Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • lju
    • By lju 10th Sep 19, 6:47 AM
    • 150Posts
    • 34Thanks
    lju
    Rejection of vehicle - Consumer Rights Act
    • #1
    • 10th Sep 19, 6:47 AM
    Rejection of vehicle - Consumer Rights Act 10th Sep 19 at 6:47 AM
    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?
Page 2
    • smnb08
    • By smnb08 10th Sep 19, 8:42 PM
    • 487 Posts
    • 150 Thanks
    smnb08
    Op, you have my complete sympathy....I’m going through the same as you at the moment.

    Like you, I trusted that buying a car advertised on auto trader by a car dealer was safe....how wrong was I!

    Similar thing to you, damage to vehicle (scrapes, scratches and dents) none of that was shown in the pics.

    Mine was also delivered to me, although I was initially disappointed with the overall condition I wasn’t too worried as thought I could improve with a little tlc however on the car being checked over we discovered it had been delivered to me with a blown head gasket.

    Not having much luck getting the salesman to commit to getting anything sorted, have got a fully qualified mechanic coming tomorrow to confirm that’s the problem and give me a cost to put right...then I shall contact the seller again and see where we go from here.

    It’s so upsetting and frustrating.....and I personally think, despite what people on you’re thread and mine say, we may have been a little too trusting of these sellers BUT what they’ve done isn’t right or fair.

    Good luck trying to get you’re money back!
    sealed pot challenge member #920
    • mattyprice4004
    • By mattyprice4004 10th Sep 19, 10:25 PM
    • 4,211 Posts
    • 3,875 Thanks
    mattyprice4004
    While I agree with your other issues, I donít believe the dealer is obliged to tell you if it was an ex lease car.
    A huge proportion of used cars on the market have at some stage been leased.
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 7:23 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    While I agree with your other issues, I donít believe the dealer is obliged to tell you if it was an ex lease car.
    A huge proportion of used cars on the market have at some stage been leased.
    Originally posted by mattyprice4004
    Do dealers have to reveal that cars are ex-rentals?

    Yes. Under the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, dealers are obliged to tell you if a car they're selling is an ex-rental. Failure to do so could result in them answering to Trading Standards and facing a hefty fine.

    https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/should-you-buy-an-ex-rental-car/
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 11th Sep 19, 7:43 AM
    • 13,533 Posts
    • 10,113 Thanks
    neilmcl
    Do dealers have to reveal that cars are ex-rentals?

    Yes. Under the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, dealers are obliged to tell you if a car they're selling is an ex-rental. Failure to do so could result in them answering to Trading Standards and facing a hefty fine.

    https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/should-you-buy-an-ex-rental-car/
    Originally posted by lju
    But it's not covered by the CRA so you may well have to transport this car back to them if you want a resolution.
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 8:56 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    But it's not covered by the CRA so you may well have to transport this car back to them if you want a resolution.
    Originally posted by neilmcl
    My understanding is that under the CRA the vehicle should be "As Described", in my case I believe it hasn't been.

    The fact the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 stipulate the dealer should have made me aware of the previous use of the vehicle and failed to do so, should work alongside the CRA and strengthen the case for rejection, in which case the dealer is responsible for the return.
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 11th Sep 19, 8:59 AM
    • 13,533 Posts
    • 10,113 Thanks
    neilmcl
    My understanding is that under the CRA the vehicle should be "As Described", in my case I believe it hasn't been.

    The fact the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 stipulate the dealer should have made me aware of the previous use of the vehicle and failed to do so, should work alongside the CRA and strengthen the case for rejection, in which case the dealer is responsible for the return.
    Originally posted by lju
    So what's the evidence of that?
    • waamo
    • By waamo 11th Sep 19, 9:01 AM
    • 7,902 Posts
    • 10,771 Thanks
    waamo
    My understanding is that under the CRA the vehicle should be "As Described", in my case I believe it hasn't been.

    The fact the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 stipulate the dealer should have made me aware of the previous use of the vehicle and failed to do so, should work alongside the CRA and strengthen the case for rejection, in which case the dealer is responsible for the return.
    Originally posted by lju
    Personally I've never seen this argument being successful. There have been a few posters say the same thing before but i don't recall any of them reporting a success. This is from memory though so don't take it as gospel.

    If anyone has any reports of success, or otherwise, it may be helpful.
    This space for hire.
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 9:05 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    So what's the evidence of that?
    Originally posted by neilmcl
    The accident damage, the damage to the vehicle inside and out, the previous usage and the mileage discrepancy.
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 9:09 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    Personally I've never seen this argument being successful. There have been a few posters say the same thing before but i don't recall any of them reporting a success. This is from memory though so don't take it as gospel.

    If anyone has any reports of success, or otherwise, it may be helpful.
    Originally posted by waamo
    I recall reading an article sometime ago about a dealer being taken to court by trading standards over this.

    Ultimately, it would be up to a judge to decide once all the evidence has been presented to them.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 11th Sep 19, 9:17 AM
    • 7,902 Posts
    • 10,771 Thanks
    waamo
    I recall reading an article sometime ago about a dealer being taken to court by trading standards over this.

