Was I right to reject my car under the Consumer Rights Act, or should I just take it back

NotAnExpertHelp

Hi all — I’d really appreciate some perspective on whether I’ve understood my rights correctly.

I’m not a legal expert – I’ve tried to understand the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as best I can with the help of chatgpt, so please correct me if I’ve misunderstood anything.

 

Background

I bought a 2018 used car in September (around 38k miles, £8,400) using a credit card.
We bought it at the time mainly because my wife was starting a new job in a couple of weeks that required regular travel to hospitals and community sites, so we needed a reliable vehicle.

On 9 October (Day 28) the car overheated and became undriveable. The trader told me not to drive further and agreed to collect it for repair (we were under warranty), but the earliest date they could manage was 20 October.

 

From what I’ve read, that agreement to repair paused my 30-day right-to-reject clock under Section 22(6), leaving three days remaining once the repair process ended.

 

After collection, I chased for updates and was told on 22 October that they couldn’t guarantee even inspecting it before 7 November – a 29-day delay from fault to inspection – and that they had no courtesy car available.

 

My reaction

At that point it felt unreasonable: nearly a month without a vehicle that was needed for work.
I therefore withdrew consent for repair and rejected the car under Section 22(8)(a) CRA 2015 (consumer withdrawal) and Section 23(2) (repair must be within reasonable time and without significant inconvenience).

Despite this, the trader went ahead and inspected the car anyway after my rejection. On 29 October they reported that the issue was just a loose radiator cap causing coolant to “gradually decrease,” which they tightened and refilled.

I never knew the problem was minor at the time I rejected – overheating could just as easily have meant head-gasket or engine damage. The trader’s explanation was also very vague; they didn’t say whether the cap had been loose since sale or how long the “gradual” leak had been happening, which to me avoids admitting any fault on their part.

 

Section 75 claim

I made a Section 75 claim with my card provider arguing that my rejection was valid.
They refused, saying:

• The dealer completed “collection, inspection and repair within 20 days,” which they considered reasonable.
• They viewed the issue as minor.
• They relied entirely on the fact that the car was fixed, rather than on the delay I was told to expect.

However, their decision never mentioned Section 22(8)(a) at all.
They only considered 22(8)(b) (“when repaired goods are supplied”), ignoring the fact that subsection (a) allows withdrawal before that, if the repair would not be done within a reasonable time or would cause significant inconvenience.

I’ve now raised a formal complaint on that basis.

 

My understanding

From what I can gather:

• Section 22(8) ends the waiting period in two ways:
  (a) when the consumer withdraws consent for repair, or
  (b) when the trader supplies repaired goods.
• I relied on (a) because the proposed 29-day delay (with no courtesy car) seemed clearly unreasonable under Section 23(2).
• The card provider judged with hindsight – counting only to the actual fix (20 days) and calling it minor – rather than assessing whether it was reasonable based on the information and timeline I was given on 22 October.

 

Why I’m conflicted

In the end, the trader did repair it and says it’s fine now. But the whole point of Section 22(8)(a) is surely to protect consumers from having to tolerate excessive delays or inconvenience.
If I’d rejected the car immediately on Day 28 without giving them any chance to repair, there would be no dispute over my right to reject. Yet because I initially cooperated and then withdrew consent when the delay became unreasonable, I’m being told my rejection doesn’t count.

The Section 75 rejection has also left me doubting whether I’ve misunderstood the law and should just accept the car back.

 

What I’d like advice on

1. Does Section 22(8)(a) let you withdraw consent based on a proposed delay (29 days, no courtesy car), or do you have to wait for that delay to actually happen?
2. Was the bank wrong to ignore 22(8)(a) and only consider 22(8)(b)?
3. Would a 29-day wait for inspection – with no courtesy car and the car needed for work – normally count as “significant inconvenience”?
4. Should the fact that it later turned out to be “just a radiator cap” matter, when neither I nor the trader knew that at the time?
5. Does the trader’s vague wording (“gradual loss”) weaken their claim that the fault arose only after sale?
6. Realistically, is this worth taking to the Financial Ombudsman, or am I better off accepting the car back now that it’s repaired?

