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@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • merlin777
    • By merlin777 12th May 19, 7:51 PM
    • 59Posts
    • 4Thanks
    merlin777
    Grounds for rejecting a used car?
    • #1
    • 12th May 19, 7:51 PM
    Grounds for rejecting a used car? 12th May 19 at 7:51 PM
    My friend (honestly - not me) bought a used car from a dealer on Friday afternoon for 850 . On Saturday morning after just a few 10s of miles it broke down and had to be recovered. It looks like the turbo has gone and might cost more than the car is worth to fix.

    My question is, how can you prove the car was faulty to qualify for a rejection and full refund? It's most like it was already faulty but possible that it was a spontaneous failure.

    How does the law view this? Given it had only done a few miles locally and it was within less than 24hrs, is it reasonable to argue that the car was sold with a fault? Where would he stand?
Page 1
    • tacpot12
    • By tacpot12 12th May 19, 8:06 PM
    • 2,382 Posts
    • 2,114 Thanks
    tacpot12
    • #2
    • 12th May 19, 8:06 PM
    • #2
    • 12th May 19, 8:06 PM
    In all probability, the car wasn't sold with a faulty turbo, it was most likely sold with a worn turbo. And the wear is probably commensurate with the age of the car - you buy a car for 850 you have to expect quite a lot of wear. It's a lottery whether this wear causes a component to fail in the first day of ownership or after six months. Either way, the law doesn't gives your friend any protection if the cause of the failure is wear that it commensurate with the age of the car.

    Now, if you could by examination determine that the oilways that feed the turbo were blocked and it failed because of oil starvation, the blockage would be a fault, and the law would entitle your friend to get a refund . So determining the cause of the failure is the process your friend needs to go through. They should pay an experienced mechanic to review the potential causes for the turbo to fail, and examine the engine to see what evidence he can find of any particular cause. His investigations and findings need to be documented in writing. If he can find evidence of a pre-existing fault, your friend can put this evidence to the dealer, or use it to go to court if the dealer will not refund their money.
    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 check official information sources before relying on my posts.
    • Ectophile
    • By Ectophile 13th May 19, 8:33 PM
    • 3,580 Posts
    • 2,288 Thanks
    Ectophile
    • #3
    • 13th May 19, 8:33 PM
    • #3
    • 13th May 19, 8:33 PM
    It's well within the 30 day deadline to simply reject faulty goods and demand a refund.


    It's also within the 6 months during which any defect is considered to be inherent, unless the dealer can show otherwise. Within this 6 month period, the dealer can offer a repair, replacement or refund.
    If it sticks, force it.
    If it breaks, well it wasn't working right anyway.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 13th May 19, 8:55 PM
    • 22,462 Posts
    • 21,279 Thanks
    AdrianC
    • #4
    • 13th May 19, 8:55 PM
    • #4
    • 13th May 19, 8:55 PM
    It's well within the 30 day deadline to simply reject faulty goods and demand a refund.

    It's also within the 6 months during which any defect is considered to be inherent, unless the dealer can show otherwise. Within this 6 month period, the dealer can offer a repair, replacement or refund.
    Originally posted by Ectophile
    ...but it still has to be a fault above and beyond reasonable wear and tear, and reasonable expectations for goods of that age/price/apparent condition.

    And, for a sub-grand shed, that's a bloody low bar.
    • EdGasketTheSecond
    • By EdGasketTheSecond 14th May 19, 11:06 AM
    • 1,047 Posts
    • 541 Thanks
    EdGasketTheSecond
    • #5
    • 14th May 19, 11:06 AM
    • #5
    • 14th May 19, 11:06 AM
    ...but it still has to be a fault above and beyond reasonable wear and tear, and reasonable expectations for goods of that age/price/apparent condition.

    And, for a sub-grand shed, that's a bloody low bar.
    Originally posted by AdrianC

    It doesn't matter, it's still a car and needs to function as such according to the legislation. If it only lasted 100 miles then it wasn't fit for purpose as a car was it?
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 14th May 19, 12:04 PM
    • 6,924 Posts
    • 6,844 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #6
    • 14th May 19, 12:04 PM
    • #6
    • 14th May 19, 12:04 PM
    It's well within the 30 day deadline to simply reject faulty goods and demand a refund.
    Originally posted by Ectophile
    In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • foxy-stoat
    • By foxy-stoat 14th May 19, 1:12 PM
    • 4,192 Posts
    • 2,458 Thanks
    foxy-stoat
    • #7
    • 14th May 19, 1:12 PM
    • #7
    • 14th May 19, 1:12 PM
    In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    You sure?

    Within 30 days the vehicle must be of satisfactory quality and be fit for purpose....Paying sub 1000 for a car I would expect it to last longer than 24 hours without it breaking down...unless your mate drive it with no oil due to leak or damage.

