Car Purchase

Slackbladder07

Hi Folks

this is a bit of a journey so please bare with, I bought a car on the 25th October 2025, the car broke down on the 23rd November 2025 with the EGR cooler and Headgasket failing.

I still don't have the car back, and I issued a right to refund on the 8th February 2026 officially. I'd mentioned it in previous emails prior to it but the official letter got sent on the 8th.

Here is a timeline of how things went down:
• 25 October 2025 – I purchased a 2016 Ford Galaxy from ******** Centre Ltd. The sales invoice is in my name.
• 23 November 2025 – The vehicle broke down with an engine-related fault (steam from engine / coolant issue). This occurred within 30 days of purchase. The vehicle was recovered and was not driven again.
• 6 December 2025 – I notified the supplying dealer of the breakdown and faults. I also advised them of additional issues that had been present since purchase, including problems with the heating and windscreen demisting.
• Early December 2025 – My local garage inspected the vehicle and identified an initial fault (split hose) and raised concerns about sealant on the engine block, advising that further investigation would require an engine strip-down. They advised they could not take on the work until after the New Year.
• 10 December 2025 – The dealer advised by email that my local garage “wasn’t building confidence” and that they would arrange recovery of the vehicle to their premises. From this point, all logistics and repair arrangements were under the dealer’s control.
• 17 December 2025 (approx.) – The vehicle was recovered from Scotland to the dealer / their nominated garage in Southampton.
• December 2025 – January 2026 – The vehicle remained off the road. The dealer advised that repairs were ongoing but did not provide a firm completion date. During this period I incurred significant inconvenience and costs due to lack of transport. No courtesy vehicle or assistance with alternative transport was proactively offered.
• January 2026 – The dealer advised that the EGR cooler had failed and that this had led to head gasket failure. The vehicle underwent major engine work including head gasket replacement and head skimming via a third-party garage and specialist.
• During this period, I became aware that the dealer had submitted a claim to my third-party warranty provider without my authorisation. I objected, as the fault arose within six months of purchase and I understood this to be the dealer’s responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• Late January / early February 2026 – After the vehicle had been off the road for approximately eight weeks with no confirmed completion date, I exercised my final right to reject the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 due to failure to repair within a reasonable time and significant inconvenience.
• The dealer has refused to accept my rejection, continues to insist the repair should proceed under my warranty, and has stated (incorrectly, in my understanding) that I cannot reject the vehicle once repair work has begun.

8th February: Official right for refund issued under the consumer rights act 2015 and 7 day deadline issued for notification of how reimbursement will take place

9th February: Dealership says his solicitor will be in touch.

18th February: 'Solicitor' gets in touch (Lawgistics) saying exactly all the same nonsense the dealership has been saying over the past few weeks.

I can copy and paste emails if folk want to everything. Where do I stand? am I doing everything correctly? any advice and tips appreciated.

born_again

 During this period I incurred significant inconvenience and costs due to lack of transport. No courtesy vehicle or assistance with alternative transport was proactively offered.

I don't know where people get that there is a right to a temp car. Nothing in CCR about this, even under new car warranties there is no right.

I became aware that the dealer had submitted a claim to my third-party warranty provider without my authorisation. I objected, as the fault arose within six months of purchase and I understood this to be the dealer’s responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Why object. If warranty is going to pay out, is not the point of a warranty. Just the same as buying a new car & dealer passing it onto manufacture warranty to sort.

How far away was dealer from you at purchase & what age mileage was car?

Slackbladder07

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891126#Comment_81891126

To answer your first point:

Under the Consumer Right Act 2015, the repair period isn't allowed to cause significant inconvenience and must be repaired in a reasonable amount of time. This averages 2-3 weeks. I've not had use of the car for 88 days. That's significant inconvenience and no mitigation for that.

To answer your second point about warranty:

The car broke down within 30 days of purchase. Under CRA2015 - unless the dealership can prove otherwise - the dealership has an obligation to fix the vehicle at their cost not mine. The warranty is a 3rd party warranty that I paid for, and matches the value I paid for the car. I paid 8.5k for the car, so that's the amount the warranty covers. The dealership tried to use 2k of that warranty without asking if they could even use it. The repair shouldn't be done at my cost. It should be done at theirs.

