Rejection of vehicle - Consumer Rights Act
lju
Posts: 207 Forumite
To cut a very long story short, I have recently purchased a used car which was not as described.
The dealer had failed to advise of the previous business use of the vehicle and also the numerous areas of damage and poor accident repair.
As a result, I wrote to the dealer and rejected the vehicle.
The vehicle has not been driven, nor taxed or insured due to the condition it is in.
I had bought it via Autotrader and trusted the dealer had been honest with the photos etc.
I had the vehicle transported from the dealer to my home address which I paid for.
The dealer is refusing to acknowledge my rights under the Consumer Rights Act.
They have stated they "may" refund the purchase price, if I pay for the vehicle to be transported back to them.
My understanding of the Consumer Rights Act is that this is their responsibility - Can someone please confirm?
The dealer had failed to advise of the previous business use of the vehicle and also the numerous areas of damage and poor accident repair.
As a result, I wrote to the dealer and rejected the vehicle.
The vehicle has not been driven, nor taxed or insured due to the condition it is in.
I had bought it via Autotrader and trusted the dealer had been honest with the photos etc.
I had the vehicle transported from the dealer to my home address which I paid for.
The dealer is refusing to acknowledge my rights under the Consumer Rights Act.
They have stated they "may" refund the purchase price, if I pay for the vehicle to be transported back to them.
My understanding of the Consumer Rights Act is that this is their responsibility - Can someone please confirm?
0
Comments
-
It's the car dealer's responsibility to pay for the return of the car. Then they are required to issue a full refund once they have the car back.0
-
Silver_Shark wrote: »It's the car dealer's responsibility to pay for the return of the car. Then they are required to issue a full refund once they have the car back.
Thank you. That was my understanding of the law.0 -
Where is the car now? If it's on the road then you must tax and insure it regardless of whether you're keeping it or not, if it's not then you need to SORN it.
Regarding the condition of the car, if you're simply going off the pictures in the advert then you may be on a sticky wicket, if, however it is not as described then that's a different matter. What "previous business use" are you talking about?
Can you post the link to the advert?0 -
Where is the car now? If it's on the road then you must tax and insure it regardless of whether you're keeping it or not, if it's not then you need to SORN it.
Regarding the condition of the car, if you're simply going off the pictures in the advert then you may be on a sticky wicket, if, however it is not as described then that's a different matter. What "previous business use" are you talking about?
Can you post the link to the advert?
The car is off road. I do not have the V5 etc.
Regarding the condition of the vehicle, the dealer had deliberately failed to show any of the damage on his photos. He had even taken a video of it to show me, again missing all of the areas of damage.
The car was previously registered to a leasing company - This was not disclosed either.
The advert is no longer online, although I have copies of it saved.0 -
If you have bought the car unseen and did not ask about whether the car had been in an accident or had accident damage, you are indeed on a sticky wicket. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not avoid the need for due diligence on the part of the purchaser. Caveat Emptor still applies to some degree.
On the other hand, if the vendor lied; you asked if there was accident damage and they said there was not when you can clearly see the repair, then you have some protection. I would tread carefully before demanding a refund. The dealer can make you incur all the costs of suing him knowing that he has a winnable case if it comes to court.The comments I post are my personal opinion. While I try to check everything is correct before posting, I can and do make mistakes, so always try to check official information sources before relying on my posts.0 -
The car is off road. I do not have the V5 etc.
Regarding the condition of the vehicle, the dealer had deliberately failed to show any of the damage on his photos. He had even taken a video of it to show me, again missing all of the areas of damage.
The car was previously registered to a leasing company - This was not disclosed either.
The advert is no longer online, although I have copies of it saved.
So many cars have been leased to companies and driven by safe, careful drivers that no court would accept the fact that the car had been leased as ground for a refund. If this was important to you, you should have looked at the vehicle and its documentation before buying.
If the dealer has not warranted that there was no damage that was not shown in the photographs why did you assume that the photos showed the true state of the car? I think you will find it difficult to convince a judge that you have acted reasonably in selecting the car.The comments I post are my personal opinion. While I try to check everything is correct before posting, I can and do make mistakes, so always try to check official information sources before relying on my posts.0 -
If you didn't have sufficient pictures to show the entire car then you shouldn't have bought it unseen and have it shipped over at your expense, this is the risk you take. The fact that is was a lease car which was not disclosed is a different matter however, although personally I wouldn't have an issue with it.The car is off road. I do not have the V5 etc.
Regarding the condition of the vehicle, the dealer had deliberately failed to show any of the damage on his photos. He had even taken a video of it to show me, again missing all of the areas of damage.
The car was previously registered to a leasing company - This was not disclosed either.
The advert is no longer online, although I have copies of it saved.0 -
There have been 3 threads recently about wanting refunds on cars. All 3 were cars bought sight unseen. Coincidence?0
-
OP you need to SORN the vehicle before a fine is issued .At present you are the owner and are required to SORN or tax the vehicle .
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-sorn0 -
If you didn't have sufficient pictures to show the entire car then you shouldn't have bought it unseen and have it shipped over at your expense, this is the risk you take. The fact that is was a lease car which was not disclosed is a different matter however, although personally I wouldn't have an issue with it.
I was provided with numerous photographs, no damage was evident.
In addition I was also provided with a number of videos, again no damage shown.
I believe these had been taken in such a way to "hide" the true state of the vehicle, as all the damage is evident to the naked eye, including rips in the upholstery, holes cut out of the interior trim, rear quarter damage etc.
My understanding is that all dealerships must inform customers if the prior registered keeper was a lease.
Again, I believe, the dealer deliberately withheld this information,as the damage to the vehicle corresponds to its previous life.
Finally, the mileage advertised was also incorrect.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards