England: Car dealership trying to sell our car without permission

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:

Jonny2232 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

They're certainly trying to have their cake and eat it!

In principle rejecting the vehicle and returning it to them makes it their property in which case they'd be free to sell it but cannot be charging storage fees. Your claim would be they haven't paid you after accepting it was rejected. 

Alternatively the argument is that it remains your property until the refund, their claim for storage would be on very shaky grounds as they are the creators of their own misfortune as they could simply refund you and take the title. However advertising a car for sale is not the same as actually selling it. Its well known companies advertise things that dont exist (looking at you job agencies) with the intention of drawing in potential customers to which they can then explain its not available however they have X instead. 

I'm not close enough to court proceedings to know at what point the courts have deemed the title to transfer, certainly ordinarily you return first and get refund within 14 days/without reasonable delay and most people dont ask what's happened to their returned goods in the period between sending and receiving the refund.

I've only noticed the advert today, but the LBA was sent to them ~75 days ago, with a deadline to respond that passed two weeks after that date.

So your LBA deadline expired two months ago?  Have you issued a claim yet?

I suspect the garage have called your bluff...

They say they went into mediation and are now awaiting a court date which would suggest they have already filed but that would also mean they have the garages high level defence and they haven't said on which grounds the garage is attempting to reject the short term right to reject. 

Jonny2232

We submitted a detailed timeline as our evidence.  Their evidence in response was simply one line "we offered to repair the car".

Jonny2232

Yes, we have opened a MCOL case, we went through mediation and now the case is being reviewed for suitability for court.

Jonny2232

born_again said:

Fault B & C could be result of car being driven with original fault. Given a extra 50 miles driven after 1st fault appeared would not be beyond reason.

OP says 70 miles driven. But only 20 from dealer, in which 1st fault appeared.

Just to be clear, first fault occured and we were more than happy to have it repaired as it is a second hand car and only a warning light.

Then a second fault occured, "Engine malfunction" on the dashboard.  I asked to return the car.  They argued it's related to the first fault, and I agreed to have it repaired.  I reluctantly agreed to a repair to draw a line under everything.

When the garage appointment was finally booked, the car physically was malfunctioning and was unsafe to drive.  This is when I insisted on a refund.  

From the engine malfunction to the garage appointment, I did not use the vehicle at all.

Alderbank

Okell said:

Alderbank said:

... Reg 23(6) of the Consumer Rights Act says that if you agree to a repair you have to allow them to carry out that repair (in a reasonable time), having agreed to a repair you can't just say 'I've changed my mind, give me a refund instead.'...

Yes - but is this case that straightforward?

I find the OP's narrative confusing, but isn't he saying that although he agreed to a repair for the initial fault, that further faults manifested themselves when he was returning the car for the initial agreed repair, and at that point he rejected it?

So long as he's within 30 days of delivery couldn't he still have exercised the short term right to reject?  Especially including time while the 30 day clock was paused waiting for repair?

Or are you saying that once the OP has agreed to a repair of fault A, he can't then reject the vehicle for faults B & C that manifest themselves after the agreement?

(BTW - I don't know the answer and I think the OP could have handles this better than he has...)

I agree it's not at all clear and I might be wrong, but this is how I see it:

1. OP chose not to exercise short term right to reject, he elected for a repair of fault A instead.
2. The repair was not successful, the car still did not conform to contract so the OP could have rejected it at that point. However he agreed to another repair instead. That is all in conformity with CRA, I'm sure many issues are resolved at the second repair stage. OP says he agreed reluctantly but that's still agreement.
3. The dealer has offered to carry out the agreed repair but the OP has now changed his mind and says he wants to reject.

I think that reg 23(6) is the legal grounds for the dealer's defence - he has offered the repair but the OP is 'yanking his chain'.

Jonny2232

 > The dealer has offered to carry out the agreed repair but the OP has now changed his mind and says he wants to reject

This is inaccurate in my opinion.  I agreed to have fault A then B repaired, but fault C (the mechanical failure of the car) was a new issue.

Alderbank

 For the purposes of the CRA, 'repair' means carrying out whatever is needed to make the car conform to contract.

What defence has the dealer submitted?

Jonny2232

Dealers submitted defence was simply: "We offered to repair the car"

NBLondon

As I read it - the OP agreed to a repair on Fault A (suspected sensor issue) then asked for a refund when there was a Fault B before getting the repair appointment.  Then changed back and agreed to a repair of Fault A and possible Fault B.  On taking the car in for that - it went into limp mode (maybe a new fault C or a result of Fault so they then declined the repair and asked for a refund again.

The garage have since repaired the car but the OP refuses to take back the car or even visit to see what has been repaired i.e. were all the issues the same fault and is this now fixed?

What was said in the mediation, I wonder?

NBLondon

Alderbank said:

I agree it's not at all clear and I might be wrong, but this is how I see it:

1. OP chose not to exercise short term right to reject, he elected for a repair of fault A instead.
2. The repair was not successful, 

I don't think there was a first repair of Fault A.  Other faults appeared while waiting for that first appointment so OP decided then to reject.    Which means the dealership has had one chance to repair and OP is now not inclined to consider any repair.  Which may be the line the court takes.