CRA2015 claim - relating to a vehicle

LukeWard77

Good evening

I suppose I am just looking for some advice and whether my claim is as strong as I believe it to be.

I purchased a Mercedes A Class from a dealership on PCP finance on 29th January 2024. Prior to doing so I took the vehicle for a test drive and noted there was a fault present on the vehicle. A message on the dashboard stated that the driver’s side seatbelt restraint system was faulty and the vehicle needed to be taken to a workshop. I was assured that prior to handover the fault would be cleared.

When collecting the car on 29th January 2024 I noticed the vehicle had signs of paintwork damage, something I was not able to spot on the test drive as it was dark.  The dealership agreed to have the paint work buffed out a week or so after the sale.

A few days after driving the vehicle I noticed the parcel shelf was moving around in the boot. Upon inspection I initially thought the parcel shelf was damaged as the clips holding it in place had snapped off. However, after further inspection it was clear the parcel shelf did not fit and was not the parcel shelf for the vehicle. Whilst this is not a fault with the car per say, this information is key as I will later go on to evidence the vehicle was not checked aesthetically or mechanically prior to sale. 

Initially the dealership advised they may not be able to source one as they were quite expensive and only available on eBay!?  I responded advising that I would expect to have been issued the vehicle with the correct parcel shelf.  After a few weeks I received a phone call from the dealership to advise a similar model of vehicle came into them and offered to take it out of that vehicle and put it into mine.

Within the first two weeks of driving, I noticed that the vehicle never went into the stop/start mode when stationary.  Initially I put this down to weather conditions and perhaps the vehicle had not been driven a long enough distance for this feature to come into action.  After carrying out some research and taking some advice, I asked the dealership to inspect the battery as I suspected it was faulty.

After carrying out some diagnostics, the dealership confirmed the battery and alternator were faulty and required replacing. They advised that they would need to order the battery and alternator in and would contact me when these were delivered. I asked the dealership if all vehicles are inspected prior to them being handed over to a customer, the response I received was, "well they should be".  As mentioned in my fourth paragraph, this confirms the vehicle was not checked aesthetically or mechanically prior to being handed over.  My next paragraph will further evidence the vehicle was sold with a fault, a fault that is present to this day.  Approximately seven to ten days later I was offered an appointment to have a new battery and alternator fitted.

Around mid-March, another fault appears on the vehicle.  The same fault I reported on the test drive. A message appears on the dashboard advising the driver’s side seatbelt restraint system was faulty and the vehicle to be taken to a workshop.

The dealership diagnosed that drivers side seat belt needed to be replaced as it had become faulty. This part is essential for vehicle safety as it is responsible for ensuring the airbag deploys and/or seat belt restraints, and keeps the driver restrained in the event of an accident.  Group 1 Assured advised the vehicle was safe to drive.  I attempted to explain that it was not, and I was not willing to drive the vehicle with a key safety feature on the car not functioning, I asked for a courtesy vehicle, this was rejected.  The dealership told me they had to order the part and again would be in contact after delivery, approximately seven to ten working days. Around seven to ten days later the seat belt was replaced.

On 26th July I was driving the vehicle and a new fault appeared, a message on the dashboard stated that the driver’s side indicator had become faulty. The following day, the windscreen wipers came on at full speed, the full beam lights came on off their own accord and the dashboard showed many different lights. I spoke with the dealership who advised that they would inspect the vehicle to read the fault to further understand what was occurring.  They advised there were many faults showing on the vehicle, predominately to do with module faults.  Most disturbingly, one of the faults stated, "the software may have been tampered with".  A few weeks prior to this, the vehicle had been in to Mercedes Benz for a safety recall on the power steering and a software update was required to be performed by them to carry this update out.

I was told by the dealership that they were not able to go any further with the diagnostics and to either take the vehicle to Mercedes Benz directly or a Mercedes Benz specialist to further fault find. I asked if this would be covered under the 3 year RAC Platinum warranty I took out at point of sale and I was told diagnostics were not covered under said warranty.