    Just get it towed back to the garage and reject it officially. Expect to have to wait for months to get your money back and buy another car, preferably off a private seller who has owned it and serviced it for a few years.
    • Arklight
    • By Arklight 14th May 19, 5:15 PM
    • 2,325 Posts
    • 3,478 Thanks
    Arklight
    • #8
    • 14th May 19, 5:15 PM
    • #8
    • 14th May 19, 5:15 PM
    In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    No it wouldn't. It would be up to the vendor to prove that it didn't.
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 14th May 19, 7:04 PM
    • 10,878 Posts
    • 12,338 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    • #9
    • 14th May 19, 7:04 PM
    • #9
    • 14th May 19, 7:04 PM
    In this scenario it would be for the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the time of sale.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    You sure?
    Originally posted by foxy-stoat
    No it wouldn't. It would be up to the vendor to prove that it didn't.
    Originally posted by Arklight
    Doam is 100% correct.

    Whilst it's true that any fault found within the first 6 months from purchase is generally deemed to have been there at the time of sale unless the trader proves otherwise, this doesn't apply when using your 30 day short term right of rejection.

    97.Subsections (14) and (15) provide that, if a breach of the statutory rights – for example a fault - arises in the first 6 months from delivery, it is presumed to have been present at the time of delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the particular breach or fault. This applies where the consumer exercises their right to a repair or replacement or their right to a price reduction or the final right to reject. This does not apply where the consumer exercises the short-term right to reject. These subsections correspond to section 48A(3) and (4) of the SGA and section 11M(3) and (4) of the SGSA.
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes
    • Arklight
    • By Arklight 15th May 19, 6:49 PM
    • 2,325 Posts
    • 3,478 Thanks
    Arklight
    I stand corrected and I am not ashamed to say so.
    • foxy-stoat
    • By foxy-stoat 16th May 19, 8:32 AM
    • 4,192 Posts
    • 2,458 Thanks
    foxy-stoat
    Doam is 100% correct.

    Whilst it's true that any fault found within the first 6 months from purchase is generally deemed to have been there at the time of sale unless the trader proves otherwise, this doesn't apply when using your 30 day short term right of rejection.



    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes
    Originally posted by shaun from Africa
    Agreed....but if you want to reject due to the vehicle not meeting one of the 3 criteria then you wouldn't need to prove anything:

    As described
    Fit for purpose
    Satisfactory quality

    Dead turbo within 24 hours or a few miles of buying it would fail 2 of them - if you post the wording of the advert it may well fail all 3.
    • little_pup
    • By little_pup 16th May 19, 4:25 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    little_pup
    My mum had a very similar scenario, she bought a used car from a small dealership and it broke down on the drive home. She informed them of the fault and that she intended to exercise her 30 day right to reject the goods as they weren't fit for purpose. The dealership agreed, so she paid 400 to have the car transported back to them, they received the car and a week after receiving it said there was no fault.

    We had an awful battle to get the money back. The owner was ringing her and texting her constantly shouting and making threats, he said if she doesn't collect the car he will charge her a daily storage fee for it. He insisted there was no fault and she couldn't prove there was as it was her word against theirs. We got the financial ombudsman involved and they started collecting evidence, before they made a judgement the garage decided to refund her deposit and cancel her finance agreement. She was still out of pocket for the 400 transportation fee plus the full tank of petrol she put in when she collected the car. It was a lot of money for her and the whole thing was really stressful / upsetting.

    My advice is to get evidence of the fault, don't return the car to them as they'll fix it then say the fault was never there. Not sure how you could do this - maybe agree an impartial garage to have an MOT / inspection done.
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 16th May 19, 5:41 PM
    • 10,878 Posts
    • 12,338 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    Agreed....but if you want to reject due to the vehicle not meeting one of the 3 criteria then you wouldn't need to prove anything:

    As described
    Fit for purpose
    Satisfactory quality

    Dead turbo within 24 hours or a few miles of buying it would fail 2 of them - if you post the wording of the advert it may well fail all 3.
    Originally posted by foxy-stoat
    That is still incorrect.
    When rejecting goods for being not as described, not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality, you are rejecting these under section 19 (3) of the consumer rights act:
    3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, (satisfactory quality) 10, (fit for purpose) 11, (as described) 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer's rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—
    (a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);
    (b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and
    (c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).
    and when using your short term right of rejection under this part of the act, the onus is on the consumer to prove an inherent fault.

    If this wasn't the case, imagine how easy it would be for someone to get 30 days totally free use of something.
    Buy an item, use it for 30 days, break it then take it back and demand a full refund knowing that if the item isn't too costly, the retailer probably wouldn't pay to investigate the fault.
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

2,484Posts Today

6,012Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Mini MSE is on half term next week, so I'm excited to be taking the week off to be daddy. As normal I'm signing of? https://t.co/G3366shWh1

  • I once blurted out on @gmb "Theresa May hasn't been given a poisoned chalice - she's been given a poisoned chalice? https://t.co/onfRbY3XVg

  • It'd be fascinating to know how history will judge Theresa May's premiership. Currently, it is hard to see it as a? https://t.co/eH77G0O9LA

  • Follow Martin