Used car purchase, undisclosed damage, distance selling and consumer rights question

Paladin20

I recently purchased a car through a distance-sale from a dealer. (No comments on making a car purchase without physically inspecting it myself first please, if I had been able to do that then obviously I would have, etc etc). Before purchase I went through a long list of potential issues, and requested multiple walkarounds, videos and photos to show any cosmetic issues etc, to try and avoid issues as much as possible. Alas.

When the car was delivered (30th September), I noticed two issues that weren't shown in the sales description nor in the walkarounds. One was a paint issue on one of the panels (it was a rear panel, unrelated to the other issue), and the other was an issue with the front bumper not clipping into place correctly. The bumper is the main issue this post is about.

(Unfortunately I can't post links to images, so I can't show you the issue. Basically one end of the bumper is partially unclipped, so it doesn't line up with the panel above it correctly.)

So when I found these two issues, I notified the dealer saying that these weren't mentioned at all and that I was not happy with this condition. I made these notifications in writing to them on the 1st and 9th of October. I specified in the emails that I was making sure to log this issues with them within 14 days of the car being delivered, because if they could not be resolved I would be returning the car under the distance selling regulations. (I think they're actually called CCR now but still, I believe it's much the same thing). 

The dealer responded by saying that they would have the car booked in to an affiliated body-shop that was (relatively) local to me, to respray the paint panel entirely and to also inspect and repair the bumper problem. I specified that I would want the bumper issue inspected to find out the CAUSE of the problem, because (quote from email) "The worry is that this has been damaged due to an unreported accident, which has caused the frame behind the bumper to be misaligned."

In my email I went on to say: "If the bumper can not be easily repaired, or if the problem is an issue with the underlying frame, then I will of course have to return the car under the distance-selling regulations, as it would have been sold in a condition that did not match the condition described in the listing. The same will also be true if the paint repair on the rear roof panel does not match correctly etc."

The dealer agreed to get everything booked in. This process took some time however, as they needed to find a body shop, and then organise an initial inspection so that they could issue a quote to the dealer for authorisation, etc etc. This all took about 3 weeks, and then I took the car in for the repairs which took a week. I received the 'completed' work back on wednesday the 6th of November.

However, while the paint panel was fixed (no issue there), the bumper still is not clipped into place correctly. The body shop said they inspected the bumper, and that there was a clip missing, which they replaced. However this bumper does not actually use removeable clips, so... no idea what they're talking about there. They clearly did not actually inspect the issue, and they did not manage to fix it. 

So on thursday 7th Nov I took the car to a local body shop, independent of the dealership. A very nice person there inspected the car themselves, closely looking at how the bumper aligned with the bodywork etc. He discovered that the issue was not in fact the bumper, but the fender panel itself that was misaligned. Further inspection showed that the wing panel does not align correctly with the surrounding panels. He then opened the bonnet and found there was a kink/crumple in the frame under the bonnet. Close inspection of the drivers-wing panel showed him that it had been resprayed at some point, as the paint finished was different to the surrounding panels. Basically, the car had been in an accident and the wing panels had been repaired and resprayed, but the kinked frame meant it was permanently misaligned.

(For anyone saying I should have noticed this, you're probably right, but I'm no expert and in my defence I did notice there was something wrong and requested professional inspection. They just didn't do it.)

So I notified the dealer of this, complaining that these issues weren't noticed prior to sale, and also that the dealer-affiliated bodyshop had not found them at all during their inspection that was specifically covering this area.

I requested a continuation of my return, under the consumer rights act and distance selling regulations, as the car was not in a condition I consider satisfactory compared to the sales description.

However, the manager at the dealer is now saying he'd have to get it through management, as this is "just a cosmetic issue" not mechanical, so they may offer repairs or he's not sure on the legalities etc, and would need to find out what resolution options there might be. I'm now concerned that they have some kind of loophole or something which means I get stuck with this car, despite logging all of this.

In my mind, I should still be covered by the 14 day 'cooling off' period, as I made my initial request and complaint within that window. The dealer offered an attempt at a repair to resolve the problem, but as that was not done to my satisfaction I should still be able to reject it.... The reason I'm no longer within that 14-day window is because it took a month for the dealer to resolve the repair process, so I shouldn't be punished for that...

But now I'm guessing that was just a trick, and they did that to make the 14-day window expire and then leave me stuck with a lemon.

I believe even outside of distance-selling regs, the consumer rights regulations mention that significant deviations from a sold listing (or other issues, like not being 'satisfactory' which is pretty nebulous a description) can be grounds for a full refund, especially if logged within (I think?) 30 days. And that the seller has the ability to attempt a repair or other resolution, but if it isn't satisfactory I should still be covered...? But I'm less sure about this now as it's all very nebulous. Especially when the dealer started saying this was 'just cosmetic' even though, to my mind, this amount of underlying damage seriously effects the value of the car. (And possibly even the safety of it, should there be another crash, as even a minor crumple to a crumple-zone could weaken it.)