To your 3rd point:

I'm based in Scotland, car was bought in Southampton. My local regular garage looked at the car and said they could do the work, however the dealership chose to tow the car back to Southampton. I was working in London at the time so could've easily got to Southampton should any alternative transport been offered

Car is a 2016 Ford Galaxy with 110k on

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891126#Comment_81891126

 "During this period I incurred significant inconvenience and costs due to lack of transport. No courtesy vehicle or assistance with alternative transport was proactively offered.

I don't know where people get that there is a right to a temp car. Nothing in CCR about this, even under new car warranties there is no right."

Whilst there is no right to a courtesy car under the Consumer rights Act 2015, that legislation does not prevent a consumer pursuing other contractual remedies under common law.

I'd say that if you buy a car and it breaks down, then it is reasonably foreseeable to the seller that you will incur additional - and foreseeable - expense in finding a replacement method of travel, be that hiring a replacement car or using a lot of taxis etc. So that expense ought to be recoverable as a direct loss under contract law. (Assuming of course that there has been a breach of the CRA and that the vehicle "does not conform" to contract in the first place.)

And before people bang on about "mitigating your losses" that doesn't mean that you cannot spend any money at all on alternative means of travel.

For example. if you've bought a second hand Roller that doesn't conform to contract and which puts it off road, "mitigating your losses" doesn't mean that you can't incur any additional expense and it certainly doesn't mean that you have to hire the cheapest car available in its stead - you can still hire a reasonably expensive vehicle equivalent to a second hand Roller.

I think that "mitigating your losses" does mean is that if you bought a 20 year old second hand banger that didn't conform to contract and was put off road as a consequence, then you couldn't justify hiring a luxury Roller in its place. you can still hire an equivalent replcement at reasonable cost.

Aylesbury_Duck

As I see it:

1. it broke down on day 29 of your ownership
2. why did it take you another 13 days to notify the seller of the breakdown? Are they accepting that it failed within 30 days, but working on the assumption that you only told them on day 42?
3. the additional issues may be acceptable given the age and mileage, but the important thing is whether the advert was accurate and whether the problems were apparent when you inspected the car or test-drove it.
4. the seller seems to have acted reasonably to recover the car, and did so in pretty prompt order.
5. did you ask for anything by way of alternative transport or assistance? Your choice of words - "not proactively offered" - suggests you didn't. While you may have grounds to claim something, it's unreasonable to expect them to automatically offer a courtesy solution on a 10 year old car.
6. how did you become aware that they were using your warranty, and how did they manage to access it, if you bought it personally and separately?

Normally, the 30-day clock stops once you notify the seller of the fault and you would be entitled to reject the car even if repair work has started. However, see my point 2. Has the short-term right to reject gone because you didn't notify them until 42 days after purchase? I think this might be the crux of your problem - that you've lost the short-term right to reject because you didn't notify them within 30 days. If that's the case, then I believe you would await the result of the repair and if it wasn't successful, then you could reject the car. (Not withstanding the bit about the warranty being used, but that's a separate argument/complaint in my opinion).

Or have I misunderstood, and you notified them on day 29 or day 30?

Okell

@Slackbladder07

Ok. the vehicle failed within 6 months of purchase so the burden of proof is on the dealer to establish that the vehicle "conformed to contract" on the day of purchase

I suspect the problem you will have is in answering the question "what is reasonable to expect of a 9 year old vehicle with 110k on the clock?"

The garage/dealer will argue that if they described the vehicle in a factually correct manner then it was up to you as a prospective buyer to carry out due diligence etc in deciding to spend £8500 on a 9 year old car with 110K on the clock.

Did you for example check the service history and that all recommended replacements and service checks had been carried out?

Having said that, I'm inclined to agree with you that 3 months or 88 days is a wholly unreasonable time to be without the vehicle waiting for repair, and that it will have caused you significant inconvenience. (See my previous post about this)

I aslo think a price of £8500 is relevant in deciding whether the vehicle was of "satisfactory quality". Seems like a lot of money to pay for a 9 year old 100+k vehicle.

