Consumer Rights Act 2015

[Earunder 69]

Oh the 'I want a refund because...' excuse...

Firstly, PDi's are pretty useless and can not be counted upon as a piece of evidence of no fault.  They can be used but not always relied upon in a legal standing due to the customers lack of knowledge in the industry.  The most obvious is an MoT and any modern(ish 2000->) cars have electrical systems that can and will emit a light on the dash to make a fault / error known.  This will then fail on an MoT.  If it passes with flying colours that is your backup of no fault found.  You can then include your PDi checklist as well as the service you performed (or had done) on the vehicle at the point of sale to strengthen your case of no fault at the point of sale.

You also get rights too and don't forget that.  A customer can not buy a car then demand a refund on false grounds or simply because they don't like it after 20 days.  It has to be a legitimate reason but you also get the chance to repair the fault, not once as there is no SET PERIOD but it has to be repaired in `reasonable time`.  Reasonable time is down to perspective and in court it is down to one individual, the judge.  If your claiming you couldn't change a bearing on a golf for 2 weeks, that's obviously not reasonable, whereas if you said it took you 2 weeks to diagnose the EML light, order an injector and replace the glow plugs within a 2 week period all the time offering the customer a courtesy car then (again individual perspective) in my opinion this swings in your favour as it shows you're doing everything physically possible to put things right and treating the customer fairly.  This is where it's down to the individual dealers and how they want to come across, treat their customers and go forward.

Don't forget you will never EVER keep everyone happy.  You can warranty a £500 banger for a year, spend £1,000 on it over that period on repairs for them, then after 14 months their pads go they will still moan if they are THAT TYPE of customer.  Unfortunately for us most people are far to quick to scrutinize in this industry.

[bcars 0]

23 minutes ago, tradex said:

And more than once

I can confirm she is divorced

[Ocsltd 133]

25 minutes ago, bcars said:

I can confirm she is divorced

But she wasn't happy with the divorce settlement......

She probably just needs a damn good seeing to.....

[have a word with the wife 299]

20 hours ago, EPV said:

They have the right to reject the car for a refund but in order to exercise this right they have to prove the fault was there when they purchased the car which if you have done your job correctly, they would find it very hard to do. The fault cannot be assumed to be present at the time of sale if you have a PDI signed by the customer as you have proven that the fault was not there and they have agreed it wasn't by signing to say so, if your PDI is worded correctly.

The reality of this is that anyone taking this seriously and had a desire to build a good reputation would just sort the issue out for the customer. But if they start to get all shitty and demand a refund they have to prove the fault was present at the point of sale.

Happy to be corrected but that is my understanding of the situation.

Thats what i said ! but, as i said, it is up to the trader to prove the fault wasn't present at time of sale, not the consumer !

Think we are all getting a bit carried away thinking a pdi is a get out of jail card.....it isnt

My pdi, is to be sure to myself the car is safe, will be reliable, and the majority of things work, if for example, the air con isnt very good, i note it, and tell them,i even check door locks now 

 

oh! and being meaning to bring this up for ages! if any of you do loose in court, dont forget to ask the judge [remind] for the vehicle back ! seen a couple of cases where a claimant has had money back, and in the heat of the moment the defendant has forgot to ask for car back, and its very difficult to get it [more court cases] back! 

Edited February 23, 2018 by have a word with the wife

[SC Derby 259]

For the 30 day right of rejection it’s up to the consumer to prove the fault was present at time of purchase 

[EPV 631]

1 hour ago, have a word with the wife said:

Thats what i said ! but, as i said, it is up to the trader to prove the fault wasn't present at time of sale, not the consumer !

Think we are all getting a bit carried away thinking a pdi is a get out of jail card.....it isnt

My pdi, is to be sure to myself the car is safe, will be reliable, and the majority of things work, if for example, the air con isnt very good, i note it, and tell them,i even check door locks now 

 

oh! and being meaning to bring this up for ages! if any of you do loose in court, dont forget to ask the judge [remind] for the vehicle back ! seen a couple of cases where a claimant has had money back, and in the heat of the moment the defendant has forgot to ask for car back, and its very difficult to get it [more court cases] back! 

