Consumer rights Act 2015

Jenni_D

It's just a turn of phrase … I knew what @m0bov meant 🙂

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81898817#Comment_81898817

It might be a moot point.

AIUI, the garage first repaired the rear brakes and the suspension and then subsequently replaced the clutch and master cylinder.

Even if there may have been grounds to reject the vehicle, the repairs carried out might well mean than any grounds to reject are now passed.

The finance company is only liable to the same extent as the garage and I think any finance company would contest this quite strongly.

It was a very unfortunate sequence of events at the start of ownership but, from a practical perspective, this £7k car with those repairs is possibly better now than the average £7k car.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899544#Comment_81899544

I wasn't commenting on the strength or otherwise of OP's case, just pointing out that another poster's wording was confusing as written ('unless A then B' normally signifies that B doesn't apply if A does), but based on OP's sequence of events there does seem to be a valid rejection after the merchant attempted to return the car without having fixed the reported fault, even if they subsequently claim to have done so, given that rejection rights kick in after their one chance under CRA.