Seatbelt issue after buying a car

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81976772#Comment_81976772

Well, in the OP, you said

After a few days, whilst installing her rear dash cam, we noticed that a rear seatbelt had extensive damage.

You are now only saying "mid-March".

Exact dates are important in understanding your rights, so rather than vague "a few days" or "mid-March" which can all be open to interpretation so can you give exact dates:

- when did you view the car?

- when did you collect the car / take delivery?

- when did you notice the damage to the seat belt?

- when did you report the damage to the seat belt to the dealer?

These are important as they may impact what your next steps should be, how "forceful" you can be, and also affect the possibility that the damage was done by being chewed by a dog after purchase rather than before purchase.

Out of interest, what is the cost to repair?

When you say:

It would be bad enough to fail the next MOT

Who has made that assessment? Is that your lay-person comment, or a comment by a qualified MOT tester?

MJMoore

Apologies, I misinterpreted what was said. Plus I had post-migraine brain fog yesterday.

Anyeway, after being able to check a few dates properly.. the car was paid for on 1st April, and picked up on 2nd April. The seatbelt was noticed on the 3rd, I can't recall how quickly she emailed, as we all had a lot going on, but I do know we had to contact them a further couple of times before we got the full response. The lady who she dealt with had emergency leave, then she took a while when back.

We don't have a quote for the repair yet, btw.

Grumpy_chap

I can't recall how quickly she emailed

You need to get this information. It should be possible to check the e-mail sent (or deleted) items folder to confirm the time and date of the message.

You are within the 30-day short term right to reject but not all faults are automatically a right to reject. I suspect a faulty seatbelt would not meet the criteria for rejection as the cost to remedy is probably low compared with the value of the car AND does not materially affect the ability of your daughter(*) to use the car for the purposes mainly intended - the discussion then is around who is liable to pay for the remedy.

[Obviously, you do not yet have the cost to repair and that is needed, plus I can't see that you've mentioned how much was paid for the car but, on the basis of a Corsa from a Vauxhall Main Dealer I assume not bargain basement next-to-scrap value.]

If you do exercise the right to reject the car, you need to stop using the car and return the car immediately to the Dealer, leaving the car, keys and paperwork.

If you reject the car, how will your daughter manage for transport until an alternative car is acquired?

Repair does not have to be at main dealer prices.

I note you are still avoiding answering all the questions that have been asked in the thread. Again, the questions that have been asked are important if the forum is to bring you good and complete advice. The drip feeding and withholding of information makes it start to look as though there is some element of buyers remorse.

Please go through the thread and answer every question that has been asked.

All of these will need to be considered if you are to be successful with a vehicle rejection or any other form of remedy from the dealer.

(*) ability to use the car for intended purpose can vary between individuals so I am assuming your daughter, using Mum & Dad to support her car issue and not checking the rear seats prior to purchase is likely to use the car in the main as only herself or herself plus one passenger, unlike an older purchaser with baby seats who will really have checked the rear seats and iso-points as a critical part of the purchase. That does not mean that the seatbelt being damaged is acceptable, but does change the severity of the issue.

MJMoore

I'm just trying to get some advice for my daughter, who has a lot going on at the moment. I can't get dates of emails etc, because she's busy at the moment, and I don't want to disturb her. There's no remorse, and we do not wish to reject the car. It was just my assumption that if the garage had missed something in their checks, they would help get it sorted out. Instead, they have implied that we are lying to them, and she caused the damage herself. I was just interested in what our basic rights could be, before paying out yet more money. I honestly don't know what you think I'm avoiding, but we may be at cross purposes if you believe we wish to reject the car.

Thank you everyone for the time taken in this thread, I don't have enough solid information for you all, so I'll just leave it for now, and we'll get it foxed for her.

debsy42

We bought a 2 year old car from a main dealer that had all the checks etc. Couple of weeks later I noticed one of the back seatbelts wasn't fitted correctly and had obviously left the factory in that condition. No-one had noticed (only me and hubby so we hadn't really looked in the back) the original owner or the dealer.

Phoned the dealer who apologised, took the car back and fitted a new belt at no cost to us, the car was about due for it's first MOT so would have failed. So, in my experience the dealers don't do such a thorough check as they would have us believe so think about going back to them and challenging them about it.