I think we may be arguing the same side of the coin here. If the consumer wants to exercise their right to a refund within 30 days they must prove the fault was there at the time of sale. If the dealer has been lazy with his paperwork that should be easy. If however the dealer has done a proper pdi, MOT, had an independent garage carry out an inspection AND got the consumer to sign the pdi and receipt saying the goods are without fault and they have been given a test drive and a chance to inspect the car themselves then the consumer will have a hard time proving the fault was there. They HAVE to prove it and they dealer can disprove it. 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

10 hours ago, grant8064 said:

I know...it's ones like this though that there's no sense in fighting because logic clearly doesn't apply. 

Car was only in stock for a few hours, £500 too cheap and even if we sorted the MPG issue they'd be moaning the AC is too cold or the blue paint is too blue.

Bring it back, do your money on the tax and insurance and we'll resell it to someone realistic.

Totally disagree, we should be standing our ground. By bending, you are promoting the ignorance. 

[LawJaw 50]

The ‘Short Term Right to Reject’ is designed to allow consumers to return goods for a full refund if a fault appears in the first 30 days of ownership. The customer does not have to give you an opportunity to repair in this first 30 days.

However, if the customer wants to exercise this Right they must:

1. Prove there is a fault

2. Prove that the fault was present at the point of sale

For the purposes of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a fault is something which renders the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, not fit for particular purpose or not as described.

Unfortunately, some consumer organisations advise customers that they can return an item for any fault. This is not correct! 

A wear and tear item or a minor fault such as a spark plug failure will not give the customer the Rights as set out in the Act. Your first consideration when a customer comes back to you asking for a repair or a refund under the Act should be ‘is this a fault which means the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described?’. Of course, your customer may have a different opinion to you but ultimately the law considers what a reasonable person would think about the fault considering factors such as the age, mileage and price paid for vehicle.

If you have undertaken comprehensive pre-delivery checks and have kept good records of those checks, you will have made it very difficult for the consumer to prove the fault was there at the point of sale.

It is obviously up to you how much time you want to put into your pre-delivery procedures but at Lawgistics we would recommend you:

• Put a new MOT on each vehicle you sell
• Complete a Pre-Delivery Checklist 
• Get the customer to sign to say there were no apparent faults during the test drive
• Have the vehicle checked and/or serviced by an independent garage
• Take photos or even a video of the vehicle

Once the 30 day Short Term Right to Reject period has passed, if the customer comes back to you with a fault, they must give you an opportunity to ‘Repair or Replace’ the goods before they can seek to reject the vehicle for a refund.

Previously, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, dealers could undertake several repairs before agreeing to a refund. However, this new Act now only gives you one chance to repair.

To us, this makes the Act not fit for purpose as we all know that modern vehicles can be quite complex and so it is not always possible to correctly diagnose a fault at the first attempt, especially with intermittent faults. This then appears to put dealers at a disadvantage but there is nothing in the Act to prevent you from releasing a vehicle, as long as it is safe to do so, back to a customer and advising them that the repair job card remains open should they experience further problems.

It is also possible to agree with a customer to undertake a repair under any warranty you may have sold with the car as that will constitute a contractual repair and so will not count as a statutory repair under the Act. In this instance, you will need to ensure you have the customer’s agreement to conduct any repairs under warranty (preferably in writing) so it is clear it is a contractual warranty repair and not a statutory repair – the difference being only a statutory repair will give rise to the ‘Final Right to Reject’.

From day 31 i.e. on expiry of the Short Term Right to Reject period, the customer no longer has the right to reject the vehicle without giving you an opportunity to make a repair or provide a replacement. 

However, if you have already made a statutory repair (as opposed to a contractual repair) then the customer does have the choice of rejecting the vehicle for a refund under the Final Right to Reject. In this instance, you can reduce the amount of the refund to take account of the use the consumer has had of the vehicle. There is no set formula for this deduction and so the figure will need to be calculated depending on many factors such as time of ownership, mileage covered, condition of the vehicle on return etc. 

Ultimately if there is a disagreement between you and the consumer as to the amount of the deduction, it will up to the courts to decide.

