Vehicle Rejection

Grumpy_chap

I can see how "there's no carve out for used cars" could be interpreted differently:

1. There is no "carve-out" (exclusion) of used cars from the 6 month right to reject and obligation on the Retailer to demonstrate if a fault was not present or developing at the point of purchase.
2. There is a "carve-out" that permits a deduction in the amount of refund in the case of used cars, whereas, without the "carve-out" the refund would have to be full price paid.

TimeLord1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81871938#Comment_81871938

If they had an active finance agreement you can inform them/write that you have a CRA case, and they can interact with the dealership. But as it's paid off, they won't help or via the method of payment, a credit card.

PTP123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872573#Comment_81872573

But you suggested suspending the payments

mlhm

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872193#Comment_81872193

Thanks for the reply - after chasing them yesterday I was advised they will be in touch today.

If not I'll be following through on the rejection first thing Monday. I'll start at 13p / mile as you suggest - theres around 10k miles been put on the car since purchased so wherever the deduction ends up will be significant.

mlhm

With regard to S75 continuing after repaid, I looked into this last night and it would appear it does. Appreciate the info as gives another option to pursue alongside small claims (or before) if necessary.

TimeLord1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872826#Comment_81872826

No, the finance company can suspend to get the dealership to resolve the CRA case. But you still pay up, or the credit score gets affected if they stop paying. I think they've done a decent enough job in following the guidelines. It's just a pain for the OP for it to drag on.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872321#Comment_81872321

Fair point - the full wording was "It's within the Consumer Rights Act, so applies to any purchase covered by that, and there's no carve-out for used cars (or used goods in general) that I'm aware of?", and the second bit was simply intended to amplify the first, so should perhaps have used 'exemption' rather than 'carve-out', or maybe I should have emphasised 'used' with italics or bolding, as the point was really that used condition doesn't change anything.