Arnold Clark breaching my consumer rights

katsav7

A_Geordie said:

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. 

This is really helpful thank you. Ideally I don’t want to go to small claims court. 

Motonovo have consistently been pushing the blame onto Arnold Clark advising it’s their responsibility to get the vehicle returned as they are the ones that owe them £31k… my head is blown. So many contradictories from both AC & Motonovo!

Okell

@katsav7 -  sorry but I'm really confused about this deduction of £600 that AC want to make from the refund...

Let's for the sake of argument say the deposit you were meant  to pay to AC was £3000

But because of the mistake over VED, AC offered you £600 as a GOGW so you only paid £2400

So the refund you are entitled to in respect of the deposit is what you paid which was £2400

Are you saying:

(1) that AC want to deduct an additional £600 to make the refund £1800; or 

(2) that AC are happy to refund the net amount you actually paid - viz £2400?

sheramber

Okell said:

@katsav7 -  sorry but I'm really confused about this deduction of £600 that AC want to make from the refund...

Let's for the sake of argument say the deposit you were meant  to pay to AC was £3000

But because of the mistake over VED, AC offered you £600 as a GOGW so you only paid £2400

So the refund you are entitled to in respect of the deposit is what you paid which was £2400

Are you saying:

(1) that AC want to deduct an additional £600 to make the refund £1800; or 

(2) that AC are happy to refund the net amount you actually paid - viz £2400?

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.

What the OP hasn't explained is how the £600 was given

Did they deduct it from the price of the car and therefore the balance from the finance company company?

OR

Did they give him  a payment of  £600 ?

Grumpy_chap

sheramber said:

Okell said:

@katsav7 -  sorry but I'm really confused about this deduction of £600 that AC want to make from the refund...

Let's for the sake of argument say the deposit you were meant  to pay to AC was £3000

But because of the mistake over VED, AC offered you £600 as a GOGW so you only paid £2400

So the refund you are entitled to in respect of the deposit is what you paid which was £2400

Are you saying:

(1) that AC want to deduct an additional £600 to make the refund £1800; or 

(2) that AC are happy to refund the net amount you actually paid - viz £2400?

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.

What the OP hasn't explained is how the £600 was given

Did they deduct it from the price of the car and therefore the balance from the finance company company?

OR

Did they give him  a payment of  £600 ?

The £600, what it was for and how it was paid remains unclear.

However, is it to do with the VED and not the "mis-representation" of the missing features on the car compared with the advert?

katsav7 said:

• 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).

Did the OP only actually pay £195 for the VED and AC made up the gap between the £195 they had advised and the actual VED rate, hence covering the premium vehicle surcharge?
Although, it is £195 + £425 = £620 total for the VED.
Did AC pay the full VED for the car as the OP collected it?
If the £600 was the amount AC paid for the VED, then the balance of months will be refunded to the OP when the V5 is transferred out of the OP's name and back into trade.
This would make sense that AC don't refund that directly if that will be refunded by DVLA.

I think there may be some typo errors or rounding of figures, which also does not aid best clarity.

sheramber

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

 
But how they gave remains  a mystery. 

OP had already paid the full deposit.

 He says on one post  ‘they reduced the price’. 

 But also says they gave him £600. 

Okell

It's as clear as mud.

I don't understand why so many people seem incapable of explaining things clearly and concisely...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Just to note on this thread, consumer has to make rejected goods available for collection if there is an agreement for the trader to collect otherwise consumer has the duty to return:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/20

(7)From the time when the right is exercised—

(a)the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and

(b)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.