 

Current situation

• The car is still with the dealer; I’ve maintained rejection pending the bank’s complaint response.
• I’m still paying insurance and tax on a vehicle I can’t use.
• If the bank upholds its rejection, I’ll escalate to the Ombudsman.

 

Thanks for reading this far — I know it’s long, but I wanted to give the full context.
Any insight on whether my interpretation of the law is sound, or if I’m fighting a losing battle, would really help.

 

MattMattMattUK

NotAnExpertHelp said:

Hi all — I’d really appreciate some perspective on whether I’ve understood my rights correctly.

I’m not a legal expert – I’ve tried to understand the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as best I can with the help of chatgpt, so please correct me if I’ve misunderstood anything.

 

Background

I bought a 2018 used car in September (around 38k miles, £8,400) using a credit card.
We bought it at the time mainly because my wife was starting a new job in a couple of weeks that required regular travel to hospitals and community sites, so we needed a reliable vehicle.

On 9 October (Day 28) the car overheated and became undriveable. The trader told me not to drive further and agreed to collect it for repair (we were under warranty), but the earliest date they could manage was 20 October.

 

From what I’ve read, that agreement to repair paused my 30-day right-to-reject clock under Section 22(6), leaving three days remaining once the repair process ended.

 

After collection, I chased for updates and was told on 22 October that they couldn’t guarantee even inspecting it before 7 November – a 29-day delay from fault to inspection – and that they had no courtesy car available.

 

My reaction

At that point it felt unreasonable: nearly a month without a vehicle that was needed for work.
I therefore withdrew consent for repair and rejected the car under Section 22(8)(a) CRA 2015 (consumer withdrawal) and Section 23(2) (repair must be within reasonable time and without significant inconvenience).

Despite this, the trader went ahead and inspected the car anyway after my rejection. On 29 October they reported that the issue was just a loose radiator cap causing coolant to “gradually decrease,” which they tightened and refilled.

I never knew the problem was minor at the time I rejected – overheating could just as easily have meant head-gasket or engine damage. The trader’s explanation was also very vague; they didn’t say whether the cap had been loose since sale or how long the “gradual” leak had been happening, which to me avoids admitting any fault on their part.

 

Section 75 claim

I made a Section 75 claim with my card provider arguing that my rejection was valid.
They refused, saying:

• The dealer completed “collection, inspection and repair within 20 days,” which they considered reasonable.
• They viewed the issue as minor.
• They relied entirely on the fact that the car was fixed, rather than on the delay I was told to expect.

However, their decision never mentioned Section 22(8)(a) at all.
They only considered 22(8)(b) (“when repaired goods are supplied”), ignoring the fact that subsection (a) allows withdrawal before that, if the repair would not be done within a reasonable time or would cause significant inconvenience.

I’ve now raised a formal complaint on that basis.

 

My understanding

From what I can gather:

• Section 22(8) ends the waiting period in two ways:
  (a) when the consumer withdraws consent for repair, or
  (b) when the trader supplies repaired goods.
• I relied on (a) because the proposed 29-day delay (with no courtesy car) seemed clearly unreasonable under Section 23(2).
• The card provider judged with hindsight – counting only to the actual fix (20 days) and calling it minor – rather than assessing whether it was reasonable based on the information and timeline I was given on 22 October.

 

Why I’m conflicted

In the end, the trader did repair it and says it’s fine now. But the whole point of Section 22(8)(a) is surely to protect consumers from having to tolerate excessive delays or inconvenience.
If I’d rejected the car immediately on Day 28 without giving them any chance to repair, there would be no dispute over my right to reject. Yet because I initially cooperated and then withdrew consent when the delay became unreasonable, I’m being told my rejection doesn’t count.

The Section 75 rejection has also left me doubting whether I’ve misunderstood the law and should just accept the car back.