The dealership then recommended to take the vehicle back to Mercedes Benz and tell them the first thing that my dealer asked questioned me on, was whether the car had recently had a software update and suggested I advise Mercedes Benz it's likely them who had caused this fault.

Mercedes Benz came to the same conclusion and advised they could further inspect the vehicle at a cost of £180.00 per hour labour.  I declined and took this information to the dealership who advised once more than the Platinum warranty I was sold does not cover labour/diagnostics and I would be required to pay this. Clearly, I was not willing to pay a minimum of £180.00 out of my own pocket for a fault I had not caused.

I am awaiting to hear back from the finance company.  They have acknowledged my complaint around 2 weeks ago and said it can take up to 8 weeks for a full response. The way I understand it is, as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, it is the responsibility of the retailer to evidence a fault was not present at point of sale, something the dealership has yet to do and I believe I had proven. In addition, the CRA 2015 states that after one attempt to repair, the consumer has the right to a reduction or reject the goods should this repair fail. Which it has, in the form of the same fault re-occurring with regards to the seatbelt restraint light coming back on.

As mentioned above, I just want to ensure my claim is first of all valid and wanted people’s thoughts on whether it is a strong claim. For the avoidance of doubt, I have requested that the finance company accept the vehicle back as a rejection under the CRA2015 and terminate the agreement without any further charges to myself.

Many thanks.

Grumpy_chap

That is a very long post, but it seems to me that the current fault is the one that first occurred on 26th July and is suspected to be associated with the software update by MB.
So, that would not be a fault present at the point of sale.
Have I understood correctly?

If the rejection of the vehicle is accepted, you will have to make some contribution for the period of beneficial use you have gained form the car between January and now.  There have been some commentators in other threads indicate that if you are pursuing rejection of the vehicle you need to stop using the vehicle immediately.  I am uninformed whether that is correct.

LukeWard77 said:

Good evening

I suppose I am just looking for some advice and whether my claim is as strong as I believe it to be.

I purchased a Mercedes A Class from a dealership on PCP finance on 29th January 2024. Prior to doing so I took the vehicle for a test drive and noted there was a fault present on the vehicle. A message on the dashboard stated that the driver’s side seatbelt restraint system was faulty and the vehicle needed to be taken to a workshop. I was assured that prior to handover the fault would be cleared.

When collecting the car on 29th January 2024 I noticed the vehicle had signs of paintwork damage, something I was not able to spot on the test drive as it was dark.  The dealership agreed to have the paint work buffed out a week or so after the sale.

A few days after driving the vehicle I noticed the parcel shelf was moving around in the boot. Upon inspection I initially thought the parcel shelf was damaged as the clips holding it in place had snapped off. However, after further inspection it was clear the parcel shelf did not fit and was not the parcel shelf for the vehicle. Whilst this is not a fault with the car per say, this information is key as I will later go on to evidence the vehicle was not checked aesthetically or mechanically prior to sale. 

Initially the dealership advised they may not be able to source one as they were quite expensive and only available on eBay!?  I responded advising that I would expect to have been issued the vehicle with the correct parcel shelf.  After a few weeks I received a phone call from the dealership to advise a similar model of vehicle came into them and offered to take it out of that vehicle and put it into mine.

Within the first two weeks of driving, I noticed that the vehicle never went into the stop/start mode when stationary.  Initially I put this down to weather conditions and perhaps the vehicle had not been driven a long enough distance for this feature to come into action.  After carrying out some research and taking some advice, I asked the dealership to inspect the battery as I suspected it was faulty.