[EPV 631]

21 minutes ago, LawJaw said:

The ‘Short Term Right to Reject’ is designed to allow consumers to return goods for a full refund if a fault appears in the first 30 days of ownership. The customer does not have to give you an opportunity to repair in this first 30 days.

However, if the customer wants to exercise this Right they must:

1. Prove there is a fault

2. Prove that the fault was present at the point of sale

For the purposes of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a fault is something which renders the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, not fit for particular purpose or not as described.

Unfortunately, some consumer organisations advise customers that they can return an item for any fault. This is not correct! 

A wear and tear item or a minor fault such as a spark plug failure will not give the customer the Rights as set out in the Act. Your first consideration when a customer comes back to you asking for a repair or a refund under the Act should be ‘is this a fault which means the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described?’. Of course, your customer may have a different opinion to you but ultimately the law considers what a reasonable person would think about the fault considering factors such as the age, mileage and price paid for vehicle.

If you have undertaken comprehensive pre-delivery checks and have kept good records of those checks, you will have made it very difficult for the consumer to prove the fault was there at the point of sale.

It is obviously up to you how much time you want to put into your pre-delivery procedures but at Lawgistics we would recommend you:

• Put a new MOT on each vehicle you sell
• Complete a Pre-Delivery Checklist 
• Get the customer to sign to say there were no apparent faults during the test drive
• Have the vehicle checked and/or serviced by an independent garage
• Take photos or even a video of the vehicle

Once the 30 day Short Term Right to Reject period has passed, if the customer comes back to you with a fault, they must give you an opportunity to ‘Repair or Replace’ the goods before they can seek to reject the vehicle for a refund.

Previously, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, dealers could undertake several repairs before agreeing to a refund. However, this new Act now only gives you one chance to repair.

To us, this makes the Act not fit for purpose as we all know that modern vehicles can be quite complex and so it is not always possible to correctly diagnose a fault at the first attempt, especially with intermittent faults. This then appears to put dealers at a disadvantage but there is nothing in the Act to prevent you from releasing a vehicle, as long as it is safe to do so, back to a customer and advising them that the repair job card remains open should they experience further problems.

It is also possible to agree with a customer to undertake a repair under any warranty you may have sold with the car as that will constitute a contractual repair and so will not count as a statutory repair under the Act. In this instance, you will need to ensure you have the customer’s agreement to conduct any repairs under warranty (preferably in writing) so it is clear it is a contractual warranty repair and not a statutory repair – the difference being only a statutory repair will give rise to the ‘Final Right to Reject’.

From day 31 i.e. on expiry of the Short Term Right to Reject period, the customer no longer has the right to reject the vehicle without giving you an opportunity to make a repair or provide a replacement. 

However, if you have already made a statutory repair (as opposed to a contractual repair) then the customer does have the choice of rejecting the vehicle for a refund under the Final Right to Reject. In this instance, you can reduce the amount of the refund to take account of the use the consumer has had of the vehicle. There is no set formula for this deduction and so the figure will need to be calculated depending on many factors such as time of ownership, mileage covered, condition of the vehicle on return etc. 

Ultimately if there is a disagreement between you and the consumer as to the amount of the deduction, it will up to the courts to decide.

This should be made a sticky. Exactly my understanding of the situation. 

[justlooking 48]

1 hour ago, LawJaw said:

The ‘Short Term Right to Reject’ is designed to allow consumers to return goods for a full refund if a fault appears in the first 30 days of ownership. The customer does not have to give you an opportunity to repair in this first 30 days.

However, if the customer wants to exercise this Right they must:

1. Prove there is a fault

2. Prove that the fault was present at the point of sale

For the purposes of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a fault is something which renders the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, not fit for particular purpose or not as described.

Unfortunately, some consumer organisations advise customers that they can return an item for any fault. This is not correct! 

A wear and tear item or a minor fault such as a spark plug failure will not give the customer the Rights as set out in the Act. Your first consideration when a customer comes back to you asking for a repair or a refund under the Act should be ‘is this a fault which means the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described?’. Of course, your customer may have a different opinion to you but ultimately the law considers what a reasonable person would think about the fault considering factors such as the age, mileage and price paid for vehicle.

If you have undertaken comprehensive pre-delivery checks and have kept good records of those checks, you will have made it very difficult for the consumer to prove the fault was there at the point of sale.

