Arnold Clark breaching my consumer rights

Okell

m0bov said:

It should have been dropped off, with the letter handed over with the keys 

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

From what the OP has said, Arthur Clarke have accepted the rejection so presumably Arthur clarke have accepted the car does not conform to contract.  All they need to do now is pay a full refund.

katsav7 said:

• I formally rejected the vehicle under my short-term right to reject on 15th August, well within the 30 days. Arnold Clark confirmed the rejection.
• Since then, it’s been two weeks of delays. Arnold Clark stopped responding to my emails, and Motonovo (the finance company) told me they’re still waiting on Arnold Clark to act.

I wonder whether the two weeks of delays relate in any way to the OP having not actually returned the car?
AC will not process the refund until they have the car back.

So far as I'm aware, unless there is some clause* in the contract of sale making it the responsibility of the purchaser to return the car if rejected, the only responsibility the purchaser has in respect of returning the car is to make it available for collection by the trader.

See s20(7)(b) of the CRA and The Car Expert link I provided earlier.


*I suspect this should be a standard clause in any sensible dealer's sales contract, but if it isn't in there it isn't the purchaser's responsibility to physically deliver the rejected car to the trader

Okell

It might be that @katsav7 has misunderstood what is happening and that AC is disputing the rejection.

If I were katsav7 I would:

1.  stop using the vehicle if they are still using it

2.  check their contract of sale to see whether they are obliged to return the rejected car to AC.  If they aren't then they need to remind AC that it is available for them to collect

3.  regardless of whether AC collect it, remind AC (and Motonovo) that, having exercised their 30 day short term right to reject, they are legally entitled to a full refund and AC are not allowed to make a deduction for use/mileage.  Use the links I gave previously to support the argumant

4.  tell AC to pay up


The above assumes that katsav7 has validly rejected the car and AC has accepted that rejection


(I don't believe for a moment that both AC and Motonovo are ignorant of the fact that they can't make a deduction for use/mileage under the 30 day short term right to reject)

A_Geordie

There seems to be one huge flaw in all of this that everyone has missed and that's Motonovo, who finance cars usually on hire purchase. What that means is the OP's contract is not with Arnold Clark but with Motonovo. 

Hire purchase agreements are 3 way agreements where the dealer acts both as seller and agent of the finance company, so that the car is sold to Motonovo who in turn hires it out to the OP. Therefore: 

• The notice of rejection and acceptance of that rejection by Arnold Clark was not a valid rejection, unless AC were accepting that rejection on behalf of MN. It sounds like MN have accepted the car is faulty unless they do or say anything contrary to that but possible they may argue further down the line they were not actually given a valid notice of rejection (once lawyers get involved and know what they're talking about). 
• Any issue that AC takes around mileage/deduction for use has no bearing on the contract between the OP and MN. Any deduction for use is a matter between MN and AC which should not hold up MN giving a refund to the OP. 
• In short, OP should be directing complaints and a refund to MN and AC should be out of the picture as they are not party to the HP contract.

The only other logical way AC would be involved is if the OP obtained a personal loan from MN in which case the positions are reversed where AC is the contracting party and MN is not. 

Okell

Good point.

The OP didn't mention HP, but assumptions, eh?   

katsav7

Hi all, 

Thanks for the comments. 

The purchase was PCP - deposit was paid to Arnold Clark of £2.2k & the rest was finance from Motonovo. 

Arnold Clark owe me the deposit £2,2k 
Motonovo owe me back the first finance payment of £555
Arnold Clark owe Motonovo £31k
I owed Arnold Clark the £31k vehicle. 

Both AC & Motonovo have confirmed rejection on the basis of a diagnostic report carried out by AC to confirm all faults with the vehicle. (Mainly electrics related). 

I am not bothered about the incorrect spec issues & incorrect tax issues I was made aware of it 5 minutes before I collected the keys when I highlighted the misrepresentation to AC. I still took the car so no issue there. It’s just infuriating that having to deal with all of that I then had to face the fact the car was faulty on top of that.

