Arnold Clark breaching my consumer rights

A_Geordie

Okell said:

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.

Don't get caught out by this because the CRA doesn't actually say refunds must be given without delay from acceptance of the rejection, it is once the trader agrees the consumer is entitled to a refund (ref. s.20(15)).

As AC/MN are disputing the amount of the refund based on the (wrong) asusmption of a right to deduct for use, I don't think you can say that there is an agreement just yet. so the without delay obligation and longstop of 14 days does not start to run until that agreement is confirmed. 

katsav7

Update from AC today if I agree to the lesser refund they will process urgently… I am my wits end with the whole thing, I just want my money back & the car returned, so I am tempted to just agree to this. 

I haven’t really been using the vehicle post rejection as I feel unsafe driving it given that there are faults with the crash detection and sensors so the car is pulling me into lanes that don’t exist and automatically slamming on in the middle of traffic with nothing in front of me but cars behind me so it’s a disaster waiting to happen. 

It’s undrivable anyway as of August 15th as both keys stopped working so the engine would not turn on as it couldn’t detect either of the keys. 

I have on a multitude of occasions offered the car back to Arnold Clark, I have also given suitable times/dates where I could just turn up. I also offered it again today and head of business refused to take the car back until the agreed refund amount is finalised. 

Which ultimately means if I don’t agree to the reduced refund they won’t take the car back thus leaving me in a circle of ridiculous-ness with both Motonovo & Arnold Clark. So it seems I have no choice. 

For the record Motonovo have been no help, they have not even assigned a complaint handler yet to deal with the rejection, so are also at fault. They have just have a customer service advisor chasing for the monies back off Arnold Clark. 

After reading the agreements etc Arnold Clark are liable to pay me the deposit back. 

As it stands now they are offering a £1700 refund (I put in £2.3k). As they have taken off £600 which was taken off the vehicle price for the misrepresentation.

I think this is quite reasonable and I am inclined to accept, but I wanted to see what you all thought before I cause any problems for further legal proceedings.  

katsav7

A_Geordie said:

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. 

Letter before action has been sent to both parties today, which is why I assume AC have now chosen to come back to me. Further AC have confirmed they are obliged to pay the deposit back to me & the rest of the value back to motonovo once they receive the car back. 

For context all exact values are in the sales agreement confirming the amounts paid and from where etc. Deposit hasn’t been added to the PCP agreement it’s gone to Arnold Clark & the rest was finance from motonovo (there is then a balloon payment at the end of the agreement so legal ownership would then be transferred to me) - all of which is in the paperwork so I’m covered that side. 

Ultimately AC have been paid for the vehicle in two parts £31k from motonovo & £2.3k from me. 

Okell

How much mileage have you done in the car and how much do they want to reduce the refund by?

Okell

A_Geordie said:

Okell said:

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.

Don't get caught out by this because the CRA doesn't actually say refunds must be given without delay from acceptance of the rejection, it is once the trader agrees the consumer is entitled to a refund (ref. s.20(15)).

As AC/MN are disputing the amount of the refund based on the (wrong) asusmption of a right to deduct for use, I don't think you can say that there is an agreement just yet. so the without delay obligation and longstop of 14 days does not start to run until that agreement is confirmed. 

Fair enough.

But it seems to me that in this case the trader has already explicitly agreed that the consumer is owed a refund, it's just that the trader is unlawfully trying to get the consumer to accept a lower amount than they are entitled to by witholding any refund unless they agree to a lower amount.

That sounds like an unfair practice to me

katsav7

A_Geordie said:

Okell said:

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.

Don't get caught out by this because the CRA doesn't actually say refunds must be given without delay from acceptance of the rejection, it is once the trader agrees the consumer is entitled to a refund (ref. s.20(15)).

As AC/MN are disputing the amount of the refund based on the (wrong) asusmption of a right to deduct for use, I don't think you can say that there is an agreement just yet. so the without delay obligation and longstop of 14 days does not start to run until that agreement is confirmed. 

AC agreed I was entitled to a refund on 19th August - the same day they confirmed the rejection of the car. However, because I’ve disputed the refund amount as they tried to take off money for tax to I suppose they can then say we haven’t agreed to the amount thus until they do the 14 days doesn’t start maybe? 

For further context: the V5 was in my name but they put an incorrect address on not mine, so my name & vehicle details have been shared with whoever lives at that address. I mean I don’t think they can do much with that but it’s still a worry. It also means any tax refunded from the DVLA will not be sent back to me it will be sent to the third parties address (although they won’t be able to cash it), hence I asked Arnold Clark not to deduct it from the refund as it’s their error. 

They have now changed their stance and said they won’t be deducting mileage they will deduct £600 from the refund amount (they reduced the car value by £600 on day of collection due to incorrectly advertising the tax & incorrect spec). 

In my opinion now I think this is the best I will get the only concern I have is that I have not been put back into the same position as I was in before this agreement took place and that is my concern. Although it is only a £600 difference so am I being over the top? 

I just want them to stop delaying and ignoring me so I want to agree so I can just take the car back & get my refund as I need to get another car asap!!!! 

A_Geordie

The £600 deduction sounds a bit fishy from a legal perspective and comes across as AC trying to claw something back that they are not legally entitled to. The question is whether you are prepared to go through the legal process which can be stressful with strict deadlines, preparing court documents, attending court etc for the sake of £600. Only you can decide if that's worth doing or not. You have 3/4 of your deposit back and maybe that's enough for you to draw a line in this. 