 

What I’d like advice on

1. Does Section 22(8)(a) let you withdraw consent based on a proposed delay (29 days, no courtesy car), or do you have to wait for that delay to actually happen?
2. Was the bank wrong to ignore 22(8)(a) and only consider 22(8)(b)?
3. Would a 29-day wait for inspection – with no courtesy car and the car needed for work – normally count as “significant inconvenience”?
4. Should the fact that it later turned out to be “just a radiator cap” matter, when neither I nor the trader knew that at the time?
5. Does the trader’s vague wording (“gradual loss”) weaken their claim that the fault arose only after sale?
6. Realistically, is this worth taking to the Financial Ombudsman, or am I better off accepting the car back now that it’s repaired?

 

Current situation

• The car is still with the dealer; I’ve maintained rejection pending the bank’s complaint response.
• I’m still paying insurance and tax on a vehicle I can’t use.
• If the bank upholds its rejection, I’ll escalate to the Ombudsman.

 

Thanks for reading this far — I know it’s long, but I wanted to give the full context.
Any insight on whether my interpretation of the law is sound, or if I’m fighting a losing battle, would really help.

I would think that you are not going to win this one, you seem to have reacted unreasonably. My opinions on your specific question are below, Lunatic will be able to give you details as per the law. 
1 - Not as far as I understand it.
2 - I believe not.
3 - No
4 - Potentially yes, most normal drivers would check this kind of thing themselves.
5 - No, especially as it demonstrates that it might not even be a fault in the typical sense.
6 - I do no think so. 

Ultimately you need a car, you own a fully functional car, it had what most people would regard as a minor issue, not even a fault (loose cap) in the normal sense and you now appear to be digging your heels in for no actual gain (and potentially detriment). 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP it's unclear if you actually exercised the short term right to reject or just accepted a repair.

If you exercised the short term right to reject the burden of proof is upon yourself so I don't think that gives you much to push for further clarity of the issue itself.

If you was merely opting for repair/replace then burden of proof is upon the trader unless demonstrated otherwise, their say so doesn't cut it IMHO and I would expect some kind of documented proof (on the balance of probability). 

I would say 29 days without a car is unreasonable, it's unclear (maybe my fault for missing it) how long the trader actually took to let you know it was (apparently) the radiator cap.

Section 22 doesn't clarify but I would expect the same (reasonable time and without significant inconvenience) to apply, otherwise the trader could hold the goods indefinitely for repair which would be absurd. 

Can you clarify how long it was before they told you it was the radiator cap and whether or not you specifically told them you was "rejecting" the car (or used any other such language to indicate such) please? 

Baldytyke88

NotAnExpertHelp said:

Current situation

• The car is still with the dealer; I’ve maintained rejection pending the bank’s complaint response.
• I’m still paying insurance and tax on a vehicle I can’t use.
• If the bank upholds its rejection, I’ll escalate to the Ombudsman.

 

You are still paying tax and insurance from 2018, on a car you rejected; you need to think about that.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Baldytyke88 said:

NotAnExpertHelp said:

Current situation

• The car is still with the dealer; I’ve maintained rejection pending the bank’s complaint response.
• I’m still paying insurance and tax on a vehicle I can’t use.
• If the bank upholds its rejection, I’ll escalate to the Ombudsman.

 

You are still paying tax and insurance from 2018, on a car you rejected; you need to think about that.

OP purchased a 2018 plated car in Sep this year

Grumpy_chap

The short term right to reject has to be considered in the light of reasonable for the age and condition of the car.
Not every fault is ground to reject the car. 
The fault has to be significant.
If the fault here was simply nothing more than a slightly loose radiator cap, then that is unlikely to be held as a significant fault and the rejection would not be accepted.  Even a replacement cap required would probably not be a significant fault, IMO.

The issue here is the amount of time it took to identify how simple the fault was and, potentially, some goodwill gesture is appropriate in that regard but I do not understand that the law requires that.

NotAnExpertHelp

Thanks for the responses — really helpful to get different perspectives.

It's really hard to judge how much information/detail to give in the initial post. 

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head — I really do appreciate you looking at this. Does this answer your questions:

On 9 Oct (Day 28) I initially agreed to repair when the trader said they'd collect the car. This was before I knew about the delays.