They also breached my GDPR by sending the V5 to somebody else instead of me so they haven’t even listed me as the registered keeper correctly. I’ve reported that part to the ICO and have parked that (excuse the pun) as all I want is to return the car & get my refund. 

I have requested to return the vehicle every day for the last 16 days & AC are refusing to respond. Can I really just turn up with the car & keys and leave it there? They still haven’t confirmed my refund so I don’t want to give them the car AND then have to take them to small claims for my deposit back. However, they did formally confirm the rejection was accepted. 

I am well clued up on the consumer rights act and some of the comments above are incorrect. I am within the law and exercising my short term right to reject a vehicle under 30 days due to fault & that is the main issue here. 

I haven’t done any ‘excessive mileage’ just a standard amount of mileage for daily use from 31st July 2025 which the law allows. This is just a stalling tactic from AC that I have since read is quite common from them. It was a customer service rep who stated over a recorded phone call that they can make unlawful deductions for mileage, I corrected him & quoted section 20(8) of the consumer rights act and he told me it was wrong - haha. 

I have now contacted citizens advice & trading standards who have said this now needs to go to small claims court. 

Any further advice would be appreciated please! 

katsav7

Undervalued said:

katsav7 said:

Hi all,

I’d really appreciate some advice and perspective as I’m at my wits’ end with Arnold Clark.

• I bought a Nissan X-Trail Tekna+ from Arnold Clark Warrington earlier this month.
• Within 10 days it developed multiple faults, and it was also mis-sold (advertised as £195 tax – actually £695, and advertised with features it doesn’t have).
• I formally rejected the vehicle under my short-term right to reject on 15th August, well within the 30 days. Arnold Clark confirmed the rejection.
• Since then, it’s been two weeks of delays. Arnold Clark stopped responding to my emails, and Motonovo (the finance company) told me they’re still waiting on Arnold Clark to act.

Today Motonovo told me that Arnold Clark are now raising an issue with mileage deductions as the supposed reason for the hold-up.

My understanding is that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 20(8):

“The trader must not reduce the amount of the refund to take account of any use made of the goods before they were rejected.”

This means no mileage deductions are allowed when the rejection is exercised within 30 days, even if the mileage is “excessive.” Deductions only apply under the “final right to reject” (after 30 days).

From my side, all I want is:

• The full refund (deposit, part-exchange allowance, first finance payment taken, RFL etc.),
• A date to return the car.

Instead, I’ve had two weeks of silence followed by an unlawful attempt to reduce my refund.

Has anyone dealt with Arnold Clark on this before, or had to escalate through the Financial Ombudsman or Trading Standards? I’m prepared to escalate but want to make sure I’m handling this properly.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Really?

I struggle to believe that is true. Are you really saying that somebody could "buy" a car, put many thousands of miles on it and reject it four weeks later for a full refund? If that were true it is amazing that car hire firms get any business?

I did hear of somebody putting a thousand miles in on day on a garage service department free loan car, having booked their car in for a trivial (non existent) fault under warranty!

Yes – that is correct under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The short-term right to reject allows a consumer to return goods (including cars) within 30 days for a full refund if they are faulty or mis-sold.

The mileage point only comes in later under the final right to reject (after 30 days, up to 6 months), where a dealer can apply a “reasonable deduction for use.” Within the first 30 days, section 20(8) explicitly prevents any deduction for use or mileage.

It’s not a loophole for free car hire, because the right only applies if the vehicle is genuinely faulty or mis-sold – you can’t just return a perfectly good car after joyriding thousands of miles. Dealers can (and do) dispute rejections they believe aren’t valid.

In my case, the car was confirmed faulty within 10 days and also mis-sold on key points (incorrect tax and specification). However, I have rejected on the basis of 10 confirmed faults with the electrics, car play & volume button on the car & is why I exercised the 30-day right.

A_Geordie

katsav7 said:

The purchase was PCP - deposit was paid to Arnold Clark of £2.2k & the rest was finance from Motonovo. 