If you do accept the settlement offer, just make it clear that the settlement is only in relation to AC's liability in this dispute and doesn't affect any claims you might have against MN. You should probably also make it clear that payment needs to be made within 14 days and you should provide the bank account details for the money to be paid into. Strictly speaking, this would be a counter offer to their offer, so it AC would need to accept this.

The return of the car is MN's problem, not AC so bear that in mind. I get the feeling you are assuming that AC is also acting as agent of MN in all of this but unless MN have explicitly stated that they have given AC to act on their behalf in settling this matter, you should treat MN's liabilities and collection of the car separate to AC. 

Grumpy_chap

katsav7 said:

They have now changed their stance and said they won’t be deducting mileage they will deduct £600 from the refund amount (they reduced the car value by £600 on day of collection due to incorrectly advertising the tax & incorrect spec). 

That is a bit confusing,

Did you pay £600 less?

Okell

Grumpy_chap said:

katsav7 said:

They have now changed their stance and said they won’t be deducting mileage they will deduct £600 from the refund amount (they reduced the car value by £600 on day of collection due to incorrectly advertising the tax & incorrect spec). 

That is a bit confusing,

Did you pay £600 less?

I was surprised by that too.  I thought it had been an example of misdescription

katsav7

Right apologies for the long message but just want you to have the full context of the situation in case I am getting anything wrong from a legal POV. 

So basically, on the day of picking up the car (first time I’d seen it as it had to be ordered in from Scotland) - it was a bit of a nightmare.

I arrived at 9:30 as they’d requested and the first three hours was spent waiting for the car to be valeted & for the sales rep to go to the post office to tax the vehicle. It was at that point we were informed that it was higher than advertised & that it’s the governments fault not theirs as they were under the impression it should only be £195 and they were only informed it was nearly £700 when arriving at the post office to tax (I’d already paid the £2125 deposit at this point). 

I was then shown the car - my partner inspected it and found a few issues (minor ones) but mainly that the spec on the website wasn’t the same spec as this car in front of us. By this point we’d been there nearly four hours I’d given them my part ex vehicle id already paid the deposit (stupidly without seeing the car first).

I attempted to pull out of the deal and they offered to give me £600 (a gesture of goodwill as such in order to go ahead with the deal) for the inconvenience of the day & so we don’t walk out with a bad review i.e: 

- the fact we’d waited there four hours longer than it should have been 
- the misrepresentation of tax 
- the misrepresentation of spec 

I accepted & signed the paperwork took the keys.  Whilst I was annoyed at the whole situation I still felt it wasn’t worth not getting the car over & at this point I was unaware of any mechanical faults. 

Fast forward a few days & I find out the v5 has been sent to somebody else’s address but in my name (an admin error on their side).

Fast forward a further few days & all of the faults start becoming apparent:

- The wireless car play didn’t work
- The volume down button was broken
- Crash detection fault 
- Two faulty keys (battery low on both from after 2 days, then both completely stopped working & could not be detected, then they would work again then not work again. Often not being able to start the car at all for days) 
- Right side sensor issue 
- Warning lights referring to owner manual 

I phoned AC who booked it in for diagnostic a week later & they confirmed all above faults stating that it needs to be sent back to manufacturer. I was shouted at from 20 feet across the room by a manager telling me it doesn’t matter that we’ve done the v5 wrong as it will probably be rejected by myself bla bla (rude). 

Had there not of been all of the first issues, I may have just accepted a repair - however by this point I’d lost complete faith in Arnold Clark & raised my short-term right to reject the vehicle due to faults. I felt intimidated by the staff & just wanted to get out of there so I submitted my rejection the next day in writing. 

So, in a nutshell my reason for rejection is faults only. The misrepresentation & the GDPR breach were annoying but it is not a factor in my rejection - I merely thought it may just strengthen my complaint with them & speed up the rejection but it hasn’t. My rejection is solely based on the faulty vehicle.  

The £600 they are deducting from my deposit is ultimately the GOGW they gave for the inconvenience of misrepresentation/delays/constant misinformation from my sales rep. Which from one side I feel is fair enough, but from a legal POV I am not in the same position as I was in prior to the deal. If I really wanted to push it I could be requesting my full part exchange allowance back as that is what the law states - but I don’t believe that is fair as they have settled finance & I don’t believe in being out for everything I can get just because the law is on my side. I literally just want the exact deposit back that I put in so I can move on & buy a road worthy working vehicle. 

I do feel they are being unlawful as one minute they are telling Motonovo the £600 deduction is for a mileage dispute (all of which is in writing by the way) then they are saying it’s a consumer rights dispute, then they are saying it was a gesture of good will now they are saying it was taken off the value of the vehicle on the day which is why they now need to deduct it from my refund. 

They have made the whole ordeal very confusing & have made unlawful attempts throughout in breach of the consumer rights act. I feel they are dragging their feet hoping I give in and settle for just the deposit rather than the full P/X value. Ultimately going silent until I accept the lower amount (common tactic from them). 

At this point in time I am leaning towards the lower refund just to stop the stress & end my relationship with them ASAP! As technically I did benefit from the £600 at some point - but that’s the least they should be doing given the last 4 weeks of sheer stress & an unsafe vehicle!!!