After carrying out some diagnostics, the dealership confirmed the battery and alternator were faulty and required replacing. They advised that they would need to order the battery and alternator in and would contact me when these were delivered. I asked the dealership if all vehicles are inspected prior to them being handed over to a customer, the response I received was, "well they should be".  As mentioned in my fourth paragraph, this confirms the vehicle was not checked aesthetically or mechanically prior to being handed over.  My next paragraph will further evidence the vehicle was sold with a fault, a fault that is present to this day.  Approximately seven to ten days later I was offered an appointment to have a new battery and alternator fitted.

Around mid-March, another fault appears on the vehicle.  The same fault I reported on the test drive. A message appears on the dashboard advising the driver’s side seatbelt restraint system was faulty and the vehicle to be taken to a workshop.

The dealership diagnosed that drivers side seat belt needed to be replaced as it had become faulty. This part is essential for vehicle safety as it is responsible for ensuring the airbag deploys and/or seat belt restraints, and keeps the driver restrained in the event of an accident.  Group 1 Assured advised the vehicle was safe to drive.  I attempted to explain that it was not, and I was not willing to drive the vehicle with a key safety feature on the car not functioning, I asked for a courtesy vehicle, this was rejected.  The dealership told me they had to order the part and again would be in contact after delivery, approximately seven to ten working days. Around seven to ten days later the seat belt was replaced.

On 26th July I was driving the vehicle and a new fault appeared, a message on the dashboard stated that the driver’s side indicator had become faulty. The following day, the windscreen wipers came on at full speed, the full beam lights came on off their own accord and the dashboard showed many different lights. I spoke with the dealership who advised that they would inspect the vehicle to read the fault to further understand what was occurring.  They advised there were many faults showing on the vehicle, predominately to do with module faults.  Most disturbingly, one of the faults stated, "the software may have been tampered with".  A few weeks prior to this, the vehicle had been in to Mercedes Benz for a safety recall on the power steering and a software update was required to be performed by them to carry this update out.

I was told by the dealership that they were not able to go any further with the diagnostics and to either take the vehicle to Mercedes Benz directly or a Mercedes Benz specialist to further fault find. I asked if this would be covered under the 3 year RAC Platinum warranty I took out at point of sale and I was told diagnostics were not covered under said warranty.

The dealership then recommended to take the vehicle back to Mercedes Benz and tell them the first thing that my dealer asked questioned me on, was whether the car had recently had a software update and suggested I advise Mercedes Benz it's likely them who had caused this fault.

Mercedes Benz came to the same conclusion and advised they could further inspect the vehicle at a cost of £180.00 per hour labour.  I declined and took this information to the dealership who advised once more than the Platinum warranty I was sold does not cover labour/diagnostics and I would be required to pay this. Clearly, I was not willing to pay a minimum of £180.00 out of my own pocket for a fault I had not caused.

I am awaiting to hear back from the finance company.  They have acknowledged my complaint around 2 weeks ago and said it can take up to 8 weeks for a full response. The way I understand it is, as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, it is the responsibility of the retailer to evidence a fault was not present at point of sale, something the dealership has yet to do and I believe I had proven. In addition, the CRA 2015 states that after one attempt to repair, the consumer has the right to a reduction or reject the goods should this repair fail. Which it has, in the form of the same fault re-occurring with regards to the seatbelt restraint light coming back on.

As mentioned above, I just want to ensure my claim is first of all valid and wanted people’s thoughts on whether it is a strong claim. For the avoidance of doubt, I have requested that the finance company accept the vehicle back as a rejection under the CRA2015 and terminate the agreement without any further charges to myself.

Many thanks.

LukeWard77

Grumpy_chap said:

That is a very long post, but it seems to me that the current fault is the one that first occurred on 26th July and is suspected to be associated with the software update by MB.
So, that would not be a fault present at the point of sale.
Have I understood correctly?

If the rejection of the vehicle is accepted, you will have to make some contribution for the period of beneficial use you have gained form the car between January and now.  There have been some commentators in other threads indicate that if you are pursuing rejection of the vehicle you need to stop using the vehicle immediately.  I am uninformed whether that is correct.

