Consumer Rights with Faulty Used Car

smithey253

Hi all

I'm looking for some advice on dealing with a car dealer that is refusing to pay for car repairs.

I purchased a second hand VW Polo GTI from a car dealer in Colchester on the 29th of July. I paid via a Bank Transfer from my debit account and paid for the car in person at the dealership.

The issues arose on the 29th of September when I noticed the car was being incredibly noisy. I managed to book the car in for a diagnostics and that was completed on the 7th October. I contacted the dealer via phone and then email on the 7th, outlining the issues, which were a broken alternator and an oil leak. The garage gave me a quote on the phone of £330 for the alternator plus £150 labour, which I passed on to the dealer.

Straight away the dealer said the parts cost was too high and the warranty team say that the part should be £135. They also stated they pay £50 per hour for labour and that the rest will have to be covered by myself. I replied saying that all costs should be covered as I'm protected by the Consumer Rights Act and have only owned the car for a couple of months, the fault is assumed to be there on purchase and the dealer should pay for any costs. 

After some back and forth, they eventually agreed to pay for the total costs. I went to the garage to get an invoice to send to the dealer, which is when I discovered all the costs mentioned over the phone were ex-VAT and that the total cost was going to be 20% more than previously mentioned. This caused more issues with the dealer and they eventually offered to pay the £480 originally quoted and no more, which would leave me with a considerable cost left to pay.

I was adamant I wouldn't be paying for repairs and quoted the CRA which stated all costs should be paid for by the dealer, the act states it is assumed all issues were present at point of sale and the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove the car was in a satisfactory state when sold. He has then replied with a message from his 'legal' team, with two pieces of evidence to prove the car was in a satisfactory condition when sold and the issues were not pre-existing, which were an MOT certificate and a multi-point check that was completed by the auction house which sold the car to him. He finished the email by stating that this case is now closed and he will no longer be responding to my queries or replies. 

I've had to get the repairs completed to get the car back on the road and have paid for these out of my own pocket so far. The mechanic showed me that the alternator pulley bearing was completely missing the outer ring and that this has been bodged beforehand, with the belt being reinstalled over the pulley bearing, now missing its outer ring. I would like to think this is enough proof to say this component was actually faulty when sold and was not fit for purpose. 

I've attached photos of my alternator, the matching model as sold by Autodoc and a diagram showing section 2 which is my missing outer ring.

What would be your next recommended steps? He's already refused to pay for repairs and has stated he won't reply to any further communication about this issue. 

Are a MOT certificate and a check done by the auction house enough to legally prove it was satisfactory?

Thanks
Matt 

born_again

smithey253 said:

Hi all

I'm looking for some advice on dealing with a car dealer that is refusing to pay for car repairs.

I purchased a second hand VW Polo GTI from a car dealer in Colchester on the 29th of July. I paid via a Bank Transfer from my debit account and paid for the car in person at the dealership.

The issues arose on the 29th of September when I noticed the car was being incredibly noisy. I managed to book the car in for a diagnostics and that was completed on the 7th October. I contacted the dealer via phone and then email on the 7th, outlining the issues, which were a broken alternator and an oil leak. The garage gave me a quote on the phone of £330 for the alternator plus £150 labour, which I passed on to the dealer.

Straight away the dealer said the parts cost was too high and the warranty team say that the part should be £135. They also stated they pay £50 per hour for labour and that the rest will have to be covered by myself. I replied saying that all costs should be covered as I'm protected by the Consumer Rights Act and have only owned the car for a couple of months, the fault is assumed to be there on purchase and the dealer should pay for any costs. 

After some back and forth, they eventually agreed to pay for the total costs. I went to the garage to get an invoice to send to the dealer, which is when I discovered all the costs mentioned over the phone were ex-VAT and that the total cost was going to be 20% more than previously mentioned. This caused more issues with the dealer and they eventually offered to pay the £480 originally quoted and no more, which would leave me with a considerable cost left to pay.

