allowed a single attempt to rectify any breach in contract. The rule was brought into law to avoid so-called 'lemons' being purchased and sent back multiple times for indefinite repairs.

Interesting... what would be the breach of contract?

Any of the faults in the car that would make the dealer liable under the CRA.

True, but is not the warranty for this exact purpose? I mean, it did break down, and theyv fixed it under the warranty free of charge.  That was in the contract: if it breaks down in the first 12 months, it gets fixed. Theres no limited number on this. I cant see a breach of contract. Maybe its juts me

Michael_J

iwb100 said:

If your car has ‘lost’ £12K value in 8 months then either you’ve put an absolute shed ton of miles on it or you’ve massively overpaid in the first place.

In the current market no way is a second hand car depreciating at that rate without tens of thousands of miles or paying way too much for it up front….

Herzlos said:

iwb100 said:

If your car has ‘lost’ £12K value in 8 months then either you’ve put an absolute shed ton of miles on it or you’ve massively overpaid in the first place.

In the current market no way is a second hand car depreciating at that rate without tens of thousands of miles or paying way too much for it up front….

I suspect a large part of the gap is retail price Vs trade; they are offering to buy it back at trade price.

Given they were first notified about the fault I'd be inclined to make more noise about them taking it back for a better fee, but it may be a lot easier for you to take the trade in offer and take them to small claims court for what you feel is the difference. That way you're not stuck with a car you can't use and is losing value constantly, especially since it could take over a year to solve.

I put just 9k on the clock, so not a lot.

But yeah, it looks like they are trying to buy it back at a trade price, meaning they do not accept any liability for the number of continuous faults. For them, Im just like any other RR owner whos looking to sell their car and they will hapilly buy it for some peanuts so they can sell it again the next day for a good profit.

Im gonna send them one more letter, the "deadlock" letter. See how it goes

Michael_J

MalMonroe said:

Hi, here is some good info -

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/everyday-money/buying-and-running-a-car/your-rights-if-something-is-wrong-with-your-car

And also from Which - 

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/everyday-money/buying-and-running-a-car/your-rights-if-something-is-wrong-with-your-car

and MSE - https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

Please don't let them get away with selling you a load of old junk. And don't attempt to 'drive like a lunatic' (sack that neighbour!) as that way, disaster lies. From a speeding ticket to . . . well, let's not go there. 

Thanks for the info.

After reading everything, I thinks this is what follows:

1. Letter of "deadlock"

2. Complain to Trade Association

3. Contact the Bank (although the sum is over 30k)

4. ADR/Ombudsman

5. Court

Have I missed anything?

shiraz99

Michael_J said:

shiraz99 said:

Michael_J said:

shiraz99 said:

Michael_J said:

It seems that my only chance for them to take it back is the car to break down twice for the same reason. Or at least thats my understanding from reading again Customer Rights Act.

Bearing in mind the warranty expires in July, one of my neighbours said it might be a good ideea to drive it like a lunatic until then and hope that something will crack ))  Not the worst ideea, one might say

Your "reading" of the CRA is incorrect. It doesn't have to be the same fault every time, they're only allowed a single attempt to rectify any breach in contract. The rule was brought into law to avoid so-called 'lemons' being purchased and sent back multiple times for indefinite repairs.

Interesting... what would be the breach of contract?

Any of the faults in the car that would make the dealer liable under the CRA.

True, but is not the warranty for this exact purpose? I mean, it did break down, and theyv fixed it under the warranty free of charge.  That was in the contract: if it breaks down in the first 12 months, it gets fixed. Theres no limited number on this. I cant see a breach of contract. Maybe its juts me

Your warranty and it's T&Cs, are totally separate to your statutory consumer rights. Anything that makes an item not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality, or otherwise not as described is a breach of the contract of sale.

GDB2222

Given the amount of money involved, it would be sensible to get a solicitor involved. 

That might be cheaper in the long run, as the garage may be used to customers threatening them and know that 9 out of 10 go no further than threatening. They may take a solicitor more seriously and make an acceptable offer to settle.