LukeWard77 said:

Good evening

I suppose I am just looking for some advice and whether my claim is as strong as I believe it to be.

I purchased a Mercedes A Class from a dealership on PCP finance on 29th January 2024. Prior to doing so I took the vehicle for a test drive and noted there was a fault present on the vehicle. A message on the dashboard stated that the driver’s side seatbelt restraint system was faulty and the vehicle needed to be taken to a workshop. I was assured that prior to handover the fault would be cleared.

When collecting the car on 29th January 2024 I noticed the vehicle had signs of paintwork damage, something I was not able to spot on the test drive as it was dark.  The dealership agreed to have the paint work buffed out a week or so after the sale.

A few days after driving the vehicle I noticed the parcel shelf was moving around in the boot. Upon inspection I initially thought the parcel shelf was damaged as the clips holding it in place had snapped off. However, after further inspection it was clear the parcel shelf did not fit and was not the parcel shelf for the vehicle. Whilst this is not a fault with the car per say, this information is key as I will later go on to evidence the vehicle was not checked aesthetically or mechanically prior to sale. 

Initially the dealership advised they may not be able to source one as they were quite expensive and only available on eBay!?  I responded advising that I would expect to have been issued the vehicle with the correct parcel shelf.  After a few weeks I received a phone call from the dealership to advise a similar model of vehicle came into them and offered to take it out of that vehicle and put it into mine.

Within the first two weeks of driving, I noticed that the vehicle never went into the stop/start mode when stationary.  Initially I put this down to weather conditions and perhaps the vehicle had not been driven a long enough distance for this feature to come into action.  After carrying out some research and taking some advice, I asked the dealership to inspect the battery as I suspected it was faulty.

After carrying out some diagnostics, the dealership confirmed the battery and alternator were faulty and required replacing. They advised that they would need to order the battery and alternator in and would contact me when these were delivered. I asked the dealership if all vehicles are inspected prior to them being handed over to a customer, the response I received was, "well they should be".  As mentioned in my fourth paragraph, this confirms the vehicle was not checked aesthetically or mechanically prior to being handed over.  My next paragraph will further evidence the vehicle was sold with a fault, a fault that is present to this day.  Approximately seven to ten days later I was offered an appointment to have a new battery and alternator fitted.

Around mid-March, another fault appears on the vehicle.  The same fault I reported on the test drive. A message appears on the dashboard advising the driver’s side seatbelt restraint system was faulty and the vehicle to be taken to a workshop.

The dealership diagnosed that drivers side seat belt needed to be replaced as it had become faulty. This part is essential for vehicle safety as it is responsible for ensuring the airbag deploys and/or seat belt restraints, and keeps the driver restrained in the event of an accident.  Group 1 Assured advised the vehicle was safe to drive.  I attempted to explain that it was not, and I was not willing to drive the vehicle with a key safety feature on the car not functioning, I asked for a courtesy vehicle, this was rejected.  The dealership told me they had to order the part and again would be in contact after delivery, approximately seven to ten working days. Around seven to ten days later the seat belt was replaced.

On 26th July I was driving the vehicle and a new fault appeared, a message on the dashboard stated that the driver’s side indicator had become faulty. The following day, the windscreen wipers came on at full speed, the full beam lights came on off their own accord and the dashboard showed many different lights. I spoke with the dealership who advised that they would inspect the vehicle to read the fault to further understand what was occurring.  They advised there were many faults showing on the vehicle, predominately to do with module faults.  Most disturbingly, one of the faults stated, "the software may have been tampered with".  A few weeks prior to this, the vehicle had been in to Mercedes Benz for a safety recall on the power steering and a software update was required to be performed by them to carry this update out.

I was told by the dealership that they were not able to go any further with the diagnostics and to either take the vehicle to Mercedes Benz directly or a Mercedes Benz specialist to further fault find. I asked if this would be covered under the 3 year RAC Platinum warranty I took out at point of sale and I was told diagnostics were not covered under said warranty.