Arnold Clark owe me the deposit £2,2k 
Motonovo owe me back the first finance payment of £555
Arnold Clark owe Motonovo £31k
I owed Arnold Clark the £31k vehicle. 

What you've described above does not align with a PCP agreement. First of all you should check your paperwork and make sure the deposit has not been added to the PCP agreement. If you have given AC the deposit then tit should be listed on the PCP agreement because they are not selling the car to you, they're selling it to Motonovo who are hiring it out to you. That's how PCP works.

If there's no deposit listed in the PCP agreement then there for some reason AC have pocketed your money and I can't think of any other explanation why AC would be entitled to your deposit since you have no contractual arrangement with them. The deposit should be recoverable from Motonov since that is who you contracted with for the vehicle. Would strongly suggest you get your paperwork and understanding in order or it might be an expensive cost to make. Wrongly suing AC when you should be suing MotoNovo could result in a costs order against you for any legal costs that AC incur in defending a claim that was hopeless from the beginning. 

I have now contacted citizens advice & trading standards who have said this now needs to go to small claims court. 

That would be the sensible step, but you need to send a letter before action to them first, setting out your position and how you want it resolved. 14 days is a reasonable time to repsond after which you can start the process to issue a claim. 

MattMattMattUK

katsav7 said:

Hi all, 

Thanks for the comments. 

The purchase was PCP - deposit was paid to Arnold Clark of £2.2k & the rest was finance from Motonovo. 

Arnold Clark owe me the deposit £2,2k 
Motonovo owe me back the first finance payment of £555
Arnold Clark owe Motonovo £31k
I owed Arnold Clark the £31k vehicle. 

Both AC & Motonovo have confirmed rejection on the basis of a diagnostic report carried out by AC to confirm all faults with the vehicle. (Mainly electrics related). 

I am not bothered about the incorrect spec issues & incorrect tax issues I was made aware of it 5 minutes before I collected the keys when I highlighted the misrepresentation to AC. I still took the car so no issue there. It’s just infuriating that having to deal with all of that I then had to face the fact the car was faulty on top of that.

I am not sure the VED is a misrepresentation, the rate for the vehicle is £195, the £695 appears to include the Luxury Vehicle Surcharge element, which is not the VED (or "road tax"). The spec issue could be, although as they told you before you completed the sale that could be argued in court.

katsav7 said:

They also breached my GDPR by sending the V5 to somebody else instead of me so they haven’t even listed me as the registered keeper correctly. I’ve reported that part to the ICO and have parked that (excuse the pun) as all I want is to return the car & get my refund. 

How did they do that exactly? The DVLA send the V5, not the dealer, if it was sent to the wrong person that means it was registered to the wrong person, which means that it did not have your details on so no breach could have occurred. 

katsav7 said:

I have requested to return the vehicle every day for the last 16 days & AC are refusing to respond. Can I really just turn up with the car & keys and leave it there? They still haven’t confirmed my refund so I don’t want to give them the car AND then have to take them to small claims for my deposit back. However, they did formally confirm the rejection was accepted.

YES! That is what you need to do, you have no right to a refund and no ability to try and enforce one through the courts if you are still in possession of the vehicle. AC will be aware of that. You will not get a refund whilst you are still in possession of the vehicle. Court may be the only way to get somewhere, but it will fail if you are still in possession of the vehicle. Taking them to court will be easy if you do it properly.

katsav7 said:

I am well clued up on the consumer rights act and some of the comments above are incorrect. I am within the law and exercising my short term right to reject a vehicle under 30 days due to fault & that is the main issue here. 

Some of them are incorrect, some of yours are incorrect. You are not actually rejecting the vehicle because it is still in your possession, what you are currently doing is having a one sided argument with AC where you shout and they ignore you. If you wish to enforce your right to reject you must return the vehicle. 

katsav7 said:

I haven’t done any ‘excessive mileage’ just a standard amount of mileage for daily use from 31st July 2025 which the law allows. This is just a stalling tactic from AC that I have since read is quite common from them. It was a customer service rep who stated over a recorded phone call that they can make unlawful deductions for mileage, I corrected him & quoted section 20(8) of the consumer rights act and he told me it was wrong - haha. 