It is obviously up to you how much time you want to put into your pre-delivery procedures but at Lawgistics we would recommend you:

• Put a new MOT on each vehicle you sell
• Complete a Pre-Delivery Checklist 
• Get the customer to sign to say there were no apparent faults during the test drive
• Have the vehicle checked and/or serviced by an independent garage
• Take photos or even a video of the vehicle

Once the 30 day Short Term Right to Reject period has passed, if the customer comes back to you with a fault, they must give you an opportunity to ‘Repair or Replace’ the goods before they can seek to reject the vehicle for a refund.

Previously, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, dealers could undertake several repairs before agreeing to a refund. However, this new Act now only gives you one chance to repair.

To us, this makes the Act not fit for purpose as we all know that modern vehicles can be quite complex and so it is not always possible to correctly diagnose a fault at the first attempt, especially with intermittent faults. This then appears to put dealers at a disadvantage but there is nothing in the Act to prevent you from releasing a vehicle, as long as it is safe to do so, back to a customer and advising them that the repair job card remains open should they experience further problems.

It is also possible to agree with a customer to undertake a repair under any warranty you may have sold with the car as that will constitute a contractual repair and so will not count as a statutory repair under the Act. In this instance, you will need to ensure you have the customer’s agreement to conduct any repairs under warranty (preferably in writing) so it is clear it is a contractual warranty repair and not a statutory repair – the difference being only a statutory repair will give rise to the ‘Final Right to Reject’.

From day 31 i.e. on expiry of the Short Term Right to Reject period, the customer no longer has the right to reject the vehicle without giving you an opportunity to make a repair or provide a replacement. 

However, if you have already made a statutory repair (as opposed to a contractual repair) then the customer does have the choice of rejecting the vehicle for a refund under the Final Right to Reject. In this instance, you can reduce the amount of the refund to take account of the use the consumer has had of the vehicle. There is no set formula for this deduction and so the figure will need to be calculated depending on many factors such as time of ownership, mileage covered, condition of the vehicle on return etc. 

Ultimately if there is a disagreement between you and the consumer as to the amount of the deduction, it will up to the courts to decide.

What’s the standpoint on faults that were present at point of purchase, but you made the customer aware verbally and on the PDI and they signed to accept it and now they want to reject because of these faults?

[Arfur Dealy 823]

6 hours ago, justlooking said:

What’s the standpoint on faults that were present at point of purchase, but you made the customer aware verbally and on the PDI and they signed to accept it and now they want to reject because of these faults?

They can’t reject on that basis, you made them fully aware and they signed and agreed to buy the car with those specific faults. End of....

7 hours ago, LawJaw said:

The ‘Short Term Right to Reject’ is designed to allow consumers to return goods for a full refund if a fault appears in the first 30 days of ownership. The customer does not have to give you an opportunity to repair in this first 30 days.

However, if the customer wants to exercise this Right they must:

1. Prove there is a fault

2. Prove that the fault was present at the point of sale

For the purposes of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a fault is something which renders the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, not fit for particular purpose or not as described.

Unfortunately, some consumer organisations advise customers that they can return an item for any fault. This is not correct! 

A wear and tear item or a minor fault such as a spark plug failure will not give the customer the Rights as set out in the Act. Your first consideration when a customer comes back to you asking for a repair or a refund under the Act should be ‘is this a fault which means the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described?’. Of course, your customer may have a different opinion to you but ultimately the law considers what a reasonable person would think about the fault considering factors such as the age, mileage and price paid for vehicle.

If you have undertaken comprehensive pre-delivery checks and have kept good records of those checks, you will have made it very difficult for the consumer to prove the fault was there at the point of sale.

It is obviously up to you how much time you want to put into your pre-delivery procedures but at Lawgistics we would recommend you:

• Put a new MOT on each vehicle you sell
• Complete a Pre-Delivery Checklist 
• Get the customer to sign to say there were no apparent faults during the test drive
• Have the vehicle checked and/or serviced by an independent garage
• Take photos or even a video of the vehicle

Once the 30 day Short Term Right to Reject period has passed, if the customer comes back to you with a fault, they must give you an opportunity to ‘Repair or Replace’ the goods before they can seek to reject the vehicle for a refund.