On 22 Oct (Day 13 after fault), when told inspection couldn't be guaranteed before 7 Nov (29 days total), I withdrew consent for repair and exercised my short-term right to reject in the same email.

My email on 22 Oct to trader stated:

• "I am writing to withdraw my consent to repair and formally reject the vehicle"
• "A minimum four-week delay before even beginning an investigation, coupled with the lack of a courtesy car, is neither 'as soon as possible' nor reasonable"
• "I am therefore withdrawing my consent to repair and am exercising my right to reject the vehicle"
• "Short-term right to reject (Sections 19–22, Consumer Rights Act 2015): The fault arose within 28 days of purchase... The 30-day rejection period was paused while awaiting repair, and I now exercise this right"

So yes, I specifically used the words "reject" and "withdrawal of consent" and cited the sections of CRA 2015, though I didn't cite the specific subsection 22(8)(a) in that email.

Timeline:

• 20 Oct: Trader collected vehicle
• 21 Oct: I chased for updates (Email 3)
• 21 Oct: Trader said they'd diagnose "as soon as possible" but gave no specific date (Email 4)
• 21 Oct: I chased again asking for timescales (Email 5 & 6)
• 22 Oct (09:01 AM): Trader called saying they couldn't guarantee inspection before 7 Nov
• 22 Oct (11:18 AM): I withdrew consent and rejected (2 hours later, same day)
• 29 Oct: Trader inspected anyway (7 days after my rejection, without my consent) and told me it was radiator cap which allowed the gradual loss of coolant

So they completed inspection/repair 7 days after I rejected — but I had already exercised my right to reject before they did this work.

I raised my Section 75 claim on 22 October after the trader refused to accept my rejection.

I’m thinking maybe my understanding of my rights was not as black and white as I thought (or even correct), and I kind of feel that the only solution may be just accepting the car back. But if I do, should I request any additional assurances/warranty. Would appreciate any guidance on this.

sheramber

From what the OP has said 

car failed 9 October

garage could not collect until 20 October

OP rejected 22Ocfober  when garage advised they could not guarantee they could look at it until 7 November

Garage reported on 29 October that the problem was loose radiator cap and car was fine now. 

Car is still in garage. 

NotAnExpertHelp

@[Username] — thanks for raising the point about fault significance. I completely agree that not every fault justifies rejection, and reasonable view should be based on the car’s age and condition.

Please don’t take this as me being defensive — I’m genuinely trying to understand whether I was right or wrong to go down this path. I’m not a legal expert, and I’ve used AI tools to help me interpret the Consumer Rights Act, so I may well have misunderstood something.

Did i reject too soon under the Consumer Rights Act and should I have waited the 29 days for diagnosis before I rejected?

My understanding is that Section 22(8)(a) exists precisely so consumers aren’t trapped by unreasonable delays. You can withdraw consent based on the proposed timeline, not just the actual outcome. Otherwise, traders could propose indefinite delays and consumers would have no recourse.

On the fault itself: the car overheated, showed warning lights, (evidenced to the trader via photograph) and the trader told me “do not drive”. Even if it later turned out to be a loose radiator cap, at the time of rejection it was a serious fault rendering the car undriveable.

Am I misunderstanding how Section 22(8)(a) is meant to work?

To be open and honest, we are likely to contact the trader and see what kind of assurances they can give around no further damage caused by overheating and additional warranty. The strength of this discussion however is likely to be based on whether I was on a sound legal footing to start with, which is why I'm asking here.

born_again

NotAnExpertHelp said:

On the fault itself: the car overheated, showed warning lights, (evidenced to the trader via photograph) and the trader told me “do not drive”. Even if it later turned out to be a loose radiator cap, at the time of rejection it was a serious fault rendering the car undriveable.

Trader told you to stop driving so no further damage was done (could wreck cylinder head), which would leave you stranded.
As it turns out it was a simple issue, & not a major fault.

Remember this is a 7 year old car. So that tempers the issues.