How many miles have you actually done? If you have done 2,000 miles I agree that would not be excessive, if you have done 5,000 or more then that could be deemed excessive. 

katsav7 said:

I have now contacted citizens advice & trading standards who have said this now needs to go to small claims court. 

Any further advice would be appreciated please! 

As others have said, you need to actually reject the vehicle by returning it. If AC then fail to return your deposit then you need to take court action to recover any unpaid funds. Doing anything else is just wasting your own time. 

A_Geordie

MattMattMattUK said:

katsav7 said:

I have requested to return the vehicle every day for the last 16 days & AC are refusing to respond. Can I really just turn up with the car & keys and leave it there? They still haven’t confirmed my refund so I don’t want to give them the car AND then have to take them to small claims for my deposit back. However, they did formally confirm the rejection was accepted.

YES! That is what you need to do, you have no right to a refund and no ability to try and enforce one through the courts if you are still in possession of the vehicle. AC will be aware of that. You will not get a refund whilst you are still in possession of the vehicle. Court may be the only way to get somewhere, but it will fail if you are still in possession of the vehicle. Taking them to court will be easy if you do it properly.

What you have said above is wrong in law.

First, on rejection you only have to make the goods available unless the OP agrees to return them.

Second the OP needs to be very careful taking the step of returning the car without instruction form MotoNovo. They are currently an involuntary bailee and they have a duty to take reasonable care of the car. If they dump it somewhere and hand the keys back, the OP could be liable for any damage as a result.

Third, the court claim will not fail because the OP remains in possession of the car, for several reasons:

• Once a consumer rejects the vehicle and that has been communicated to the trader, the consumer is entitled to treat the contract as at an end. It does not require any input from the trader to accept the rejection nor does the car need to be returned in order for the consumer to have properly exercised that right.

• As written above, the car only needs to be made available for collection.

• The CRA explicitly states that the refund msut be made within 14 days from the date the trader agrees a refund should be given.Doesn't sound like that agreement is quite there yet with Motonovo but it also doesn't prevent the OP from speeding that up by issuing legal proceedings if the OP thinks that things are not being resolved. We all know that when legal proceedings are issued, things speed up much faster than they would if you hung about and waited for them to get their acts together. 

MattMattMattUK said:

katsav7 said:

I haven’t done any ‘excessive mileage’ just a standard amount of mileage for daily use from 31st July 2025 which the law allows. This is just a stalling tactic from AC that I have since read is quite common from them. It was a customer service rep who stated over a recorded phone call that they can make unlawful deductions for mileage, I corrected him & quoted section 20(8) of the consumer rights act and he told me it was wrong - haha. 

How many miles have you actually done? If you have done 2,000 miles I agree that would not be excessive, if you have done 5,000 or more then that could be deemed excessive. 

Just on this point, there is no prohibition on use of the car post-rejection. There was actually a Scottish case that went through the appeal courts and found in favour of the consumer who continued using the car post-rejection for somehting like 6,000 miles. The court confirmed that post-rejection use does not revoke or nullify any rejection of the goods but there may be a deduction for use. You can have a read of the judgment here: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/be0nzbp4/court-of-session-judgement-alan-king-against-black-horse-limited-and-another-31-january-2024.pdf

Bear in mind that case related to the consumer's final right to reject whereas here we are discussing short term right to reject, which provides no right for Motonovo to make any deductions for use. Arguably, Motonovo could revoke any permission for the OP to continue using the car post-rejection at which point if the OP continues, then they may be liable for damages for such use since it would likely be classed as wrongful interference with goods. 