Previously, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, dealers could undertake several repairs before agreeing to a refund. However, this new Act now only gives you one chance to repair.

To us, this makes the Act not fit for purpose as we all know that modern vehicles can be quite complex and so it is not always possible to correctly diagnose a fault at the first attempt, especially with intermittent faults. This then appears to put dealers at a disadvantage but there is nothing in the Act to prevent you from releasing a vehicle, as long as it is safe to do so, back to a customer and advising them that the repair job card remains open should they experience further problems.

It is also possible to agree with a customer to undertake a repair under any warranty you may have sold with the car as that will constitute a contractual repair and so will not count as a statutory repair under the Act. In this instance, you will need to ensure you have the customer’s agreement to conduct any repairs under warranty (preferably in writing) so it is clear it is a contractual warranty repair and not a statutory repair – the difference being only a statutory repair will give rise to the ‘Final Right to Reject’.

From day 31 i.e. on expiry of the Short Term Right to Reject period, the customer no longer has the right to reject the vehicle without giving you an opportunity to make a repair or provide a replacement. 

However, if you have already made a statutory repair (as opposed to a contractual repair) then the customer does have the choice of rejecting the vehicle for a refund under the Final Right to Reject. In this instance, you can reduce the amount of the refund to take account of the use the consumer has had of the vehicle. There is no set formula for this deduction and so the figure will need to be calculated depending on many factors such as time of ownership, mileage covered, condition of the vehicle on return etc. 

Ultimately if there is a disagreement between you and the consumer as to the amount of the deduction, it will up to the courts to decide.

This is why I’m with Lawgistics, for a few hundred quid a year it takes all the pressure off you when you get a real problem customer (huge weight off your shoulders) 

It’s like having a big brother protecting your interest.

Thanks LawJaw for the complete clarity...

[BHM 994]

6 hours ago, justlooking said:

What’s the standpoint on faults that were present at point of purchase, but you made the customer aware verbally and on the PDI and they signed to accept it and now they want to reject because of these faults?

Contrary to Arfur my interpretation of this (after my day in court) was that the judge CLEARLY was only interested in how the vehicle was advertised. As an example, if your advert does not mention faults but your subsequent receipt/PDI/discussion does then it makes little difference because, in the first instance, you misled a retail consumer with your advert. Say you’ve given a punter a big discount to get a ‘sticky’ car away, got them to sign a spares or repair invoice “trailered away”, it counts for nowt unless this matches the original advertisement. This is based on my 1 experience of being taken to court but I can assure anyone that THE JUDGE WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE ADVERTISEMENT. To him, any differences marked on the invoice had no bearing on the contract, only to point out my failings in trying to remove a consumer’s rights.

Separate to this, with regards to small items which wouldn’t render the vehicle unfit for purpose (such as A/C not working) my understanding is that if the items are not on the advert then they are not deemed part of the sale. So in the case of a car with faulty A/C you should either write “A/C not working” or simply make no reference to A/C.

I’m sure some of you will disagree with these two paragraphs but the first is based on my one day in court years ago & second paragraph after I spoke to a Trading Standards dept. 

[bcars 0]

So in the instance of my, still under manufacturer warranty, Golf R customer as she has taken it her local VW dealer would this be classed as "Contractual Repairs"?

This would translate to her more or less giving them the opportunity to repair the alleged minor "noise" related faults under warranty (contractual) and as such hasn't rejected as yet, however if the dealer either confirm they can't find a fault or the fault is potentially a characteristic but she still claims a fault what happens next? could she still go and instruct and independent report or is it case closed as the franchised dealer who acts on behalf of the manufacturer is God?

Reading between the lines, would she have been in a stronger position to just simply reject the car and asked for a refund without all the messing about with the VW service agent, from my point of view I'd rather it back in advance of the next month's book drop and to keep it below the magical "search filter" of 20,000 miles. 

As a dealer are you entitled to take control and request for the car back with immediate effect as you are not prepared to endure another week of p*ssing about?

[trade vet 697]

36 minutes ago, bcars said:

So in the instance of my, still under manufacturer warranty, Golf R customer as she has taken it her local VW dealer would this be classed as "Contractual Repairs"?

