Car brought from dealership which is now being scrapped by them.

MikeJXE

I remember buying my last 3 year old used car 3 years ago from a dealership.

Jaguar XE full 1 year manufacturer warranty 

Why did this car not have a warranty, one can get a 3 months warranty from a back street dealer

Manxman_in_exile

Isn't the question what does a "deduction for use" in the legislation mean when applied to a motor vehicle?

Is it meant to be at a rate of nn pence per mile?  Is it meant to be a reflection of what it would cost to hire a similar vehicle?  Is it meant to reflect some notional or actual decrease in value?

Why can a trader make a deduction for use in the first six months in respect of motor vehicles anyway?  Why are they different?

Seems odd to me that a 3 year old car is only worth scrap value a month after being bought second hand.  I think I'd want somebody else to look at it.  Somebody else suggested complaining to Vauxhall if an official dealer...?

HillStreetBlues

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

If it's has to be scrapped  as it needs a lot of work how has  then I can't see how having  it a month has caused the car to be devalued as it must have been sold in that condition.

Its not about devaluation... the CRA says the refund can be reduced to reflect use:

24(8) If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered

Devaluation can be a way to calculate the cost of the use.
As the car is going to be a write-off having use of it write-off car has little value to the OP's son.

DullGreyGuy

Manxman_in_exile said:

Isn't the question what does a "deduction for use" in the legislation mean when applied to a motor vehicle?

Is it meant to be at a rate of nn pence per mile?  Is it meant to be a reflection of what it would cost to hire a similar vehicle?  Is it meant to reflect some notional or actual decrease in value?

Why can a trader make a deduction for use in the first six months in respect of motor vehicles anyway?  Why are they different?

Seems odd to me that a 3 year old car is only worth scrap value a month after being bought second hand.  I think I'd want somebody else to look at it.  Somebody else suggested complaining to Vauxhall if an official dealer...?

It's almost easier for motor vehicles as we do have concepts of cost of use for cars be it hire cars, lease cars, mileage paid for using your own car for work. Exactly the same law applies to TVs and dining tables etc where we have no parallels to draw on (just you cannot discount in the first 6 months) when trying to work out what 7 months of use of a kitchen cupboard should be charged at.

As to why they are different... you'd either need to speak to your MP or read Hansard when the bill was debated to see if the reason was captured. 

My guess, and its nothing more than that, is you are entitled to reject a purchase in the first month if there is any defect... it doesn't have to be a proportional response, it could be because the glovebox is squeaky when you open it. If they had to give a full refund each time you could almost certainly buy a secondhand car every month and reject it just before the end of the month thus never paying for your car. 

Grumpy_chap

DullGreyGuy said:

you are entitled to reject a purchase in the first month if there is any defect... it doesn't have to be a proportional response, it could be because the glovebox is squeaky when you open it. If they had to give a full refund each time you could almost certainly buy a secondhand car every month and reject it just before the end of the month thus never paying for your car. 

Here, though, it is not the consumer that is rejecting the car, but the dealer that is saying the car is beyond economical repair because of some major mechanical failure.

I'm surprised that the dealer is not being profusely apologetic and falling over themselves to make things right.

I wonder whether there could be more to this?  The OP / OP's son might not know that there is more to it, but I'm thinking along the lines of the possibility that the car was sold too cheaply (error) and this gives the dealer the retrospective opportunity to back out of the whole thing.  Although, in that case,. I'm surprised the dealer would try to claim he £400 and not be in the same profusely apologetic position as if it is a genuine scrappy time.  Very confusing.

HillStreetBlues

Grumpy_chap said:

The OP / OP's son might not know that there is more to it, but I'm thinking along the lines of the possibility that the car was sold too cheaply (error) and this gives the dealer the retrospective opportunity to back out of the whole thing.  Although, in that case,. I'm surprised the dealer would try to claim he £400 and not be in the same profusely apologetic position as if it is a genuine scrappy time.  Very confusing.

The OP  has said the dealership wouldn't give the service report or MOT, despite being asked to, that sounds fishy.


Also if  a service report was agreed to, so formed part of the contact, and  it's not provided, where would that leave the contract?

 

DullGreyGuy

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

you are entitled to reject a purchase in the first month if there is any defect... it doesn't have to be a proportional response, it could be because the glovebox is squeaky when you open it. If they had to give a full refund each time you could almost certainly buy a secondhand car every month and reject it just before the end of the month thus never paying for your car. 

Here, though, it is not the consumer that is rejecting the car, but the dealer that is saying the car is beyond economical repair because of some major mechanical failure.

I'm surprised that the dealer is not being profusely apologetic and falling over themselves to make things right.

I wonder whether there could be more to this?  The OP / OP's son might not know that there is more to it, but I'm thinking along the lines of the possibility that the car was sold too cheaply (error) and this gives the dealer the retrospective opportunity to back out of the whole thing.  Although, in that case,. I'm surprised the dealer would try to claim he £400 and not be in the same profusely apologetic position as if it is a genuine scrappy time.  Very confusing.