    Ultimately, it would be up to a judge to decide once all the evidence has been presented to them.
    Originally posted by lju
    Then give it a go and report back. It would help others no end.
    This space for hire.
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 11th Sep 19, 9:43 AM
    • 6,229 Posts
    • 10,737 Thanks
    Gavin83
    The accident damage, the damage to the vehicle inside and out, the previous usage and the mileage discrepancy.
    Originally posted by lju
    So they specifically said in the advert it had no damage (or something along those lines) or said it hadnít been previously leased? Alternatively when you asked these questions did they confirm otherwise?

    I honestly donít see the deal with an ex lease car but seeing as itís clearly so important to you Iím assuming you did ask them?

    Just to be clear people are asking you if theyíve actually lied at any point about this car. Have they?
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 9:47 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    Then give it a go and report back. It would help others no end.
    Originally posted by waamo
    At this moment in time I am concentrating my efforts on obtaining my money back. I am more than happy to report the issue afterwards and will report back.
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 9:51 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    So they specifically said in the advert it had no damage (or something along those lines) or said it hadnít been previously leased? Alternatively when you asked these questions did they confirm otherwise?

    I honestly donít see the deal with an ex lease car but seeing as itís clearly so important to you Iím assuming you did ask them?

    Just to be clear people are asking you if theyíve actually lied at any point about this car. Have they?
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    Yes they were specifically asked questions regarding damage to the vehicle and did not disclose any or the extent of it.

    Regarding the lease issue, the nature of the lease is consistent with the damage to the vehicle and its previous use.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 11th Sep 19, 10:11 AM
    • 7,902 Posts
    • 10,771 Thanks
    waamo
    At this moment in time I am concentrating my efforts on obtaining my money back. I am more than happy to report the issue afterwards and will report back.
    Originally posted by lju
    Obviously you can't try court if they agree to give you your money back. I'm being a bit presumptuous in believing they may not play ball.
    This space for hire.
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 10:29 AM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    Obviously you can't try court if they agree to give you your money back. I'm being a bit presumptuous in believing they may not play ball.
    Originally posted by waamo
    I was referring to Trading Standards and the Unfair Trading Regulations.
    • macman
    • By macman 11th Sep 19, 11:50 AM
    • 43,575 Posts
    • 18,703 Thanks
    macman
    Still can't believe how many people are happy to hand over money for a vehicle they haven't seen 'in the metal', haven't test driven, haven't seen the V5, service history, or done an HPI check.
    I doubt that they'd buy a used washing machine for £50 on Gumtree without a bit more due diligence than that.
    No free lunch, and no free laptop
    • Manxman in exile
    • By Manxman in exile 11th Sep 19, 12:03 PM
    • 2,892 Posts
    • 2,601 Thanks
    Manxman in exile
    Yes they were specifically asked questions regarding damage to the vehicle and did not disclose any or the extent of it.

    Regarding the lease issue, the nature of the lease is consistent with the damage to the vehicle and its previous use.
    Originally posted by lju

    Do you have any evidence of these questions and their responses? (eg email, text, recorded 'phone conversation). Given the rather precise nature of your posts, I'm surprised it's taken until #33 for you to confirm that you explicitly asked about accident damage - personally, I think I'd have mentioned it in my first post or after other posters had asked.


    If you have the advert saved, can you post up what it actually says (you may not want to post the advert itself)?
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 12:52 PM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    Do you have any evidence of these questions and their responses? (eg email, text, recorded 'phone conversation). Given the rather precise nature of your posts, I'm surprised it's taken until #33 for you to confirm that you explicitly asked about accident damage - personally, I think I'd have mentioned it in my first post or after other posters had asked.


    If you have the advert saved, can you post up what it actually says (you may not want to post the advert itself)?
    Originally posted by Manxman in exile
    My initial question in post 1 was about the responsibility for the return of the vehicle. That was answered in post number 2.

    Obviously the thread has evolved somewhat since then, and I have divulged further information as a result.

    I (thankfully) have all of the questions and responses which were conducted via email and text message.

    As I have now taken legal steps to resolve the issue I think it is probably best for me not to post any advert or text from it at this time.
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 11th Sep 19, 1:04 PM
    • 13,533 Posts
    • 10,113 Thanks
    neilmcl
    Yes they were specifically asked questions regarding damage to the vehicle and did not disclose any or the extent of it.
    Originally posted by lju
    This is the first time you're mentioning this, one would have though this would've been at the start of your post. All you stated that the pics/video on the advert didn't show the the "damage".
    • lju
    • By lju 11th Sep 19, 1:24 PM
    • 150 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    lju
    This is the first time you're mentioning this, one would have though this would've been at the start of your post. All you stated that the pics/video on the advert didn't show the the "damage".
    Originally posted by neilmcl
    I suppose it would have been, had my question been related to whether or not I had a case for rejection.

    The pics/video showed no damage, the questions were asked and I trusted that the replies were accurate, unfortunately this was not the case.

    I'd already made the decision I had enough "evidence" to reject under the CRA. My only remaining question was about the cost of returning the rejected vehicle.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

220Posts Today

3,089Users online

Martin's Twitter