This would translate to her more or less giving them the opportunity to repair the alleged minor "noise" related faults under warranty (contractual) and as such hasn't rejected as yet, however if the dealer either confirm they can't find a fault or the fault is potentially a characteristic but she still claims a fault what happens next? could she still go and instruct and independent report or is it case closed as the franchised dealer who acts on behalf of the manufacturer is God?

Reading between the lines, would she have been in a stronger position to just simply reject the car and asked for a refund without all the messing about with the VW service agent, from my point of view I'd rather it back in advance of the next month's book drop and to keep it below the magical "search filter" of 20,000 miles. 

As a dealer are you entitled to take control and request for the car back with immediate effect as you are not prepared to endure another week of p*ssing about?

This is a good one.....I am interested to hear what happens next.I think she will get it back and still be unhappy,if it is an inherent fault in this model,is it not a bit like a manufacturers recall.She has not been inconvenienced,she has been given a loan car etc,if you buy it back,could you not charge an administration fee.....

[MrC 142]

So back to a comment I made about an injector going down. Lets say 20 days after a customer buys a vehicle an injector goes down, needless to say it running like a bag of crap.  Clearly that fault would not have been there at the time of the sale, even the layest of layman would have noticed its running on 3. Lets take good will and being Mr Nice guy out of the equation and stick to the facts of the law then the seller has no responsibility as clearly the fault was not there at point of sale.?

 

I stand to be corrected 

 

[MSP Motors 39]

18 minutes ago, MrC said:

So back to a comment I made about an injector going down. Lets say 20 days after a customer buys a vehicle an injector goes down, needless to say it running like a bag of crap.  Clearly that fault would not have been there at the time of the sale, even the layest of layman would have noticed its running on 3. Lets take good will and being Mr Nice guy out of the equation and stick to the facts of the law then the seller has no responsibility as clearly the fault was not there at point of sale.?

 

I stand to be corrected 

 

I'd imagine the seller is losing all day long. I'm sure by definition an injector is wear and tear....... but if the fault is preventing the operation of the vehicle that a reasonable person would expect,  you are losing. Its all down to interpretation, but that's my interpretation.

[MrC 142]

4 hours ago, MSP Motors said:

I'd imagine the seller is losing all day long. I'm sure by definition an injector is wear and tear....... but if the fault is preventing the operation of the vehicle that a reasonable person would expect,  you are losing. Its all down to interpretation, but that's my interpretation.

So we have to cover wear and tear on motors that have covered 10's of thousands of miles and X years old. Customer could complain with 30 days that the windscreen wipers blades are not working properly thus rendering the car not fit for purpose in the rain. I know CRA 15 is hardly a new thing and we know how unfair its is. Its far to open ended for my liking and open to far to much interpretation.

 

[Stephen 21]

Buy a house for 250k get nothing hows that right

[MrC 142]

When I used to use 3rd party warranty companies and ever had  an issue they would pretty much always state its wear and tear and get out of it that way. 

[BHM 994]

8 hours ago, bcars said:

As a dealer are you entitled to take control and request for the car back with immediate effect as you are not prepared to endure another week of p*ssing about?

No, you have absolutely no right to instruct a retail customer to terminate/reverse the contract. 

[mike101 8]

13 minutes ago, BHM said:

No, you have absolutely no right to instruct a retail customer to terminate/reverse the contract. 

You don’t have a right to terminate but the offer to unwind the contract is seen as a reasonable thing to do by the powers that be in the event of it becoming legal and often calls the customers bluff. The completely subjective ‘reasonable’ test has always been a baffling part of consumer legislation to me!

A lot depends on if you have the appetite to have another go at the car, 

 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

11 hours ago, BHM said:

Contrary to Arfur my interpretation of this (after my day in court) was that the judge CLEARLY was only interested in how the vehicle was advertised. As an example, if your advert does not mention faults but your subsequent receipt/PDI/discussion does then it makes little difference because, in the first instance, you misled a retail consumer with your advert. Say you’ve given a punter a big discount to get a ‘sticky’ car away, got them to sign a spares or repair invoice “trailered away”, it counts for nowt unless this matches the original advertisement. This is based on my 1 experience of being taken to court but I can assure anyone that THE JUDGE WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE ADVERTISEMENT. To him, any differences marked on the invoice had no bearing on the contract, only to point out my failings in trying to remove a consumer’s rights.