I was adamant I wouldn't be paying for repairs and quoted the CRA which stated all costs should be paid for by the dealer, the act states it is assumed all issues were present at point of sale and the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove the car was in a satisfactory state when sold. He has then replied with a message from his 'legal' team, with two pieces of evidence to prove the car was in a satisfactory condition when sold and the issues were not pre-existing, which were an MOT certificate and a multi-point check that was completed by the auction house which sold the car to him. He finished the email by stating that this case is now closed and he will no longer be responding to my queries or replies. 

I've had to get the repairs completed to get the car back on the road and have paid for these out of my own pocket so far. The mechanic showed me that the alternator pulley bearing was completely missing the outer ring and that this has been bodged beforehand, with the belt being reinstalled over the pulley bearing, now missing its outer ring. I would like to think this is enough proof to say this component was actually faulty when sold and was not fit for purpose. 

I've attached photos of my alternator, the matching model as sold by Autodoc and a diagram showing section 2 which is my missing outer ring.

What would be your next recommended steps? He's already refused to pay for repairs and has stated he won't reply to any further communication about this issue. 

Are a MOT certificate and a check done by the auction house enough to legally prove it was satisfactory?

Thanks
Matt 

Why did you not take it back to dealer. As that is your 1st port of call to  get the issue resolved?

CRA are with the selling dealer & they do not under the CRA have to pay a 3rd party to do the work.

What age & mileage is the car?
Sadly you shot yourself in the foot here. 

sheramber

If you wanted the seller to cover the cost you should have taken the car back to them.

Alderbank

I agree with @born_again.

Your consumer rights under the CRA were either to reject the car or to request the seller to repair or replace the faulty components.

Simply saying to the seller, 'The car was faulty so I had it fixed. Here's the bill I paid' is not a right under Act. Rightly so because it would not be fair to both parties.

The seller has agreed to pay the ex-VAT bill and is quite correct to refuse to pay VAT. The VAT was only incurred because you chose to have it repaired by that garage yourself. If the seller had booked the job themselves they would have claimed back the VAT.

smithey253

Thanks for your replies. As dealer is not local to me his warranty policy was to take to local garage for diagnostics and to send over the report for the dealer to resolve. Getting car from Norwich to Colchester in a non drivable state would be a challenge. 

Initially the repair was requested, dealer had agreed to use the garage I had taken it to and was prepared to pay for costs up until they realised for was more than previously thought and then changed their mind. 

Car is 6 years old, 44k miles. 

Unfortunately I needed the car and had to get it repaired after they essentially said they won't be dealing with this issue any further. 

Thanks

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Alderbank said:

I agree with @born_again.

Your consumer rights under the CRA were either to reject the car or to request the seller to repair or replace the faulty components.

Simply saying to the seller, 'The car was faulty so I had it fixed. Here's the bill I paid' is not a right under Act. Rightly so because it would not be fair to both parties.

The seller has agreed to pay the ex-VAT bill and is quite correct to refuse to pay VAT. The VAT was only incurred because you chose to have it repaired by that garage yourself. If the seller had booked the job themselves they would have claimed back the VAT.

Worth noting that the CRA doesn't prevent the consumer from seeking damages so the cost of repairs is a valid claim AFAIK. 

The VAT isn't really OP's problem, if the car didn't conform the dealer shouldn't have sold it in such condition. 

Of course OP should argue damages due to breach of contract rather than consumer rights.

OP if you can't come to an agreement you have to send a letter before action and then file small claims. You said they offered to pay 480, how much extra was the total? 

sheramber

You have discovered the big disadvantage of buying from a dealer a long way away. 

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

I agree with @born_again.

Your consumer rights under the CRA were either to reject the car or to request the seller to repair or replace the faulty components.

Simply saying to the seller, 'The car was faulty so I had it fixed. Here's the bill I paid' is not a right under Act. Rightly so because it would not be fair to both parties.