You have not mentioned what type of dealer this is? 
Main dealer with service facilities or just a independent sales forecourt?

Sadly waiting a month for a dealer to look at a car is becoming the norm now. Even main dealers are often wanting more than a month just to book a service in.

The fact CC threw the claim out shows this is not a major issue 👍

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

NotAnExpertHelp said:

Thanks for the responses — really helpful to get different perspectives.

It's really hard to judge how much information/detail to give in the initial post. 

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head — I really do appreciate you looking at this. Does this answer your questions:

On 9 Oct (Day 28) I initially agreed to repair when the trader said they'd collect the car. This was before I knew about the delays.

On 22 Oct (Day 13 after fault), when told inspection couldn't be guaranteed before 7 Nov (29 days total), I withdrew consent for repair and exercised my short-term right to reject in the same email.

My email on 22 Oct to trader stated:

• "I am writing to withdraw my consent to repair and formally reject the vehicle"
• "A minimum four-week delay before even beginning an investigation, coupled with the lack of a courtesy car, is neither 'as soon as possible' nor reasonable"
• "I am therefore withdrawing my consent to repair and am exercising my right to reject the vehicle"
• "Short-term right to reject (Sections 19–22, Consumer Rights Act 2015): The fault arose within 28 days of purchase... The 30-day rejection period was paused while awaiting repair, and I now exercise this right"

So yes, I specifically used the words "reject" and "withdrawal of consent" and cited the sections of CRA 2015, though I didn't cite the specific subsection 22(8)(a) in that email.

Timeline:

• 20 Oct: Trader collected vehicle
• 21 Oct: I chased for updates (Email 3)
• 21 Oct: Trader said they'd diagnose "as soon as possible" but gave no specific date (Email 4)
• 21 Oct: I chased again asking for timescales (Email 5 & 6)
• 22 Oct (09:01 AM): Trader called saying they couldn't guarantee inspection before 7 Nov
• 22 Oct (11:18 AM): I withdrew consent and rejected (2 hours later, same day)
• 29 Oct: Trader inspected anyway (7 days after my rejection, without my consent) and told me it was radiator cap which allowed the gradual loss of coolant

So they completed inspection/repair 7 days after I rejected — but I had already exercised my right to reject before they did this work.

I raised my Section 75 claim on 22 October after the trader refused to accept my rejection.

I’m thinking maybe my understanding of my rights was not as black and white as I thought (or even correct), and I kind of feel that the only solution may be just accepting the car back. But if I do, should I request any additional assurances/warranty. Would appreciate any guidance on this.

Thanks OP.

I think you didn't exercise the short term right to reject but instead requested/accepted a repair and then exercised the final right to reject when the repair wasn't carried out within a reasonable time.

Their collection time is included so it took them 20 days to inspect and you rejected after 13 days. 

Reasonable time isn't defined, I'd be stuffed without a car for 2-3 weeks. If they had said they need to rebuild the engine or something then obviously that takes time, in the absence of anything overly complex I think you would be entitled to reject based on reasonable time.

What is what questionable is whether you had the right to reject because the goods did not conform, if I were you my argument to the bank would be you require proof the matter was simply a loose cap and not something else that was instead fixed without your knowledge. 

I don't think you can reject for the cap being loose, if it were something else then maybe so. Ultimately the bank should be providing you with proof the car conformed to the contract. 

If it were 6 months+ down the line they would ask you to get the car inspected, don't see why you can't insist upon such at this stage. Of course you may bear the cost should they do so and it was indeed the cap but the flip side is will the bank bother? 

They are probably just taking the car dealer at their word at this stage. 

Of course it is very possible it was indeed the cap, just makes you wonder if you mentioning rejecting meant they made up a non-issue whilst fixing the real issue. 

Very difficult one, the pragmatic advice on my side would be to take the car back and should anything else go wrong, especially related to overheating, reject it immediately. 

The bank haven't said it wasn't a fault but rather it was minor so if something else does go wrong, you've been through one repair so can reject without another, bank will less ground to argue, or of course everything will be fine and you'll have trouble free motoring