Talk about taking something out of context! The quote is taken from a response to the Q of why automobiles are carved out of the normal 6 month exclusion in the CRA

Unless I have missed it there are big gaps in our knowledge here... are we talking a manufacturer's dealership or a backstreet garage? Did the OP do 100 miles or 10,000 miles in that month? Were any issues declared at point of sale? Did the OP ignore an engine or oil light on the dash?

It could be a small business that's bought this vehicle themselves which is now reduced to salvage value and so a significant loss for them and hence just trying to reduce that by applying a charge for usage which they are legally entitled to do. 

Debsnewbudget

Sorry
my son is working away at the moment, so I am waiting for the answers to your questions.
It was bought from a main dealership. They have given him a courtesy car as he needed to get to work.  He is due back next Friday when he can have the conversations with the dealership. I am just trying to get as much information as possible to assist in that conversation.
I will get the other answers asap 

MikeJXE

DullGreyGuy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

you are entitled to reject a purchase in the first month if there is any defect... it doesn't have to be a proportional response, it could be because the glovebox is squeaky when you open it. If they had to give a full refund each time you could almost certainly buy a secondhand car every month and reject it just before the end of the month thus never paying for your car. 

Here, though, it is not the consumer that is rejecting the car, but the dealer that is saying the car is beyond economical repair because of some major mechanical failure.

I'm surprised that the dealer is not being profusely apologetic and falling over themselves to make things right.

I wonder whether there could be more to this?  The OP / OP's son might not know that there is more to it, but I'm thinking along the lines of the possibility that the car was sold too cheaply (error) and this gives the dealer the retrospective opportunity to back out of the whole thing.  Although, in that case,. I'm surprised the dealer would try to claim he £400 and not be in the same profusely apologetic position as if it is a genuine scrappy time.  Very confusing.

Talk about taking something out of context! The quote is taken from a response to the Q of why automobiles are carved out of the normal 6 month exclusion in the CRA

Unless I have missed it there are big gaps in our knowledge here... are we talking a manufacturer's dealership or a backstreet garage? Did the OP do 100 miles or 10,000 miles in that month? Were any issues declared at point of sale? Did the OP ignore an engine or oil light on the dash?

It could be a small business that's bought this vehicle themselves which is now reduced to salvage value and so a significant loss for them and hence just trying to reduce that by applying a charge for usage which they are legally entitled to do. 

I think you missed the point in the first post

It's a 3 year old car bought from a Vauxhall Dealership, that means at least to me a Main Dealer who should know better. 

Grumpy_chap

DullGreyGuy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

you are entitled to reject a purchase in the first month if there is any defect... it doesn't have to be a proportional response, it could be because the glovebox is squeaky when you open it. If they had to give a full refund each time you could almost certainly buy a secondhand car every month and reject it just before the end of the month thus never paying for your car. 

Here, though, it is not the consumer that is rejecting the car, but the dealer that is saying the car is beyond economical repair because of some major mechanical failure.

I'm surprised that the dealer is not being profusely apologetic and falling over themselves to make things right.

I wonder whether there could be more to this?  The OP / OP's son might not know that there is more to it, but I'm thinking along the lines of the possibility that the car was sold too cheaply (error) and this gives the dealer the retrospective opportunity to back out of the whole thing.  Although, in that case,. I'm surprised the dealer would try to claim he £400 and not be in the same profusely apologetic position as if it is a genuine scrappy time.  Very confusing.

Talk about taking something out of context! The quote is taken from a response to the Q of why automobiles are carved out of the normal 6 month exclusion in the CRA

Unless I have missed it there are big gaps in our knowledge here... are we talking a manufacturer's dealership or a backstreet garage? Did the OP do 100 miles or 10,000 miles in that month? Were any issues declared at point of sale? Did the OP ignore an engine or oil light on the dash?

It could be a small business that's bought this vehicle themselves which is now reduced to salvage value and so a significant loss for them and hence just trying to reduce that by applying a charge for usage which they are legally entitled to do. 

I realise you were just quoting the rules.
But the rules are written for the consumer rejecting.
This is the other way round - the Dealer trying to cancel the deal.  If it was all that the car really was so bad that it needs scrapping - so that would be a lot of mechanical damage for a 3 yo car - the Dealer would, surely, say what was wrong with the car and present this so that the OP's son felt they were getting out of having a lemon for the long-term.  The Dealer would give enough information so that he consumer wants to reject, which would bring the rules right into play.

We do know this is a manufacturer's dealership:

Debsnewbudget said:

Hi
My son bought a 3 year old car from a Vauxhall dealership at the start of December 2022.

I agree, how many miles were travelled makes a difference.  
BUT, we are talking about a month, so however many miles were travelled can't be that great a number.
We also need to know about whether the car was driven with the warning light - but in that case, the Dealer would be trying to say it was the OP's son's fault and wriggle out of the return / refund by more than £400.

As far as I am aware, franchised Dealerships of any brand never sell-on to consumers anything with silly miles or with any whisper of fault as they pass those on through auction.  Unless this was a car that was meant to go to auction, was seen parked at the Dealer and the OP's son went in, enquired, and the sale was completed without the Sales Representative being aware it was not for sale and without the Manager being aware that the sale was in progress.