Okell

MattMattMattUK said:

...YES! That is what you need to do, you have no right to a refund and no ability to try and enforce one through the courts if you are still in possession of the vehicle. AC will be aware of that. You will not get a refund whilst you are still in possession of the vehicle. Court may be the only way to get somewhere, but it will fail if you are still in possession of the vehicle. Taking them to court will be easy if you do it properly...

katsav7 said:

I am well clued up on the consumer rights act and some of the comments above are incorrect. I am within the law and exercising my short term right to reject a vehicle under 30 days due to fault & that is the main issue here. 

... You are not actually rejecting the vehicle because it is still in your possession, what you are currently doing is having a one sided argument with AC where you shout and they ignore you. If you wish to enforce your right to reject you must return the vehicle...

katsav7 said:

I haven’t done any ‘excessive mileage’ just a standard amount of mileage for daily use from 31st July 2025 which the law allows. This is just a stalling tactic from AC that I have since read is quite common from them. It was a customer service rep who stated over a recorded phone call that they can make unlawful deductions for mileage, I corrected him & quoted section 20(8) of the consumer rights act and he told me it was wrong - haha. 

katsav7 said:

I have now contacted citizens advice & trading standards who have said this now needs to go to small claims court. 

Any further advice would be appreciated please! 

As others have said, you need to actually reject the vehicle by returning it. If AC then fail to return your deposit then you need to take court action to recover any unpaid funds. Doing anything else is just wasting your own time. 

With regard to the general legal position about the right to reject, are you sure you are necessarily correct?

As I've already pointed out twice, unless there is an agreement that the consumer must return the vehicle on rejection, then the only legal obligation on the consumer is to make it available for collection - they don't have to physically return it.  Once the consumer has told the dealer/Motonovo that they are rejecting the vehicle, it becomes the dealer's /Motonovo's reponsibility.

Whilst I would assume that any sensible dealer/finance company would have such a term in their contract, I don't think you can blithely assume that they must.  For example, The Car Expert states that it is the trader's duty to collect the vehicle unless there is an agreement that the consumer should return it - they don't just assume it must be the consumers reponsibility to return the vehicle.

"Short-term right to reject – the first 30 days

If your new or used car has a significant fault that was present when you bought it (as opposed to developing afterwards), you can reject the car within the first 30 days and get a full refund.

You do not have to accept a repair or replacement vehicle (although you can if you want to).

If you have part-exchanged your previous car on the new one, you will not get it back. Instead, you will be entitled to the full invoice price of the car (including road tax, VAT, etc).

You are entitled to a full refund by the same method in which you paid for the car.  The dealer cannot charge for usage, wear and tear, collection of the vehicle or anything else.

It is the dealer’s obligation to collect the vehicle, unless your sales contract includes a clause obliging you to return the car. You only have to make sure the car is available to collect..."

Rejecting a car - your consumer rights | The Car Expert

and

"Following on from last time’s update about the short term right to reject, we have had a question about who is responsible for getting the vehicle back to the dealer should a customer exercise their right to a refund.

Section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 deals with issues around the right to reject, be that the 30 day short-term right to reject or the final right to reject (we will come to this in a latter update).

The law actually says:

“The consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.”

It goes on to say:

“Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any cost incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them”.

So, unless you expressly make clear in your pre sales information that the customer must return a rejected vehicle to your showroom, all they have to do is tell you where the vehicle is and let you collect it. So, if they live 500 miles away, that’s a fair old trek for you.

Our recommendation? Review your sales documents and if you do not already have one, add a term which is drawn to the customer’s attention that they must get the vehicle back to you if they want to reject it."

The short-term right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Lawgistics

The above applies to the general position regarding rejection of vehicles.  I'm not commenting on either (1) whether the OP has a valid reason for rejection or (2) whether this is HP or a simple purchase and who the OP ought to be complaining to

In this particular case, I suggested to the OP two days ago to stop using the car (if they were still using it) and to check his sales documentation to see if he had agreed to retrun the vehicle on rejection, or whether it remained the responsibility of AC/Motonovo.

Once the dealer has accepted the rejection - which in this case the OP tells us they have done - then the consumer should receive a full refund without delay.