Cosmetic (?) Defects discovered after purchase

Tim_Leeding

Dear All,

I would really appreciate some sound advice on my Consumer Rights in relation to a vehicle I purchased at the beginning of March, from a used car dealer.

A couple of weeks after the purchase, I noticed that there is some substantial damage to the underside of the passenger side sill, as though the car has been jacked incorrectly or dropped off a kerb. The sill is caved in from the underside quite dramatically. In turn, this has pushed the line of the sill up, such that the corner of the door catches the top of the sill when opening and closing. This has worn the paint on the top side of the sill away, exposing the bare metal. The bare metal has evidence of rust, and staining, evidence that this is a fault which has been present for some time. As well as this, because the sill has been pushed up, it has pushed out the bottom part of the front wing panel, where they meet. The inner arch lining panel is also distorted, where it affixes to the sill front.

This damage is not obviously evident unless thoroughly inspecting the underside of the car, and certainly was not obvious from the advertising photos. The car was advertised at a garage located around 300 miles away from me, so I did as much reserach into the vehicle as possible before arranging to pay the deposit and make my way up to see the car. This included asking for video walk-arounds of the car, which the garage supplied, pointing out all the minor defects in the paint and bodywork condition. They did not point out anything related to the damage to the sill or resultant secondary defects.

On inspection of the car, I walked around it, crouched to inspect the condition of the wheels and brakes on one side, but not the other, as it was parked next to another car. I did notice at the time a small bulge in the wheel arch liner, but even when looking at this from standing height I did not see the more major damage on the underside of the sill, or think it of so much concern that I investigated it any more closely. I only discovered the damage later, when I had to open the passenger door (to pop the bonnet) and noticed an audible scrape. Only then did I think to investigate why the door was scraping, and looked closer around the sill panel, got on the ground to see the underside and discover the extent of the damage.

I reported this to the garage, garnering a surprised reaction. I sent through photos of the damage for their information, and when I spoke to them after, they advised I should gather quotations from local garages, "and we'll talk after". I spent my Saturday morning doing just that, and gathered 5 quotations from local bodyshops. The quoted prices range from around £500 - £900, without VAT. I reported this to the garage, and they said "send us the quotation for the cheapest bodyshop, I'll discuss it with my boss". At this point I thought we would be progressing down a positive route, but I had a call with them afterwards where they said they would not be willing to pay for the repair with a local bodyshop, and instead said they'd spoken with a bodyshop local to them, who they deal with often, and had recieved an estimate for £250.

If I would like to take the vehicle back there (a 4 hour drive) then I could use their bodyshop at that rate. I told them this would cause me unacceptable inconvenience and cost.

I have since spoken with the Citizens Advice Bureau, who advised that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, they are in violation of my consumer rights, as the goods I purchased from them were either 'not as described' or 'not of satisfactory quality' and talked me through the acceptable resolutions which the garage could offer. Route 1, offer to repair, bearing in mind this should cost me no money, cause me no inconvenience and be completed in a timely manner. Route 2, re-imburse or compensate me to the stated value of repair, for me to action the repair with a local bodyshop.

I contacted the garage again and explained this to them, and even offered to accept less than the full amount for a repair, if that would bring this to a resolution (I have been dealing with this for a number of weeks now). They have refused to make a monetary offer, and the only offer they have made is to allow me to pay them to use their local bodyshop, which I've told them is completely unnacceptable as a resolution. They are operating under the assertion that the Consumer Rights Act does not cover 'cosmetic damage', only mechanical or electrical. I asked them to provide the legal documentation which proves this to be a valid argument, but they said they would not, so I'm not sure where this confidence in their statement comes from.

I would really appreciate any further advice on how I can move this forward, to try and influence the garage to move towards a satisfactory resolution.

Thanks, and apologies for the long story!

Aylesbury_Duck

It seems the dealer has offered to repair the damage and that the only stumbling block is your unwillingness to take it there for the work to be done.  It was your choice to buy a used car 300 miles and 4 hours away, are you confident that they are obliged to provide a cost- and inconvenience-free solution?

They're wrong on the matter of cosmetic damage, of course.  But that doesn't change the fact that they've offered to fix the fault, your only contention is where that fix occurs.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hello OP

You are correct that the repair should done at no cost to you so at worst they should cover your travel.

Regarding the travel, significant inconvenience is subjective and I don't think anyone here knows would a court would view as such. 

If you rejected the car the dealer is responsible for the return costs from the place you took physical possession, it sounds as if you collected the car so if you don't get this sorted and then reject you might be looking at suffering the costs of returning it (not sure if you'd have a separate claim for damages). 

It's all a negotiation really, looks like you between £250 and £600, personally, although I might not be happy about it. settling on £450 and having it done at a garage where you have control (and consumer rights for the repair) might be better than having their garage do it as cheap as possible and then having more headache with the dealer.

As CAB have advised " compensate me to the stated value of repair" this is an avenue you can go down, did they advise you would do so as damages or as a price reduction? 

Tim_Leeding

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It seems the dealer has offered to repair the damage and that the only stumbling block is your unwillingness to take it there for the work to be done.  It was your choice to buy a used car 300 miles and 4 hours away, are you confident that they are obliged to provide a cost- and inconvenience-free solution?