Okell

OK

For the purposes of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 the car was "bought" when your daughter took delivery of it on 02 April 2026, and not mid March.

Assuming the issue with the seat-belt is an issue sufficiently significant [see Note] to justify rejecting the car (either as being not of satisfactory quality or not as described) then your daughter is still within the 30 day window to exercise her legal short-term right to reject the car for a full refund. She does not have to agree to any offer by the dealer to repair or to replace the seat-belt, she is entitled to a full refund. Full stop.

But if she wants to keep the car she can give the dealer an opportunity to fix it - at no charge to her.

The dealer might be able to argue that the pre-delivery check revealed nothing and that therefore the car was OK when it was bought, but I'm not sure that that is relevant when exercising the short-term right to reject. My understanding - which may be wrong - is that any significant fault that manifests itself within 30 days allows the customer to reject for a full refund.

If your daughter wants to do that she needs to inform the dealer that she is exercising her short term right to reject for a full refund under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. She needs to stop using the car and make it available for collection by the dealer - unless the sale agreement makes her responsible for returning it to the dealer.

How did your daughter pay for the car? It matters.

[Note: There is some debate as to whether the short term right to reject can be exercised for any fault at all - no matter how minor - or whether it needs to be sufficiently significant to justify rejection. I'm neither a car expert nor a legal expert but if the seat-belt is sufficently damaged to eg fail MOT, I'd suggest that it is sufficient to reject. Others here will probably disagree with me…]

Jenni_D

Not seen it mentioned in the thread .. does she have a dog? Has a dog been in the back of the car since purchase?

(I know you mentioned it looked like it had been chewed by a dog .. that sort of damage is clearly obvious, so should have been obvious to the dealer too. If you [she] can assert that no animal has been in the car since purchase, then how does the dealer propose that the damage magically happened?)

user1977

Her rights are clear (and not disputed as far as we know), it's just the evidential question of how and when the seat belt was damaged.

GDB2222

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977081#Comment_81977081

I think that is a good solution. A local garage can fix it easily, and it should be fairly cheap compared to main dealership prices. If you’re handy you can do it yourself. I can see second hand belts on eBay for £25. If the job is cheap enough then it’s not worth trying to recoup the cost.

You can sue the dealer who sold the car for the cost of the repair, but I don’t know whether the judge will accept your statement or the dealer's. He will decide on the balance of probabilities. The chances are pretty good that the dealer will cave in if you issue proceedings because it is uneconomic to defend such a small case.

There’s an ombudsman if you prefer.

Whilst your daughter may be able to reject the car that seems to be a nuclear option considering that this is not a very expensive repair.

Grumpy_chap

[Note: There is some debate as to whether the short term right to reject can be exercised for any fault at all - no matter how minor - or whether it needs to be sufficiently significant to justify rejection. I'm neither a car expert nor a legal expert but if the seat-belt is sufficently damaged to eg fail MOT, I'd suggest that it is sufficient to reject. Others here will probably disagree with me…]

This point has arisen previously in the forums and there have been previous comments suggesting that any fault within the 30 days that results in the car being an MOT failure (or would if presented for a test) means the short-term right to reject is available.

I have never felt that is the appropriate application of the short term right to reject. Firstly, in the case of a used car, expectations have to be tempered to the age, mileage, condition, price paid.

Secondly, that MOT failure as a threshold to reject would be entirely inappropriate in the case of driving the car away, suffering a tyre blow-out after a week and then rejecting the car. There might be arguments that for the tyre to suffer a blow out so quickly means the tyre was degraded and the fault present or developing at the time of purchase so should be remedied by the dealer. I think that would be difficult to establish as the dealer would equally contest that the tyre might have been kerbed / damaged in that first week with the new owner. Anyway, even if the responsibility lay with the dealer, I really can't see any court upholding "rejection" when the remedy is so simple and straightforward, even considering that the outcome of the car with a failed tyre would (at that point in time) fail an MOT.

Commentary as to the right to reject and not every fault being a right to reject is available in the following article:

https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/rejecting-a-car/