Consumer Rights with Faulty Used Car

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

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..

Happy to be corrected but I don't see that anyone has to if they don't wish to not use the CRA but instead wish to rely on contract law  

Alderbank

smithey253 said:

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? 

It might, but that's not the point.

The Consumer Rights Act is quite specific. Under these circumstances section 23 of the Act gives you the right to require the trader to repair or replace the goods, if you so choose, but not the right to request him to do anything else.
It doesn't at this point require the trader to do anything until you require him to repair or replace.

Other laws are available and as @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head points out you are free to pursue him by other means instead. His suggestion to seek damages for the full cost of the repair is probably your best route forward. You seem to have a strong case.

smithey253

Alderbank said:

smithey253 said:

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? 

It might, but that's not the point.

The Consumer Rights Act is quite specific. Under these circumstances section 23 of the Act gives you the right to require the trader to repair or replace the goods, if you so choose, but not the right to request him to do anything else.
It doesn't at this point require the trader to do anything until you require him to repair or replace.

Other laws are available and as @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head points out you are free to pursue him by other means instead. His suggestion to seek damages for the full cost of the repair is probably your best route forward. You seem to have a strong case.

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. As I've already repaired the car I can't use that exact act to get him to pay back anything. 

How would the seeking damages route work? 

Thanks
Matt

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

smithey253 said:

Alderbank said:

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. As I've already repaired the car I can't use that exact act to get him to pay back anything. 

How would the seeking damages route work? 

Thanks
Matt

OP, in terms of your issue, the CRA does two things.

First it creates implied terms, such as satisfactory quality, secondly it gives you various rights to a remedy. 

Not using the rights to a remedy doesn't mean the implied terms are no longer there so the contract included a term (whether stated or not) that the goods would be of satisfactory quality. 

Where that isn't the case contract law stipulates you should be in the position you would have had been in had that breach not occurred. The cost of repair is damages, they stem naturally from the breach and AFAIK are foreseeable. 

The only main (relevant) difference with the CRA is, within 6 months it is taken the goods did not conform (had an issue) unless demonstrated otherwise, that is a unique situation that doesn't apply if simply claiming damages so if going through the court process you need something to show (on the balance of probability) that the issue with the alternator was likely knackered at the time you got the car. 

I don't wish to discourage you but a VAT inclusive price of £400 for the alternator plus £180 per hour labour is pretty pricy. If the dealer offered an amount around the £600 mark it might be wise to take it rather than quibble over the last 100 notes.

A letter before action in the post might achieve this without too much effort required on your part. 

sheramber

How did £480  ex VAT become £700?

Alderbank

Unlike say brakes, gearboxes and clutches there's not much even the clumsiest driver can do to accelerate the demise of an alternator (except perhaps to pull the belt really, stupidly tight).

However the OP is not entitled to a brand-new alternator, only one commensurate with the age and mileage of the car.
The car is 6 years old and has covered 44,000 miles. A court will make a deduction for wear and tear. They will say that a brand-new alternator would be betterment.

Another reason for pushing for that £600.