They're wrong on the matter of cosmetic damage, of course.  But that doesn't change the fact that they've offered to fix the fault, your only contention is where that fix occurs.

Thanks for your response. To be clear, they have not offered to pay for the repair, or offered to fix it. They have said that they are willing to negotiate a 'good deal' for me at their local bodyshop, so I can pay them £250 for the repair, rather than spending more on a repair through one of my garages. Never mind all the inconvenience and cost of me getting up there. It's a complete non-starter.

They've made no admission of liability, their contention being that the damage is cosmetic (which they are not liable for in their interpretation). I'd be interested as to why you say they are wrong on this. Are you able to point me in a direction which can prove they are liable for cosmetic defects / damage?

.the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

You are correct that the repair should done at no cost to you so at worst they should cover your travel.

Regarding the travel, significant inconvenience is subjective and I don't think anyone here knows would a court would view as such. 

If you rejected the car the dealer is responsible for the return costs from the place you took physical possession, it sounds as if you collected the car so if you don't get this sorted and then reject you might be looking at suffering the costs of returning it (not sure if you'd have a separate claim for damages). 

It's all a negotiation really, looks like you between £250 and £600, personally, although I might not be happy about it. settling on £450 and having it done at a garage where you have control (and consumer rights for the repair) might be better than having their garage do it as cheap as possible and then having more headache with the dealer.

As CAB have advised " compensate me to the stated value of repair" this is an avenue you can go down, did they advise you would do so as damages or as a price reduction? 

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I have said to them, when I wrongly thought they were offering to repair the car through their bodyshop, that we could talk about taking the £250 which I thought they were paying, and working towards a monetary offer lower than the full value of repair, which may be acceptable, trying to encourage them to meet me in the middle.

They then advised that there was no money on the table from their side, they are not offering to pay for the repair, simply they have arranged a 'good deal' with a bodyshop they do a lot of trade with, and if I'd like I can pay for the bodyshop repair at their rate. They also said they have absolutely no intention of making a monetary offer, to contribute towards the repair cost.

Aylesbury_Duck

Oh, I see.  I'd assumed they would pick up the bill for the £250 work.

My assertion that they are wrong doesn't revolve around whether liability for cosmetic damage exists, I'd  dispute that what you've described is cosmetic.  A damaged sill that has and will further corrode isn't cosmetic, it's a structural fault.  A chip or blemish in paintwork, or perhaps even a poorly-matched sprayed panel might be considered cosmetic, but your car's fault is more serious than that.

Alderbank

What's the make and model of the car?

What's its age and mileage and how much did you pay?

If it is old enough to need MOT, what did the most recent MOT say about this cill?

Dealers often give a 3 or 6 month warranty to deal with exactly this type of issue. Did you get any kind of warranty? (doesn't affect your statutory rights but can make it easier to resolve the issue)

How did you pay for the car?

Tim_Leeding

Alderbank said:

What's the make and model of the car?

What's its age and mileage and how much did you pay?

If it is old enough to need MOT, what did the most recent MOT say about this cill?

Dealers often give a 3 or 6 month warranty to deal with exactly this type of issue. Did you get any kind of warranty? (doesn't affect your statutory rights but can make it easier to resolve the issue)

How did you pay for the car?

Hi. To answer your questions:

- Seat Leon Cupra.
- 2018, 30,000 miles. £17,000
- MOT passed cleanly. I have spoken to my local garage, and will be arranging for a thorough inspection of the underside around this area, but his tame on it is "it's cosmetic, unless the panel is puntured, at which point it would become structural"
- I paid £500 extra for a 3rd party 12-month warranty, but I would not expect this to be covered under that. Feel free to advise otherwise but i'm sure they would find a way to say that the damage was there when I bought the car, and is not mechanical or electrical.
- Bank transfer.

Thanks, Tim.

Tim_Leeding

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Oh, I see.  I'd assumed they would pick up the bill for the £250 work.

My assertion that they are wrong doesn't revolve around whether liability for cosmetic damage exists, I'd  dispute that what you've described is cosmetic.  A damaged sill that has and will further corrode isn't cosmetic, it's a structural fault.  A chip or blemish in paintwork, or perhaps even a poorly-matched sprayed panel might be considered cosmetic, but your car's fault is more serious than that.

Yes, I misunderstood at first as well. When I realised they were simply arranging a 'good deal' for me to pay, the offer became even more unacceptable.

I have made the same point to them, that the damage is more than cosmetic, as the rust needs to be caught before it creates further damage, but it hasn't changed their approach I'm afraid. I'm going to get a report done by a local garage, to understand the full extent of the damage and hopefully strengthen my case.

Vectis

I'm just puzzled that you travelled 300 miles and spent £17,000 on a used car but only inspected it from one side and never, presumably, even opened the passenger door?

Did you not take it for a drive, or even ask them to move it away from the vehicle parked next to it so you could view it properly? I know it sounds like I'm having a go, but to travel all that way, spend all that money and yet not take the trouble to examine the car properly seems a bit remiss to say the least.

You say you noticed damage to the wheel arch at the time, what did the garage say about that? I assume you mentioned it?

Others will advise, and have done, on what you can do to remedy this situation, but checking whether doors open without scraping on the sills etc is something that really could and should be done before handing over your money. Not much help to you now, I know, but maybe it's a lesson for others, that they check things thoroughly before spending substantial sums of money.