Taking dealership to Fast Track court

GingerTim

sweaty_doughnut said:

I watched black belt barrister on CRA, everyone says the law is clear and provides protection, nobody says what do you do when the seller doesnt want to take it back.

You shouldn't need a legal professional to tell you not to put another 3,500 miles on the clock of a car you are seeking to reject, with respect.

(that sounds more antagonistic than I mean it to be - but you can expect that sort of question to be raised if it got to court).

Aylesbury_Duck

sweaty_doughnut said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

sweaty_doughnut said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

sweaty_doughnut said:

I have always said to the dealership that issues are intermittent, the car is not falling apart but its value is affected signifiantly and brand new car should not have any crunchines! Brand new must be flawless. I have provided Hyundai now another chance to inapect it. I have recorded the audio with the inspecting engineer - on two occasions that he has experienced the issue he has avoided to comment and said he will speak with the technician because he thinks it's just the linkeage. What linkrage feeling on a brand new car.  If you people accept this kind of stuff that easily I will happily sell you my car. Hyundai doensn't insist for no reason that you are not present during diagnostics at the parking lot, that way they can claim it works as expected. I asked Hyundai to provide a signsture that the car is faultless so I can sell iy on carwow without having to report anything.

A brand new car shouldn't have any faults, and that's why any significant faults would be a reason to reject the car in the first 30 days.  Gearbox problems would probably be a justifiable reason for short term rejection.  The problem is that you didn't do that, and five months and 3,500 miles on, your chance to reject it for a full refund has gone.  By your own admission the convenience of continuing to use the car has been more important than sorting out the problem, which you reported in the first two weeks of owning it, so it's perhaps unsurprising the dealer has taken the stance they have.  From their point of view, you may have exacerbated what was a minor gearbox problem by continuing to use it - who knows what additional damage you've done in those 3,500 additional miles of crunching the gears?  It may be impossible to tell what was an inherent fault and what is user-generated damage.

Your views on whether Hyundai (is it Hyundai, or are you referring to the dealer?) are engaged in some sort of conspiracy are irrelevant.  What's relevant are your consumer rights.  I'm not surprised the dealer isn't being particularly forthcoming when talking to you if you're recording them.  

I said to dealership that I dont want to be blamed later if the issue progresses. They claimed there is no issue on first inspection, which was 45 days after purchase. Do I really need to fight tooth and nail to convince a mechanic that there is a problem. For this reason I hired an independent.

I think fast track is bad for both sides. They cant be sure they will win it with the evidence that the car had issues and that I had to use the vehicle until they accept it back due to family emergency. Was I supposed to buy one more car while I deal with dodgy dealer.

No, you shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail.  Consumer rights legislation says that any fault occurring in the first six months was assumed to have been present at purchase and is for the seller to sort out.  I'm not saying the dealer has behaved correctly here, but I can see the contradiction of you continuing to use the car after you supposedly rejected it, and continuing to use it because it's convenient to you.  The family situation, while difficult, has no bearing on your consumer rights.  It didn't stop the clock running on the first 30 days.

Court action should always be a last resort, but I fear you may fail in court.  It's certainly not cut and dried, and I don't think I'd be heading to court if I wasn't pretty confident in a positive outcome.

As for your reasons for continuing to use the car, they're largely irrelevant.  You could take a loan to purchase a cheap runabout to tide you over while this is resolved.  It was perhaps unwise to sink all of your money into a car, leaving no reserve.

It seems that a bunch of posts have disappeared.  What happened to the dealer offering to buy the car back?  Why haven't you bitten their hand off?  That offer alone could sink your court case - the court may simply ask why you didn't accept the dealer's offer to buy the car back from you.  Why haven't you?  Surely that's cleaner and faster than court proceedings, which could take many months from now, throughout which you'll continue to use the car, no doubt... 

They didn't offer to buy back the car, I have made an offer to them to take it back with a discount instead of paying back the full amount that I should be entitled under CRA 2015.

Everyone says drop it off at the forecourt. From what I have found online that is illegal. If you have left the car at my property I would call a tow truck to take it away.

I watched black belt barrister on CRA, everyone says the law is clear and provides protection, nobody says what do you do when the seller doesnt want to take it back.

