Advice please on a car purchased 2 days ago

dustiebustie78

Hello,

On Wednesday 2nd July, I purchased a car from a dealer that trades at home. I saw the car advertised on auto trader and it was listed as a TRADE deal. I go to his house, test drive the car, everything great and I agree to buy. I paid via bank transfer to a personal account. I have a receipt of the purchase and the business name is the seller. 

Yesterday, I'm browsing social media and find out that the car I purchased is on a stop-drive recall. Citroen basically have a massive recall for all citroen C3 and DS3 cars and that all drivers must absolutely not drive their car or risk their insurance being void and a £2500 fine from DVSA due to Takata airbags. A lady in France had a very minor accident, the airbags deployed and there was shrapnel in the airbag which exploded in to her face and head which ultimately killed her. 

I have been calling citroen and different dealerships all day, but like myself and the 100,000 people who also have these cars - we are struggling to get through. Those that have got through are being told that dealers cant guarantee they'll have the parts because of the massive demand to get it done. 

My mental health is in the absolute pits right now, I have serotonin syndrome, and I'm hanging on by a thread so I emailed the dealer to reject the car. Explaining I bought a car thinking it would be fit for purpose and safe to drive, and it wasn't until I get home and look online and see that I actually can't drive it at all unless I risk voiding my insurance, a hefty fine, or a potential death. Nice. I also sent a follow up text this morning and he called me straight away. 

First he said he would get Citroen to deal with it, then I said I'd rather reject the car because no one knows when Citroen can fix and I'm not in a position to wait for months when I need to be able to drive that car now. He then said he can't because he's sent off the logbook. I was adamant that I wanted to reject the car because it's not fit for purpose and I can't drive it, he said he would call me back. I'm not feeling hopeful on that bit. 

This is the second time I have bought a car, both from dealerships that want absolutely nothing to do with me, once I tell them that I want to reject the car. I'm also feeling like I can't catch a break and regretting throwing away my old pills that were making me ill so I can fast forward my life.

I would be grateful for any advice moving forward please. I'm a born stress head so this is tipping me over the edge. 

Thank you

saveallmymoney

Can't help on the rejection issue, but next time you are looking to buy a car, go to one of the AI tools and ask for its opinion on the car (just give it a link or copy paste) or for a "buying guide" - this will give you all the info and questions you need to ask before taking the leap.

jimjames

dustiebustie78 said:

This is the second time I have bought a car, both from dealerships that want absolutely nothing to do with me, once I tell them that I want to reject the car. 

Just to clarify, someone selling from their drive isn't a dealership so if the other one was the same then it's not really surprising they've acted in the same way.

If you want a car with full warranty support then a main dealer with their own premises is probably the best way to go but will cost more. 

In your situation with an undriveable car I'd continue pushing for a refund. They may eventually relent.

paul_c123

jimjames said:

dustiebustie78 said:

This is the second time I have bought a car, both from dealerships that want absolutely nothing to do with me, once I tell them that I want to reject the car. 

Just to clarify, someone selling from their drive isn't a dealership so if the other one was the same then it's not really surprising they've acted in the same way.

If you want a car with full warranty support then a main dealer with their own premises is probably the best way to go but will cost more.

1) YES THEY ARE A TRADER AND CRA2015 APPLIES
2) Warranty and CRA2015 are not the same, why are you going on about "full warranty support"????

MattMattMattUK

paul_c123 said:

jimjames said:

dustiebustie78 said:

This is the second time I have bought a car, both from dealerships that want absolutely nothing to do with me, once I tell them that I want to reject the car. 

Just to clarify, someone selling from their drive isn't a dealership so if the other one was the same then it's not really surprising they've acted in the same way.

If you want a car with full warranty support then a main dealer with their own premises is probably the best way to go but will cost more.

1) YES THEY ARE A TRADER AND CRA2015 APPLIES

No need to shout. A trader and a dealership are different things. A dealership does not sell from someone's drive, a trader sells from anywhere on commercial basis, be that a drive or a dealership.

paul_c123 said:

2) Warranty and CRA2015 are not the same, why are you going on about "full warranty support"????

Most dealership offer warranties which offer protection over and above the CRA, most people selling from their drive do not, or if they do they are worthless. The CRA only applies if this was an actual trade sale, however enforcing rights from the CRA against someone who sells off of their drive is going to be difficult at best. 

paul_c123

I don't think there is any meaningful distinction to be made between a dealership and a trader, they are treated the same in law.

Even the largest main dealer/franchises/manufacturer's approved used car sales will try to weasel out of a full refund. Enforcing CRA is no different in either case, I don't see how it could be easier/harder with one or another. You know the address, you know the amount.

jimjames

 paul_c123 said:

Enforcing CRA is no different in either case, I don't see how it could be easier/harder with one or another. You know the address, you know the amount.

Clearly you've never tried to enforce anything against an entity that doesn't exist. Very easy to avoid paying anything out if you're that way inclined.

paul_c123 said:

I don't think there is any meaningful distinction to be made between a dealership and a trader, they are treated the same in law.

If you really think there is no difference between a franchised main dealer with multiple premises backed by a global car brand and a one man band operating off their driveway then I don't think there is much else to add.

paul_c123

Of course there is an entity that exists, the OP bought a car from them 2 days ago!

MattMattMattUK

paul_c123 said:

I don't think there is any meaningful distinction to be made between a dealership and a trader, they are treated the same in law.

Even the largest main dealer/franchises/manufacturer's approved used car sales will try to weasel out of a full refund. Enforcing CRA is no different in either case, I don't see how it could be easier/harder with one or another. You know the address, you know the amount.

Knowing the address and amount is a very small part of the battle. A dealership generally has assets, which means that there is something to go after, often one man band traders are very adept at keeping their assets out of legal reach. Many people think obtaining a CCJ solves everything, against a dealership it almost certainly would, enforcement would be relatively easy, however against a one man band who has no assets, it is as worthless as the warranties they often claim to offer. 

MattMattMattUK

paul_c123 said:

Of course there is an entity that exists, the OP bought a car from them 2 days ago!

It could very easily be an Ltd with zero assets, or "Dave's Cars", which is actually some bloke called Nigel who sells cars on the side and the OP has no idea of who the transaction actually took place with (the said that "the company" gave them a receipt, but they paid a personal bank account) and even if they have the name of the actual person that person will probably have no assets. 

paul_c123

Let's try to focus on the issue at hand here. The OP is inconvenienced because the dealer sold a car without checking if there were any outstanding recalls, and getting these done. There is ample case law to support that it is a dealer's responsibility to do this, so the rejection should be quite clearly valid in this case. Whether a bigger dealer would have done this, is moot.