Rejected

[CPM 0]

Hi guys, this is my first post. I’ve been back and forth with jigsaw for the last 4 months with a complaint from the customer. The most recent update is advantage the lender are looking to reject the car as the customer complained in the first 30 days. Worst case I take the car back, would the 50p a mile deduction still apply? They’ve done nearly 2000 miles in a “unusable car”. Thanks in advance 

[David Horgan 564]

Sub Prime sends shivers down my spine .

If they were going to reject it I think they have to stop using the car not keep using it for 2,000 miles 

What the nature of the complaint ? 

[James01 21]

For a customer to reject a car in the first 30 days it has to be for a major fault that was present at point of sale and warrants the car either unfit for purpose, not as described or unroadworthy. 

A car cannot be rejected for a minor fault that is easily repairable. 

If the customer has covered 2000 miles it is unlikely any of the above apply but it is for the customer to prove the fault was present within the first 30 days. 

Sounds like a good case for lawgistics if you are a member. 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by James01

[NOACROSS 414]

I had a similar 'attempt' by a near-prime company.  Long story short, there was nothing wrong with the car and my pre-delivery checks, paperwork/ handover customer signed paperwork/mot etc put this to bed very quickly.

As above, Lawgistics are very helpful.

Did you Pdi etc and have documentation?

[CPM 0]

I feel it’s more complicated with the finance company involved. We’ve had two reports done on the car. First by bmw which stated it needs valve stem seals. How they diagnosed that on a VHC I have no idea. Scotia have said there is an “ audible noice” coming from the engine and the head gasket has gone. On the report it was advised not to drive the car so we’re waiting for the latest mileage update

[Rory RSC 596]

You have 2 problems.

The broker and the finance company don't understand the CRA and want all responsibility handing back to you.

You have signed an agreement or dealer declaration when dealing with advantage.

The customer is not going to make a reasonable deduction because they don't have a pot to piss in. The broker or Advantage may allow for a goodwill payment to you if you can defend your position.

 

Being right and knowing your position is one thing if you don't play ball and jump through their hoops they will tell you they won't work with you again so pick how you want to play it. 

[James01 21]

2 minutes ago, CPM said:

I feel it’s more complicated with the finance company involved. We’ve had two reports done on the car. First by bmw which stated it needs valve stem seals. How they diagnosed that on a VHC I have no idea. Scotia have said there is an “ audible noice” coming from the engine and the head gasket has gone. On the report it was advised not to drive the car so we’re waiting for the latest mileage update

Unfortunately both above one would classify as relatively major faults and likely to have been developing at time of sale. 

If the reports were done shortly after the customer took delivery of the car and not many miles covered then they have every right to reject unless you can prove otherwise.

[CPM 0]

1 minute ago, NOACROSS said:

I had a similar 'attempt' by a near-prime company.  Long story short, there was nothing wrong with the car and my pre-delivery checks, paperwork/ handover customer signed paperwork/mot etc put this to bed very quickly.

As above, Lawgistics are very helpful.

Did you Pdi etc and have documentation?

It’s exactly that, an “attempt”. All my paper work is in check and I spend a lot of time prepping and testing. I don’t use lawgistics or anyone else. 

[Del Boy 76]

7 minutes ago, CPM said:

First by bmw which stated it needs valve stem seals. How they diagnosed that on a VHC I have no idea

This is noticable by blue smoke from exhaust. I assume this is a 2.0l 4 cylinder engine?

[CPM 0]

2 minutes ago, James01 said:

Unfortunately both above one would classify as relatively major faults and likely to have been developing at time of sale. 

If the reports were done shortly after the customer took delivery of the car and not many miles covered then they have every right to reject unless you can prove otherwise.

They had done 1500 miles before the reports were carried out. It’s buyers remorse 100%. These reports are conflicting and it’s all a joke really 

1 minute ago, Del Boy said:

This is noticable by blue smoke from exhaust. I assume this is a 2.0l 4 cylinder engine?

No smoke reported. It’s the dreaded n14

[James01 21]

The problem is that both reports state that the car has a major mechanical issue even though they are different. Both which are likely to have been present at point of sale as a head gasket and valve stems do not just fail overnight. 

If you believe there is nothing wrong with the car then either get another independent engineers report or just take the car back and resell it. Is it really worth the headache of a fight with the finance company? 

[David Horgan 564]

Whats the car pal 

BMW ? what , mileage and age helps us to see the whole picture here with head gaskets , and valve seals . 

[CPM 0]

28 minutes ago, James01 said:

The problem is that both reports state that the car has a major mechanical issue even though they are different. Both which are likely to have been present at point of sale as a head gasket and valve stems do not just fail overnight. 

If you believe there is nothing wrong with the car then either get another independent engineers report or just take the car back and resell it. Is it really worth the headache of a fight with the finance company? 

Trying to get the car back for proper diagnostics as the reports are just a report. Bmw states the car was low on oil so if we can prove this is thee cause of the damage we might have a fight. If it’s wear and tear or sudden failure I’ll take it back. Not worried about it to be honest but in not taking it back without proper diagnostics 

22 minutes ago, David Horgan said:

Whats the car pal 

BMW ? what , mileage and age helps us to see the whole picture here with head gaskets , and valve seals . 

2008 Cooper s n14 85k fsh. Age and mileage is irrelevant if you ask me, they can fail at any time if the owner isn’t looking after it. I understand these cars have there problems but what cars don’t 

[Stalker 180]

10 minutes ago, CPM said:

Bmw states the car was low on oil so if we can prove this is thee cause of the damage we might have a fight. If it’s wear and tear or sudden failure I’ll take it back. Not worried about it to be honest but in not taking it back without proper diagnostics 

What is a low oil level? anything under the max mark i guess?