You're not entitled to the full amount because you didn't reject it within 30 days.

It isn't illegal to reject the car by returning it to their premises.  They're not going to call the police and report that a customer has exercised their short term right to reject.  What you would do on your own property is irrelevant, you're not a car dealer. And anyway, so what if they had it towed away?  The point is that you would have rejected it.  What they do with it after that is none of your concern.

No dealer is going to want to take a car back because it means something's gone wrong and they'll probably lose some profit.  That doesn't absolve them of their legal obligations.

pinkshoes

sweaty_doughnut said:

I watched black belt barrister on CRA, everyone says the law is clear and provides protection, nobody says what do you do when the seller doesnt want to take it back.

The law does provide protection but you have contradicted the law by driving 3500 miles which indicates the fault is very minor so not a reason to reject.

You needed to stop driving it,  get your own independent report (after they said it was fine) stating exactly what was wrong,  then giving them one opportunity to fix it. If it then failed again, then you could have rejected for a refund minus a small amount for mileage.

But the 3500 mileage you have driven is going to cause you huge problems hear.

sweaty_doughnut

Aylesbury_Duck said:

sweaty_doughnut said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

sweaty_doughnut said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

sweaty_doughnut said:

I have always said to the dealership that issues are intermittent, the car is not falling apart but its value is affected signifiantly and brand new car should not have any crunchines! Brand new must be flawless. I have provided Hyundai now another chance to inapect it. I have recorded the audio with the inspecting engineer - on two occasions that he has experienced the issue he has avoided to comment and said he will speak with the technician because he thinks it's just the linkeage. What linkrage feeling on a brand new car.  If you people accept this kind of stuff that easily I will happily sell you my car. Hyundai doensn't insist for no reason that you are not present during diagnostics at the parking lot, that way they can claim it works as expected. I asked Hyundai to provide a signsture that the car is faultless so I can sell iy on carwow without having to report anything.

A brand new car shouldn't have any faults, and that's why any significant faults would be a reason to reject the car in the first 30 days.  Gearbox problems would probably be a justifiable reason for short term rejection.  The problem is that you didn't do that, and five months and 3,500 miles on, your chance to reject it for a full refund has gone.  By your own admission the convenience of continuing to use the car has been more important than sorting out the problem, which you reported in the first two weeks of owning it, so it's perhaps unsurprising the dealer has taken the stance they have.  From their point of view, you may have exacerbated what was a minor gearbox problem by continuing to use it - who knows what additional damage you've done in those 3,500 additional miles of crunching the gears?  It may be impossible to tell what was an inherent fault and what is user-generated damage.

Your views on whether Hyundai (is it Hyundai, or are you referring to the dealer?) are engaged in some sort of conspiracy are irrelevant.  What's relevant are your consumer rights.  I'm not surprised the dealer isn't being particularly forthcoming when talking to you if you're recording them.  

I said to dealership that I dont want to be blamed later if the issue progresses. They claimed there is no issue on first inspection, which was 45 days after purchase. Do I really need to fight tooth and nail to convince a mechanic that there is a problem. For this reason I hired an independent.

I think fast track is bad for both sides. They cant be sure they will win it with the evidence that the car had issues and that I had to use the vehicle until they accept it back due to family emergency. Was I supposed to buy one more car while I deal with dodgy dealer.

No, you shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail.  Consumer rights legislation says that any fault occurring in the first six months was assumed to have been present at purchase and is for the seller to sort out.  I'm not saying the dealer has behaved correctly here, but I can see the contradiction of you continuing to use the car after you supposedly rejected it, and continuing to use it because it's convenient to you.  The family situation, while difficult, has no bearing on your consumer rights.  It didn't stop the clock running on the first 30 days.

Court action should always be a last resort, but I fear you may fail in court.  It's certainly not cut and dried, and I don't think I'd be heading to court if I wasn't pretty confident in a positive outcome.

As for your reasons for continuing to use the car, they're largely irrelevant.  You could take a loan to purchase a cheap runabout to tide you over while this is resolved.  It was perhaps unwise to sink all of your money into a car, leaving no reserve.

