Section 75 Asking me to sell car & refund difference

A_Geordie

@Ergates it may be the way you've communicated it but I don't understand what you mean by transferring ownership to someone. If the OP has rejected the car and informed the dealer/CC company of their stated intention, then ownership automatically reverts back to the dealership, not the CC company.

Like I said in my previous post, the OP could follow yours and other poster's suggestions of selling the car and recovering a smaller amount from the CC company but legally, the OP has no right to sell the car or keep the proceeds from the sale and could be sued on both counts by the dealership if they were so inclined. In that situation the OP has no defence and I think a court would find in favour of the dealership.

Assuming that scenarios plays out, the OP could then try to recover those lost costs and expenses from the CC company but I would expect the CC Company to reject any claim and argue that the matter is already settled having paid out, albeit a smaller sum, likely leaving the OP in a worse position than they were. The only winner in all of this is the CC Company who are using underhand tactics to minimise their costs and expenses at the OP's risk. 

Rather than trying to cut corners, the OP should consider one or more of the following: 

1. Follow the complaints/Financial Ombudsman process and hope something good comes out of it.

2. Start the legal process by sending a letter before action to both the dealership/CC Company. Failure to settle then start legal proceedings against both of them as defendants. The CC Company will need to rely on the dealership to support its defence otherwise they will likely make an offer of settlement. If the OP has legal expenses insurance, they could try and go down this route avoiding any expenses out of their own pocket.

3. To get an idea for any deduction for use, the OP can use the examples provided in the link below. This is only one method of calculating a deduction for use but it i not the only one. However, any miles travelled to the garage for repairs should not be taken into account. If I recall, there is also case law that suggests if the consumer has been travelling back and forth to the garage so much they have had not much use out of the car, then no deduction for use should be awarded. 

Annex C. Deduction for use calculations: a proposal | Business Companion

sheramber

Has the OP formally rejected the car ?

They haven't said so, only that they don't want it back.

born_again

400ixl said:

Asking the customer to sell a vehicle with a known fault, surely not an acceptable approach from the credit card provider?

Again we have no knowledge of just how old etc the car is, which make a judgement hard. If it's a 3 year old car, then that is different to a 10 year old car.
OP does not have to sell as a runner with a known issue.
There are 2 other option. Spares & repair or sell for scrap value.

Ergates

A_Geordie said:

@Ergates it may be the way you've communicated it but I don't understand what you mean by transferring ownership to someone. If the OP has rejected the car and informed the dealer/CC company of their stated intention, then ownership automatically reverts back to the dealership, not the CC company.

It doesn't read like the OP has rejected the car, just that it was either at the garage awaiting further repairs (that they don't trust the garage to carry out), or has been abandoned there.

If the OP has rejected the vehicle, the garage has taken possession of it and then just refused to refund OP that would seem like an egregious breach of conduct by the garage, and I would have thought the OP would have mentioned that.