Separate to this, with regards to small items which wouldn’t render the vehicle unfit for purpose (such as A/C not working) my understanding is that if the items are not on the advert then they are not deemed part of the sale. So in the case of a car with faulty A/C you should either write “A/C not working” or simply make no reference to A/C.

I’m sure some of you will disagree with these two paragraphs but the first is based on my one day in court years ago & second paragraph after I spoke to a Trading Standards dept. 

BHM, I can understand why the Judge would be looking at the advert, you cannot have a contradictory advertising. 

My adverts state clearly, all cars are sold on the basis of my video, the customer pays on confirmation of its accuracy.

I describe fully all faults present at the time of purchase. The video is upfront, honest and transparent - it forms part of the contract. In addition, the faults are written in the purchase receipt and PDI. Clarity cannot be questioned.

Trading Standards, after a recent visit praised me on my approach, they even asked me permission if they could use my philosophy for best practice.....

7 hours ago, MrC said:

So back to a comment I made about an injector going down. Lets say 20 days after a customer buys a vehicle an injector goes down, needless to say it running like a bag of crap.  Clearly that fault would not have been there at the time of the sale, even the layest of layman would have noticed its running on 3. Lets take good will and being Mr Nice guy out of the equation and stick to the facts of the law then the seller has no responsibility as clearly the fault was not there at point of sale.?

 

I stand to be corrected 

 

Clearly not present at the point of sale, so a rejection is out of the question. You have one opportunity to repair, but if you offer a warranty repair it doesn’t count as a statutory repair. 

[mike101 8]

18 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

BHM, I can understand why the Judge would be looking at the advert, you cannot have a contradictory advertising. 

My adverts state clearly, all cars are sold on the basis of my video, the customer pays on confirmation of its accuracy.

I describe fully all faults present at the time of purchase. The video is upfront, honest and transparent - it forms part of the contract. In addition, the faults are written in the purchase receipt and PDI. Clarity cannot be questioned.

Trading Standards, after a recent visit praised me on my approach, they even asked me permission if they could use my philosophy for best practice.....

Clearly not present at the point of sale, so a rejection is out of the question. You have one opportunity to repair, but if you offer a warranty repair it doesn’t count as a statutory repair. 

Regarding the contractual repair vs statutory repair one opportunity point. Has this been tested in a court yet do we know? I don’t doubt the logic but would be interested to know if there is a precedent.

[Arfur Dealy 823]

8 hours ago, trade vet said:

This is a good one.....I am interested to hear what happens next.I think she will get it back and still be unhappy,if it is an inherent fault in this model,is it not a bit like a manufacturers recall.She has not been inconvenienced,she has been given a loan car etc,if you buy it back,could you not charge an administration fee.....

So..... if it’s a design error, surely it’s inherently a characteristic of the car. It’s been designed into the car and should be expected. JMHO

4 minutes ago, mike101 said:

Regarding the contractual repair vs statutory repair one opportunity point. Has this been tested in a court yet do we know? I don’t doubt the logic but would be interested to know if there is a precedent.

This is interesting.... LawJaw, can you give some examples? 

[BHM 994]

2 hours ago, mike101 said:

You don’t have a right to terminate but the offer to unwind the contract is seen as a reasonable thing to do by the powers that be in the event of it becoming legal and often calls the customers bluff. The completely subjective ‘reasonable’ test has always been a baffling part of consumer legislation to me!

A lot depends on if you have the appetite to have another go at the car, 

 

An offer to unwind the contract that cuts absolutely no ice with a judge if the customer doesn’t want to.

I know of two traders who’s defence was based on “I’ve offered a full refund but it was rejected”. Both got the same brush off & ended up paying out handsomely for a list of absolute trivial items but both were fussy & adversarial customers.

You are correct about calling a punter’s bluff, tbh a simple “f.o., stop extracting the urine” often suffices Of course, as always if you smell a difficult punter don’t sell to them in the first place.