The seller has agreed to pay the ex-VAT bill and is quite correct to refuse to pay VAT. The VAT was only incurred because you chose to have it repaired by that garage yourself. If the seller had booked the job themselves they would have claimed back the VAT.

Worth noting that the CRA doesn't prevent the consumer from seeking damages so the cost of repairs is a valid claim AFAIK. 

The VAT isn't really OP's problem, if the car didn't conform the dealer shouldn't have sold it in such condition. 

Of course OP should argue damages due to breach of contract rather than consumer rights.

OP if you can't come to an agreement you have to send a letter before action and then file small claims. You said they offered to pay 480, how much extra was the total? 

As OP did not give garage a chance to fix the issue, they would have a strong case. If it went to court t hat they were not given a chance under CRA to resolve. So OP could easily lose out & end up with the bill for taking it to court..

smithey253

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

I agree with @born_again.

Your consumer rights under the CRA were either to reject the car or to request the seller to repair or replace the faulty components.

Simply saying to the seller, 'The car was faulty so I had it fixed. Here's the bill I paid' is not a right under Act. Rightly so because it would not be fair to both parties.

The seller has agreed to pay the ex-VAT bill and is quite correct to refuse to pay VAT. The VAT was only incurred because you chose to have it repaired by that garage yourself. If the seller had booked the job themselves they would have claimed back the VAT.

Worth noting that the CRA doesn't prevent the consumer from seeking damages so the cost of repairs is a valid claim AFAIK. 

The VAT isn't really OP's problem, if the car didn't conform the dealer shouldn't have sold it in such condition. 

Of course OP should argue damages due to breach of contract rather than consumer rights.

OP if you can't come to an agreement you have to send a letter before action and then file small claims. You said they offered to pay 480, how much extra was the total? 

Thank you for your help

The total for all repairs was just under £700. 

I spoke with CAB and they recommended I go with the letter before action route or try a dispute resolution agreement service if they are willing to continue communication. 

Thanks
Matt

smithey253

born_again said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

I agree with @born_again.

Your consumer rights under the CRA were either to reject the car or to request the seller to repair or replace the faulty components.

Simply saying to the seller, 'The car was faulty so I had it fixed. Here's the bill I paid' is not a right under Act. Rightly so because it would not be fair to both parties.

The seller has agreed to pay the ex-VAT bill and is quite correct to refuse to pay VAT. The VAT was only incurred because you chose to have it repaired by that garage yourself. If the seller had booked the job themselves they would have claimed back the VAT.

Worth noting that the CRA doesn't prevent the consumer from seeking damages so the cost of repairs is a valid claim AFAIK. 

The VAT isn't really OP's problem, if the car didn't conform the dealer shouldn't have sold it in such condition. 

Of course OP should argue damages due to breach of contract rather than consumer rights.

OP if you can't come to an agreement you have to send a letter before action and then file small claims. You said they offered to pay 480, how much extra was the total? 

As OP did not give garage a chance to fix the issue, they would have a strong case. If it went to court t hat they were not given a chance under CRA to resolve. So OP could easily lose out & end up with the bill for taking it to court..

Dealer was given quotes from two garages by myself and never mentioned bringing car back to him to rectify during my communication with him. Would that not count as giving chance to fix? He was happy to pay the bill until it was more than he expected. 

TonyMMM

This is a common tactic used by the more unscrupulous car dealers - to get you to arrange a repair yourself, and pay for it, with a promise that they will reimburse later. When you try and get them to pay they will come up with all sorts of reasons why it is too much, or not what they agreed, or work that wasn't necessary etc. 

You are then left in the weaker position of having to try and claim the money back from them, which they know many purchasers will just eventually give up on. If you do proceed with a court claim, they may use a defence that you didn't give them a chance to repair the car ( which of course they would have been very happy to do !) but don't be surprised if the dealership suddenly ceases trading, only to reappear the next day under a slightly different company name.

As already mentioned - buying a car at a distance that makes it difficult to return is always going to be a risk.