If you told the dealer you were exercising your rights to a repair or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but they decided to repair under warranty, tell them that that decision was on them as you told them you were exercising your statutory consumer rights - not warranty rights.

Tell them you want a refund under s23(2)(a) of the CRA.

I don't believe that Lawgistics are solicitors and it might be misleading for the dealer to describe them as such.

I'd advise you to post over on the Legal Beagles forum as well as here: Vehicle Finance and Issues - LegalBeagles Forum

Slackbladder07

I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge

it broke down on day 29 of your ownershipwhy did it take you another 13 days to notify the seller of the breakdown? Are they accepting that it failed within 30 days, or are they working on the assumption that you only told them on day 42?

I broke down on the 23rd November in Oxford, and took 3 days to tow it back to Scotland by Green Flag, of which they dropped it at my local garage I use regularly. I had to go back to London for work so hired a vehicle to do this, and once I had a diagnosis closer to when I was returning to Scotland on the 6th December, I then contacted the dealership to inform them of what's happened and explained I didn't do it sooner because I wasn't in a position to deal with it. But had left in the hands of professionals to get a diagnosis. My understanding is that under the CRA it dictates when the fault occurred, not when it's reported, and I have a reasonable reason as to why it took some time to notify the dealership. Could I have notified them sooner? possibly, but I'd have felt the pressure of being away and not being able to deal with it. So I managed it in the way that was appropriate to the situation I was in.

the additional issues may be acceptable given the age and mileage, but the important thing is whether the advert was accurate and whether the problems were apparent when you inspected the car or test-drove it.

There were no issues apparent when the car I test drove the car, nor did the headgasket issue show itself.

the seller seems to have acted reasonably to recover the car, and did so in pretty prompt order.

I had my garage look at it on behalf of the dealership., and kept reporting back their findings. The dealership decided on the 10th December they were going to get the car towed back to Southampton, which took them another week

did you ask for anything by way of alternative transport or assistance? Your choice of words - "not proactively offered" - suggests you didn't.

Whilst I didn't specifically request for a hire vehicle, I did repeatedly inform the dealership how much the hire vehicles were costing me, and how I was working in London so a vehicle was a necessity for me. In one of his final emails to me, he indicated he could've given me a courtesy car, however he assumed I wouldn't travel to get it.

how did you become aware that they were using your warranty, and how did they manage to access it, if you bought it personally and separately?

My 3rd party warranty notified they'd approved the 2thousand for the works to be done on the car without any notification from the dealership

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891317#Comment_81891317

I think the OP missed the opportunity to exercise their short term right to reject. (Vehicle bought 25 October; dealer notified of faults 06 December)

The issue is that the dealer is taking an unreasonable amount of time to resolve the issue and is causing the OP significant inconvenience.

If the OP complained to the dealer under the CRA but the dealer chose instead to deal with it as a warranty issue, isn't that the dealer's problem - unless the OP explicitly agreed to a warranty repair?

Aylesbury_Duck

While the delay in reporting is understandable, I think you have lost the short term right to reject. My understanding differs from yours in that I think it is when it's reported that counts, not when the fault occurred. I think the clock stops upon reporting, not once the fault appears.

I do agree with @Okell that they've taken an unreasonable length of time, etc.

What I don't think you have is grounds to reject just yet. As I see it, they have their chance to repair and if that repair fails then you may reject the car.

What I do think you have a right to is some sort of compensation for the costs arising from the lengthy repair time, and to insist the repairs are carried out at their cost and not through your warranty.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891350#Comment_81891350

Reasonable time to repair might depend on what the root cause of the failure is and the time it would take any average garage to source the required parts to fix.

Slackbladder07

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891465#Comment_81891465

the frustrating thing is, when it initially went in, I reported there was a heating issue as well. The initial problem was the EGR cooler failed. When they actually started replacing the EGR cooler (3rd week of January) I pointed out to them as per my first email on the 6th December there was a heating issue, they finally acknowledged I asked about it and said they would check. Once checked they then determined the headgasket was failing as well. This was after I'd already informed them there was an issue