It seems that a bunch of posts have disappeared.  What happened to the dealer offering to buy the car back?  Why haven't you bitten their hand off?  That offer alone could sink your court case - the court may simply ask why you didn't accept the dealer's offer to buy the car back from you.  Why haven't you?  Surely that's cleaner and faster than court proceedings, which could take many months from now, throughout which you'll continue to use the car, no doubt... 

They didn't offer to buy back the car, I have made an offer to them to take it back with a discount instead of paying back the full amount that I should be entitled under CRA 2015.

Everyone says drop it off at the forecourt. From what I have found online that is illegal. If you have left the car at my property I would call a tow truck to take it away.

I watched black belt barrister on CRA, everyone says the law is clear and provides protection, nobody says what do you do when the seller doesnt want to take it back.

You said on the other forum - on two separate occasions - that they've offered to buy the car back.  Now you're saying they haven't.  I have no idea why your story is changing.

You're not entitled to the full amount because you didn't reject it within 30 days.

It isn't illegal to reject the car by returning it to their premises.  They're not going to call the police and report that a customer has exercised their short term right to reject.  What you would do on your own property is irrelevant, you're not a car dealer. And anyway, so what if they had it towed away?  The point is that you would have rejected it.  What they do with it after that is none of your concern.

No dealer is going to want to take a car back because it means something's gone wrong and they'll probably lose some profit.  That doesn't absolve them of their legal obligations.

Can you send me a link to that forum as their offer has never happened so maybe I didnt explain it correctly

sweaty_doughnut

Aylesbury_Duck said:

No, because when I last linked to that forum, the post got deleted so I presume it's not permitted on this forum.

Six days ago you said that they'd offered to buy the car back.  Three days ago you said that they don't want to repair it but want to buy it back from you.  That's pretty clear.

Surely you know what you posted?  Or could go back there and check yourself?

This is becoming absurd :-). Why would I invent the story. I offered them to buy it back and from the very beginning I told them I dont want it repaired

photome

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Oh, and the reason you shouldn't be continuing to drive it is that (from the other forum) you know that it had tyres at or close to the legal limit 4000 miles ago and that you havent replaced them.  To be frank, clutch judder and air-conditioning problems are trivial in comparison to driving around on what are almost sure to be pretty bald and probably illegal tyres.

Have you checked the tyres recently?  Can you afford a fine of up to £2,500 and three penalty points per tyre if you're stopped and they are below the minimum tread depth?  And that's just the legal position.  Aren't you concerned about the potential safety implications of driving around on tyres that are probably unsafe?  It makes your concern about clutch judder seem a little silly.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the latest MOT tester and the dealer, it's your responsibility, no one else's, to ensure the car you're driving is legally compliant and safe to drive.  You can't pass that responsibility on to the dealer.

What has this post got to do with the OP, he bought a new car and has only done 3500 miles…what am I missing 

sweaty_doughnut

photome said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Oh, and the reason you shouldn't be continuing to drive it is that (from the other forum) you know that it had tyres at or close to the legal limit 4000 miles ago and that you havent replaced them.  To be frank, clutch judder and air-conditioning problems are trivial in comparison to driving around on what are almost sure to be pretty bald and probably illegal tyres.

Have you checked the tyres recently?  Can you afford a fine of up to £2,500 and three penalty points per tyre if you're stopped and they are below the minimum tread depth?  And that's just the legal position.  Aren't you concerned about the potential safety implications of driving around on tyres that are probably unsafe?  It makes your concern about clutch judder seem a little silly.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the latest MOT tester and the dealer, it's your responsibility, no one else's, to ensure the car you're driving is legally compliant and safe to drive.  You can't pass that responsibility on to the dealer.

What has this post got to do with the OP, he bought a new car and has only done 3500 miles…what am I missing 

photome said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Oh, and the reason you shouldn't be continuing to drive it is that (from the other forum) you know that it had tyres at or close to the legal limit 4000 miles ago and that you havent replaced them.  To be frank, clutch judder and air-conditioning problems are trivial in comparison to driving around on what are almost sure to be pretty bald and probably illegal tyres.