The dealership then recommended to take the vehicle back to Mercedes Benz and tell them the first thing that my dealer asked questioned me on, was whether the car had recently had a software update and suggested I advise Mercedes Benz it's likely them who had caused this fault.

Mercedes Benz came to the same conclusion and advised they could further inspect the vehicle at a cost of £180.00 per hour labour.  I declined and took this information to the dealership who advised once more than the Platinum warranty I was sold does not cover labour/diagnostics and I would be required to pay this. Clearly, I was not willing to pay a minimum of £180.00 out of my own pocket for a fault I had not caused.

I am awaiting to hear back from the finance company.  They have acknowledged my complaint around 2 weeks ago and said it can take up to 8 weeks for a full response. The way I understand it is, as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, it is the responsibility of the retailer to evidence a fault was not present at point of sale, something the dealership has yet to do and I believe I had proven. In addition, the CRA 2015 states that after one attempt to repair, the consumer has the right to a reduction or reject the goods should this repair fail. Which it has, in the form of the same fault re-occurring with regards to the seatbelt restraint light coming back on.

As mentioned above, I just want to ensure my claim is first of all valid and wanted people’s thoughts on whether it is a strong claim. For the avoidance of doubt, I have requested that the finance company accept the vehicle back as a rejection under the CRA2015 and terminate the agreement without any further charges to myself.

Many thanks.

Hello, thanks for your reply. Yes it was a long post but I wanted to ensure I included all the information I had.

The fault that is present now is the one that I spotted on the test drive back in January and the also the one which the dealer repaired around late March 2024 - the seatbelt restraint fault. As I say, that same fault is now back.

This is my basis of my CRA2015 claim on two counts - 1. It is very likely the fault was present at point of sale, as it was spotted on the test drive, reappeared in March 2024 and has now came back. Secondly, the dealership carried out a repair on the seatbelt restraint system and it has now failed. The CRA2015 states if a repair fails the consumer can ask for a replacement or reject the goods. 

The vehicle has not been driven since reporting the fault. Predominately because I’m concerned for my safety if it was driven, but also because I have made a formal complaint.

Many thanks.

born_again

Is this a official Merc dealer?
How old & what mileage has the car got?

As dealership confirmed the battery and alternator were faulty and required replacing. Is not indicative of a newish car.

LukeWard77

born_again said:

Is this a official Merc dealer?
How old & what mileage has the car got?

As dealership confirmed the battery and alternator were faulty and required replacing. Is not indicative of a newish car.

Hi, not official Merc dealer but one that purchases customer trade ins direct from Merc. Vehicle is a 68 plate.

born_again

LukeWard77 said:

born_again said:

Is this a official Merc dealer?
How old & what mileage has the car got?

As dealership confirmed the battery and alternator were faulty and required replacing. Is not indicative of a newish car.

Hi, not official Merc dealer but one that purchases customer trade ins direct from Merc. Vehicle is a 68 plate.

So 5/6 year old car. Prime time for new exhaust 🤷‍♀️

LukeWard77

born_again said:

LukeWard77 said:

born_again said:

Is this a official Merc dealer?
How old & what mileage has the car got?

As dealership confirmed the battery and alternator were faulty and required replacing. Is not indicative of a newish car.

Hi, not official Merc dealer but one that purchases customer trade ins direct from Merc. Vehicle is a 68 plate.

So 5/6 year old car. Prime time for new exhaust 🤷‍♀️

Hi, I’m not sure what this reply means, I have no problems with my exhaust as far as I’m aware. Genuinely trying to get a response to my original post

born_again

LukeWard77 said:

Hi, I’m not sure what this reply means, I have no problems with my exhaust as far as I’m aware. Genuinely trying to get a response to my original post

Apologies. 
Must have posted in wrong thread..🤷‍♀️