LOOOONG wall of text, but I wanted to get everything down. Hopefully I can get some advice. I really thought I had done everything 'right' to cover myself, but now I just don't know. It seems like even doing everything right, you still get scammed, even by the big dealerships. Maybe doubly so for the big dealerships. 

Thankyou, to anyone who can help.

Hopefully I won't get too many people just telling me it's my own fault and I've lost all my money. Might be true but it's less funny when you're on this side of things!

powerful_Rogue

What's the age, mileage and price of the vehicle?

Paladin20

powerful_Rogue said:

What's the age, mileage and price of the vehicle?

It's 2017, 30k miles, £17k  (which is effectively 'market value' for a car in very good condition, which is how it was described and shown to me). 

Of course things like undisclosed paint chips or a supermarket scuff or various wear and tear can be expected, even on a low-mileage car. And during the walkthroughs the salesman did show me a few of the paint markings (couple chips, couple small etchings from bird droppings, nothing surprising and all easily fixable). Entire misaligned/bent panels from crash damage (imo) is more on the old-banger end of the spectrum, and it seems very odd that they pointed out really hard to see bird-markings and small chips, and totally missed the large area of blistering paint and the misaligned bumper/panel. However you can't really prove deception vs incompetence. 

The body shop that did the more recent inspection and repair 'attempt' were definitely deceptive though, as they claimed a repair and cause which no only didn't happen but doesn't make sense for the car. They clearly just bodged a repair attempt and didn't bother inspecting the underlying cause. 

The dealer so far have requested that the car can go to one of their branches for an inspection and report, supposedly just to prove that the issue exists and I've not made it up (they've seen the photos, but I can understand that they need to be properly checked off). 

I assume by the way that you've asked this question, that their offer of making a repair attempt was indeed a trick to get me outside of my 14-day return window, and that making the return request inside the window became meaningless. It's a shame that nowhere warns you that this could be an issue. Perhaps it's meant to be common sense, but it doesn't read that way (to my old brain anyway). 

Jenni_D

It seems to me that they've had their single repair attempt and the goods still do not conform to contract. Therefore you can exercise your Final Right to Reject for a full* refund, or for a price reduction, per section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

* In theory they can reduce the refund to account for mileage added to the vehicle, but I would surmise that you've not added many miles - and most of them have been taking it to/from repair/inspection agents? Or have you still been using the car as your daily runner? How many miles have you added to it?

Paladin20

Jenni_D said:

It seems to me that they've had their single repair attempt and the goods still do not conform to contract. Therefore you can exercise your Final Right to Reject for a full* refund, or for a price reduction, per section24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

* In theory they can reduce the refund to account for mileage added to the vehicle, but I would surmise that you've not added many miles - and most of them have been taking it to/from repair/inspection agents? Or have you still been using the car as your daily runner? How many miles have you added to it?

Other than multiple trips to the dealer-affiliated body shop for inspection and work, I haven't driven the car for personal reasons since the 9th of October when I sent the email saying that I was rejecting the car sale under distance selling unless the inspections and repairs were completed to my satisfaction. I pretty much treated the car as no longer mine from that point, at least until it was properly repaired and I would be happy to keep it. 

I think they can only reduce the refund (under consumer rights etc) if the return request happened after 30 days... but I'm not sure on that, as the rules all seem to be a bit all over the place. But as I only put maybe 50-100 miles on it total of my personal use in those first 9 days I'm not really bothered by that, I don't think it adds up to much (relatively speaking). 

Paladin20

Update:
The dealership is saying that they are unable to proceed with the return process until the car is inspected and a report written up by one of their own dealership mechanics. 

Which means transporting the car (at my time and cost) over an hour away to be done, and then back again. 

This just generates the report, no guarantee that it'll be resolved. 

This seems like it's not in line with the consumer rights as I'm aware of them, but when I say that he just responded with "I'm not an expert, I'm just relaying what the next stage of the procedure is as I've been told" so I don't really know what to say to that. 

Jenni_D

Their policy and process does not trump legislation. 🤷‍♀️

Paladin20

Jenni_D said:

Their policy and process does not trump legislation. 🤷‍♀️

Fairly quick update though - after the phonecall where they requested that 'report', during which I did complain saying that they shouldn't really be requesting that, especially with a fairly unreasonable distance for me to travel, etc etc etc...
They did call me back about 10 minutes after I posted that update, saying that actually as they'd seen the photos and doing the report was going to be a chore, and was frankly a waste of everyones time and just delaying things, they were just going to accept the return. 

So it's now booked in for a collection. All sorted. 

While they did make a couple false-steps, I can forgive them for it as I don't think the person I was dealing with had ever actually needed to deal with a return / distance sale before. Not an excuse of course, as they're a business and they should have someone who knows, but they didn't double-down on their ignorance. They just followed the policy they were given and when it seemed like it was wrong they changed tack and got it sorted for me. So it could have been a lot worse, all things considered. 

Big sigh of relief. Thanks for the reassurance and the help with this.