Have you checked the tyres recently?  Can you afford a fine of up to £2,500 and three penalty points per tyre if you're stopped and they are below the minimum tread depth?  And that's just the legal position.  Aren't you concerned about the potential safety implications of driving around on tyres that are probably unsafe?  It makes your concern about clutch judder seem a little silly.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the latest MOT tester and the dealer, it's your responsibility, no one else's, to ensure the car you're driving is legally compliant and safe to drive.  You can't pass that responsibility on to the dealer.

What has this post got to do with the OP, he bought a new car and has only done 3500 miles…what am I missing 

It appears to be an error

visidigi

When you reject you MUST stop using it. At the date and time of rejection the condition and the mileage should be recorded and acknowledged by the trader/dealer at the point you reject.

I rejected a vehicle a little over two years ago - even though the dealer refused the rejection at first, and I had to go through the DP to get some traction I didn't use it from the moment I rejected it - and that's why my rejection was successful.

During the rejection period, when the vehicle was still on my drive and I had the keys I had an emergency appointment come through. I called the DP and asked if I could use the car for a fixed 21 miles round trip to said appointment as they were dragging their heals on the rejection process - their response? 'If you use it the rejection is clearly no longer valid.'

I don't think you are any where near to winning this - for sure you are at a vast disadvantage vs where you think you are.

sweaty_doughnut

visidigi said:

When you reject you MUST stop using it. At the date and time of rejection the condition and the mileage should be recorded and acknowledged by the trader/dealer at the point you reject.

I rejected a vehicle a little over two years ago - even though the dealer refused the rejection at first, and I had to go through the DP to get some traction I didn't use it from the moment I rejected it - and that's why my rejection was successful.

During the rejection period, when the vehicle was still on my drive and I had the keys I had an emergency appointment come through. I called the DP and asked if I could use the car for a fixed 21 miles round trip to said appointment as they were dragging their heals on the rejection process - their response? 'If you use it the rejection is clearly no longer valid.'

I don't think you are any where near to winning this - for sure you are at a vast disadvantage vs where you think you are.

So what do you suggest, small claims for defects? Or I should sell it on CarWow to Hyundai dealer and let them fix the car at Hyundai's expense?

visidigi

sweaty_doughnut said:

visidigi said:

When you reject you MUST stop using it. At the date and time of rejection the condition and the mileage should be recorded and acknowledged by the trader/dealer at the point you reject.

I rejected a vehicle a little over two years ago - even though the dealer refused the rejection at first, and I had to go through the DP to get some traction I didn't use it from the moment I rejected it - and that's why my rejection was successful.

During the rejection period, when the vehicle was still on my drive and I had the keys I had an emergency appointment come through. I called the DP and asked if I could use the car for a fixed 21 miles round trip to said appointment as they were dragging their heals on the rejection process - their response? 'If you use it the rejection is clearly no longer valid.'

I don't think you are any where near to winning this - for sure you are at a vast disadvantage vs where you think you are.

So what do you suggest, small claims for defects? Or I should sell it on CarWow to Hyundai dealer and let them fix the car at Hyundai's expense?

Its between you and the franchised dealer. Has the dealer been out on drives with you where you have demonstrated the problem or is absolutely all occurrences only captured on video? Does the car show any errors/codes?

Is the 'expert' the only person other than you who has (partially) witnessed the problem?

That aside, I would recommend you sell the car while under the original 5 yr warranty - as there will be few reasons for a dealer/buyer to have any issues with it.

Where it might get tricky is having involved Hyundai that actual car may have a marker on it for a customer dispute.

For sure you will need to get a realistic view of a valuation - not forgetting you get a decent deal with your rapidly settled finance.

To give you the example I had I was extremely fortunate - I got all my money back - Mine was a fully remote purchase and the staff actions after it was sold (put phones down, ignored emails, mocked me when I rejected, etc - main brand dealer. I had to pay for delivery back to them (and to take plates off etc at further expense) but they didn't charge me for the mileage I put on it - alot of my reasoning for being successful was I got it cheap in the first place and so when they got it back, all be it with one more owner, they sold it for £2000+ more than they refunded me.

I bought another car, exactly the same bar one extra option 9 months later (I liked the car, just not that one).