Major fault on 2nd hand car bought from dealer refusing to provide refund after returning within 28

grandhchildren4

Bought 2nd hand car £3K from dealer in August 2025, within 28 days car broke down and AA report stated major fault with blocked DPF and poor battery health, advised dealer I wanted to return the vehicle and get a refund, under consumer rights act 2015 as within 30 days. In addition to the faults when the car was delivered it had done a further 500+ miles from when we purchased the vehicle, yet the delivery mileage was approx 50 miles, this was identified until after we had issues with the car and were checking the paperwork.

The retailer refused to provide a refund or collect the car, he said we had to return the car and allow him to repair it, we returned the vehicle to the garage and advised we wanted a refund and was not accepting the car even after repair, the garage refused to give a receipt for the keys, car and return of the paperwork, we contacted trading standards who then advised to claim the money back through chargeback. The retailers bank have rejected the chargeback as the retailer has provided an invoice showing he paid for a health check on the vehicle and there was no faults found, he also stated that the car was sold as seen and we were free to have any checks we wanted carried out prior to purchase. The retailers bank rejected the chargeback on this basis. The retailer has not provided any other evidence in relation to what the health check covered and as the major fault is a blocked DPF filter the invoice only shows no exhaust leak and tyre tread. A car garage is not allowed to claim a car is sold as seen and the garage have also failed to provide evidence that the faults were not present when the car was sold. We have appealed the banks decision and waiting the outcome.

There was one message from the retailer stating the car was in for repair and would let me know when its ready, after they had had the car for 5 weeks he sent email message saying car is ready when do you want to collect, no indication as to the repairs that had been done, and completely ignoring the fact that we had stated we would not accept the car back.

Concerned as to where the car would be kept and whether it would used by the garage once it was returned as it had been driven previously for approx 500 miles and as I could not afford to continue to pay road tax and insurance for vehicle, DVLA advised that the car be registered back to the dealer this was done in November 2025.

Late December 25 retailer sent email saying let me know when you are collecting car as its incurring storage charges, Trading standards then advised us to send letter recorded delivery to retailer giving 14 days notice of court proceedings. Letter sent to retailer 13/1/2026.

6/2/2026 received email from retailer with bill for £1,040 for storage charges for the car advising will be taking me to court if I don't pay it.

The bank have said the charge back appeal could take a further 3 months and we don't know whether we should just now go to small claims court or hold out for bank decision.

MyRealNameToo

There's nothing stopping you going to court whilst the chargeback is being considered. If you win in court you can just cancel the chargeback or if the chargeback is upheld you can discontinue the court action.

grandhchildren4

I feel like the garage is trying to force us to take the car back by sending a storage invoice and saying they will take us to court if not paid in 14 days

Aylesbury_Duck

You were the first to "go legal" by sending a letter threatening court action. 14 days notice has elapsed, so take them to court. Otherwise, what was the point of the letter?

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81873415#Comment_81873415

Well yes, that's what they're hoping. Whether they'll actually see it through is another matter. Don't worry about their legal action, proceed with yours now they've ignored your letter before action.

grandhchildren4

has anyone had similar issues and what was the outcome, there is loads about consumer rights act 2015 but no one seems to enforce this and the car garage we are dealing with says we have to take the car back as its repaired

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81878302#Comment_81878302

Courts are there to enforce.

Might be wrong on this (sure somone will comment) that retailer has one chance to repair.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81878408#Comment_81878408

The purchaser has the short term right to reject within the first 30 days (as here), so isn't under any obligation to accept a repair if preferring to exercise that right.

Okell

If you've already sent a LBA/LBC and the deadline has expired you need to issue a claim - otherwise the dealer will know you are bluffing and they'll walk all over you.

I'd have thought the basis of your claim would be:

1. the dealer unlawfully sold the car as being "sold as seen". They aren't allowed to sell like this to a consumer.
2. The car devleoped what the AA diagnosed as a "major fault" within 28 days of delivery to you and you notified the dealer that you were exercising your "short-term" right to reject within 30 days as per paras 19(3)(a), 20 and 22 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
3. The short term right to reject is non-negotiable by the dealer. If the car is faulty they have to pay you a refund, they cannot force a repair on you if you don't want a repair.
4. As you exercised the short term right to reject you are entitled to a full refund - the dealer cannot make any deuction for use
5. If you've incurred additional expense as a direct result of the dealer's actions (eg not paying a full refund when due and you being without a car) you might as well claim those too insofar as they are quantifiable

Regarding the dealers arguments:

1. the fact they had a "health check" done and no problems were revealed is irrelevant. They don't have to have known the car was faulty for you to reject it - the car just needs to be faulty. (As a note to @born_again I don't think your bank should have accepted this as a reason to reject your chargeback?)
2. the fact they are having to store the car and possibly incurring charges (or losses) themselves is entirely their own fault. they should simply have paid you a full refund when you exercised the short term right to reject

[Edit: 3. and if the dealer has incurred losses as a result of repairing a car that you are refusing to accept, that again is their fault. They should just have paid you your refund. you are under no obligation to accept a repair]

Note1: I assume you did actually reject the car within 30 days of you taking delivery of it? Did you specifiaclly tell them you were exercising the statutory short term right to reject within 30 days under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? I don't think it matters too much if you didn't, but obviously it strengthens your case if you did.

Note2: Unless the sale agreement specifically said it was your responsibility to return the car to the dealer when you rejected it, they should have collected it.

[Edit: Note3: I assume that when you originally rejected the car and the dealer offered to repair it, you didn't do anything that could be construed as accepting that offer? Instead you stuck to rejecting the car for a full refund?]

visidigi

I would also say you should have kept your RFL and insurance in place - if the car is left on the street it could get towed, if it meets and accident while in the dealer location not having insurance is not going to go well for you.

Tricky things DPF's, it could be argued, if you have done lots of short runs and it hasn't regen'd then…same with battery, lots of short runs, limited recharge - so how many miles did you do in the car in the 28 day max period before it broke down?

As other have said, follow through with your implied intent to sue.

born_again

@Okell (As a note to @born_again I don't think your bank should have accepted this as a reason to reject your chargeback?)

No idea which bank is, If it was a case I was dealing with, then it would not be something I would be commenting on 👍

If retailer rejects, then bank has no choice. It will to go to pre arbitration. (card regulations) bank gets chance to go back with evidence & then Visa/Mastercard sit in judgement on the case.

Card regulations are perceived to be fair to both sides (or retailers would not agree to accept the cards) & each has the right to their say. Just the same as a legal court.🤷‍♀️