I'm always interested in how much oil it should take and how much it takes to get to the maximum mark.

As NOACROSS asked.... PDI? Was the oil on its correct level when it left you?

[EPV 631]

Is anyone else a bit fucked off with these “this is my first post and i’ve got a major headache can anyone help?” type posts?

We had one last month, the op got loads of free helpful advice and was shortly never to be seen again. 

 

[Stalker 180]

Just now, EPV said:

Is anyone else a bit fucked off with these “this is my first post and i’ve got a major headache can anyone help?” type posts?

We had one last month, the op got loads of free helpful advice and was shortly never to be seen again. 

 

No i love them.

[CPM 0]

6 minutes ago, Stalker said:

What is a low oil level? anything under the max mark i guess?

I'm always interested in how much oil it should take and how much it takes to get to the maximum mark.

As NOACROSS asked.... PDI? Was the oil on its correct level when it left you?

 

Of course oil was bang on when it left and shows on the pdi

4 minutes ago, Stalker said:

No i love them.

The only headache I get is the mrs, can you help with that? 

[Stalker 180]

11 minutes ago, CPM said:

Of course oil was bang on when it left and shows on the pdi

The only headache I get is the mrs, can you help with that? 

It depends upon what she looks like

 

That seems quite reasonable for Valve stem seals

 

Get the car back ASAP and get your own diagnosis.... Even with a local bmw specialist.

[EPV 631]

1 hour ago, James01 said:

For a customer to reject a car in the first 30 days it has to be for a major fault that was present at point of sale and warrants the car either unfit for purpose, not as described or unroadworthy. 

A car cannot be rejected for a minor fault that is easily repairable. 

If the customer has covered 2000 miles it is unlikely any of the above apply but it is for the customer to prove the fault was present within the first 30 days. 

Sounds like a good case for lawgistics if you are a member. 

 

 

This is essentially the legal side of things in a nutshell. 

I think whether the fault was there at the point of sale is a moot point here, something like valve stems failing doesn’t happen overnight and could have been failing before, during and after the POS. A judge could easily be convinced the fault was there at the POS. 

So that leaves you in a position where you sold the car with a fault, whether you did or didn’t, is academic. It can’t be proven. 

What matters here is whether the consumer put 2000 miles on and then complained of the fault or whether they put say 500 miles on and then complained only to put another 1500 miles on. The difference being in the first instance you could deduct a thousand pounds off for usage, the second you could deduct usage and a bit more for the fact they have potentially made the car worse by continuing to use it. 

There’s nothing in the CRA to define what you can deduct for usage, just that you can, and your offer to buy it back cannot be trade value. 

Given what you’ve said, it seems very unlikely that in the time between sale and the complaint, that’s the car would be using oil so much that it became low enough to cause issues. It would need to be an oil leak which although you may argue they should have noticed, it shouldn’t have been leaking oil in the first place. 

The answer to your question is yes you can make a deduction for the 2,000 miles covered but i’d also be offering them a couple of hundred quid over book price on the basis of them driving the car and possibly causing more damage. If they did drive it on after the complaint. 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

Two reports stating major mechanical failure...... Refund and move on. 

[Mojo121 229]

Reading these threads just reminds me of the absolute bullshit you have to go through as a car trader.

Just to pose a different question. The lender are looking to reject the car; what can they actually do that the customer can't? You've been paid out from them. They can take you to court. They can stop lending to your customers - plenty more fish in the sea. Don't let them bully you.

Discuss it with them, finalise your position and if it doesn't sit right with you tell them see you in court. No further communication to them or customer. Puts them in the firing line instead.

[Stalker 180]

2 minutes ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Two reports stating major mechanical failure...... Refund and move on. 

Does nobody "work" with a customer anymore and fix the cars instead?

[EPV 631]

1 minute ago, Mojo121 said:

Reading these threads just reminds me of the absolute bullshit you have to go through as a car trader.

Just to pose a different question. The lender are looking to reject the car; what can they actually do that the customer can't? You've been paid out from them. They can take you to court. They can stop lending to your customers - plenty more fish in the sea. Don't let them bully you.

Discuss it with them, finalise your position and if it doesn't sit right with you tell them see you in court. No further communication to them or customer. Puts them in the firing line instead.

He’d lose in court. All day long. 

1 minute ago, Stalker said:

Does nobody "work" with a customer anymore and fix the cars instead?

I do but only if they want to be worked with. 

Based on what’s been said, they have spoke directly to the finance company who are technically the owners of the car. If they’re going down that route it seems the billy doesn’t want to be worked with. 

Pointless trying to pretend this is anything but a nailed on long drawn out battle ending in a very quick loss for the OP. 

[Mojo121 229]

Just now, EPV said:

He’d lose in court. All day long. 

Probably. But as badly as having to give a full refund? If his position is that he'll provide a refund minus usage and they're saying no to that it might be worth contending for that alone. Even the ADR might side with him. Not to mention you get to keep and play with the money for a while.

[CPM 0]

15 minutes ago, Stalker said:

It depends upon what she looks like

 

That seems quite reasonable for Valve stem seals

 

Get the car back ASAP and get your own diagnosis.... Even with a local bmw specialist.

Not bad in a dark room!

this is the poa but waiting for this to be arranged