30 day car rejection, is it real or just a get out for the motor trade

ST_Rippedoff2025

Ordered a new car with some strict criteria owing to my disability, one being that the seat must have the ability to be programmable with a memory for at least two persons, when delivered the vehicle doesn't have this. The showroom tried to make it work but had to admit it wasn't able to be programmed. After finding this and other know problems I decided to reject the vehicle and returned it to the showroom within the  30 days with my letter of rejection.
They have come back after 33 days of deliberation with the manufacturer that I'm cannot reject the vehicle as they consider its not within the guidelines for rejecting the vehicle.
Your thoughts or knowledge of the 30 day rule would be most welcome.

Ayr_Rage

Did you have the memory seat requirement noted in writing as an addition to the standard contract or did you just order electrically adjustable seats as per the normal specification?

What does the order form actually say?

What are the other problems?

paul_c123

Sounds like you're right and they're wrong, quote them the exact wording of the legislation and it might push them to change their mind.

born_again

You were within the 30 day window, so the fact they came back afterwards is not the reason.
They are saying that because the car does not have memory seats, that is not a valid reason to reject the car.

This has nothing to do with manufacture, as you purchased from dealer.

How was car paid for? Although I do not think it would make a difference to your claim.

Money_and_Travel

An item must be fit for the purpose it was intended for, otherwise it's a breach of the Supply of Goods and Services Act.

If you specified these features when you ordered it, you can reject it under the SGSA, notwithstanding the 30 days window.

MattMattMattUK

Money_and_Travel said:

An item must be fit for the purpose it was intended for, otherwise it's a breach of the Supply of Goods and Services Act.

If you specified these features when you ordered it, you can reject it under the SGSA, notwithstanding the 30 days window.

The SGSA 1982 was largely superseded by the CRA 2015.

The devil in the detail, unless the OP can evidence that they specifically asked for these features and can confirm that they were ordered then it becomes an irrelevance. I would imagine as far as the dealer is concerned the car is fit for purpose, it functions fully as intended by the manufacturer and as such the OP needs to be able to prove they asked for, it was confirmed and then they ordered on the basis of the car having seats with at least two seat/driver profiles salvable within the system, otherwise their rejection will not be valid. 

ST_Rippedoff2025

Thank you for your feedback, as far as I'm concerned, my claim is against the retailer who sold me the vehicle as they were led to believe this function was in the vehicle, so they have to take it up with the manufacturer, not use the manufacturer as a lever to get out of the claim. Worst part is that as the vehicle was purchased on finance, until the showroom admit to having the vehicle back with them and advising the finance company of this, they call it an ROA number (return of asset) I am forced to pay monthly for the vehicle or get a bad credit rating. The finance company are looking at this under Section75.

Ayr_Rage

ST_Rippedoff2025 said:

Thank you for your feedback, as far as I'm concerned, my claim is against the retailer who sold me the vehicle as they were led to believe this function was in the vehicle, so they have to take it up with the manufacturer, not use the manufacturer as a lever to get out of the claim. Worst part is that as the vehicle was purchased on finance, until the showroom admit to having the vehicle back with them and advising the finance company of this, they call it an ROA number (return of asset) I am forced to pay monthly for the vehicle or get a bad credit rating. The finance company are looking at this under Section75.

As before and following on from @MattMattMattUK's comment, what does the vehicle order form say?

What else, if anything, did you put in writing?

There should be no "led to believe" if it is a franchised dealer selling their own brand, the specification is available to both them and yourself.

I think you'll be on shaky ground if the requirement was not in the contract.

eschaton

Telling us if the requirement was stated on the order form will help. 

Yes - I think you have an excellent case. 

No - was your requirement listed on the spec list for your car?

If yes, then you’re back to having an excellent case. 

If no then you have no chance. 

Okell

@ST_Rippedoff2025 

s10(1) and (3) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 say as follows:

" 10  Goods to be fit for particular purpose

(1) Subsection (3) applies to a contract to supply goods if before the contract is made the consumer makes known to the trader (expressly or by implication) any particular purpose for which the consumer is contracting for the goods...  [my bold for emphasis]

... (3) The contract is to be treated as including a term that the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which goods of that kind are usually supplied."

So if before you entered into this contract you told the dealer "that the seat must have the ability to be programmable with a memory for at least two persons" then this requirement was incorporated into the contract.  If the car does not have that ability, then the trader is in breach of contract and you can exercise your short-term 30 day right to reject the car outright and get a full refund.  Obviously if you have written proof of your requirement it will be a cut and dried case.  If you don't have written proof it becomes "he said / she said"...

Do you have anything in writing, text message, email etc?

Incidentally, under s22(6) of the same legislation the 30 day "clock" is paused from the stage you ask for a repair or a replacement and doesn't start again until you get that repair or replacement.

born_again

ST_Rippedoff2025 said:

Thank you for your feedback, as far as I'm concerned, my claim is against the retailer who sold me the vehicle as they were led to believe this function was in the vehicle, so they have to take it up with the manufacturer, not use the manufacturer as a lever to get out of the claim. Worst part is that as the vehicle was purchased on finance, until the showroom admit to having the vehicle back with them and advising the finance company of this, they call it an ROA number (return of asset) I am forced to pay monthly for the vehicle or get a bad credit rating. The finance company are looking at this under Section75.

What does the Spec sheet for the car say?

Or which car so other can check?

As above posts. unless you have written proof of the requirement for 2 profiles via electric adjustment, I can't see a winner via S75 🤷‍♀️
Where did the sales people check? TBH, many times sales people have no idea on the actual spec's of the cars they are selling. To many spec & models to keep track of. Even manufacture spec's will say subject to change at the bottom.