Under the SoGA the dealer must be given a reasonable amount of time to effect repairs. If repairs are not carried out in reasonable time or subsequently prove not to have fixed the problem you are still entitled to reject the car and request a full refund. Reduce everything to writing giving them fourteen days to complete repairs otherwise you'll reject the car and sue for a full refund plus damages for any consequential losses. Don't threaten a small claim unless you're prepared to see it through. On second thoughts, given the holiday period, say car must be repaired within 21 days.

A classic example of why small claims are judged on the balance of probabilities, ie you can't prove they caused the damage and they can't prove they didn't! Reduce future communications to writing. A skillfully worded letter may get the garage to confirm that they phoned you initially to say all was fine after the test drive which would help in establishing that the damage was caused subsequently whilst in their care.

Having refunded the purchase price your action now would be for consequential damages being a loss you have incurred directly resulting from you being sold a defective vehicle. Whether you wish to pursue a small claim for such an amount is up to you but bear in mind the attendant costs and time. The audio can not be used in evidence by the dealer as you were not given advance notice that the conversation was being recorded.

Thanks folks Paid by cash & bank transfer. "the seller will argue that he offered to give the OP his money back thus fulfilling his obligations under the SOGA". Agreed but by failing to honour his further responsibility under section 36 that obligation was not fulfilled. The correct pre action protocols have been followed including a LBA. Will be issuing the small claim this afternoon in person at my local court.* - if/when the snow clears ! Apart from this vehicle this year I have purchased two other expensive cars 'sight unseen' from main dealers both at the other end of the country with no hitches whatsoever. It’s becoming increasingly popular. Bizarrely the less a vehicle is examined pre purchase the better the chance a layman has of claiming for repairs. If a thorough pre purchase inspection is carried out then the dealer has the cop-out of applying section 14 (2C) (b) of the SoGA (“buyer examines the goods….which that examination ought to reveal”) It’s my belief that the ‘mitigating losses’ issue is an overriding principle in law; just hope the judge concurs ! I’ll update once I receive the dealers defence. Roy * Last time I issued a small claim it was via MCOL against a non paying client. Both the defendant and I came under the same local court yet the case was sent to three different courts all around the country and I had to phone and write each time to get the case transferred to our local court. Albeit the old fashioned way hopefully this time issuing at my local court will have the case heard there especially given Practice Direction 7E 12.2 (transfer to consumer claimants court)

But transporting the vehicle back would have incurred substantially more costs than repairs and I have an absolute duty to mitigate those costs - something the courts enforce. Whilst the SoGA entitles me to reject the vehicle and for the dealer to accept that rejection the legal title and responsibilities as registered keeper (on which the SoGA is silent) remains with me and does not pass until the dealer is back in physical possession. Aware of this I believe the dealer behaved unreasonably from the outset by failing in his obligation under section 36 of the SoGA "Buyer not bound to return rejected goods..." so consequential repair costs flowed directly from his refusal to abide by this term. PS Correction to my post of 18th November. "transportation cost which are less than the repair costs" should read "transportation cost which are more than the repair costs"

Nice one KiKi ! Only those of a certain age will understand.

Whilst I agree with what sailor sam said this could be a glaring example of the difference between what is legally possible and what is realistic. Once your deposit has been refunded your only provable loss will be a minimal amount of interest and wasted time. You could be entitled to expectation loss for their breach of contract this being the difference between the agreed price and the market price for an identical vehicle being sold elsewhere. Establishing this would be very difficult, time consuming and easily challenged by the dealer.

Fine in theory but in practice two issues arise. 1) I cannot force the seller to collect the vehicle however much the civil law may be on my side. 2) At the point of sale I became the legal owner and registered keeper of the vehicle and therefore responsible for taxing, insuring etc and no ongoing dispute with the seller however justified absolves me of those legal obligations. At the risk of answering my own question I think the following sections of the SoGA should cover the situation: 36) "Buyer not bound to return rejected goods". 48B (2) (a) "without causing significant inconvenience..." (although strickly this applies to repairs)

Did you get your Barristers costs ?

The OFT have a publication entitled: "Guidance for Second Hand Car Dealers. Compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as ammended) (Sadly I can't post the link as I'm new here and don't have enough posts to do this. Easily found on a Google search.) On the main page click on 'new guidance' (pdf 174kb) and go to page 29 paragraph 9.17 “The consumer can request a full refund ………..The consumer is not obliged to return the vehicle to you but must make it available for collection.” The underlined statement is the issue I’m having with a used car dealer. I rejected a vehicle within 24 hours of purchase. Dealer agreed to accept return providing I take it back but I said they had to collect due to faults (unroadworthy) I would doubt the OFT would make such an emphatic statement unless supported by law or regulation and despite studying the two regs I cannot find any reference to this obligation. Can anyone find the regulation with section and number specifically confirming this statement. Thanks PS I’ve contacted the OFT – no reply as they don't handle consumer questions. Also spoke to Trading Standards who referred me to the CAB and they didn’t know !

Apologies sheddar101 for a slight hijack of this thread but it’s relevant and very similar to a case I am pursuing at the moment with a used car dealer. On 30th October dw190 referred to recoverable costs for a litigant in person. Are these costs now recoverable in Small Claims and does the hourly rate cover preparation time in addition to the fixed rate for attending the hearing ? On the matter of attending the setaside hearing I would concur with those encouraging you to attend. From my own experience when a defendant asked for setaside I attended that hearing and it was a good job I did as the full case was heard not just the reasons why the defendant didn't appear at the first hearing. That may have been because I was in attendance, I'll never know.

Thanks Nagasis 360 mile round trip and the cheapest car transporter was £1.50 mile. Also the dealer had already refused to refund any costs above the purchase price so certainly wouldn't have refunded the transportation cost which are less than the repair costs so I mitigated the loss by having the repairs carried out. The dealer refused to allow repairs at my local garage as they had offered to accept return of the vehicle and moreover limited the time for my returning the vehicle which has now passed. There's also the possibility that even if the vehicle was returned the dealer would make some excuse not to refund in full once in possession. In short I cannot force the dealer to collect the vehicle, returning by transporter costs more than repairs and the dealer has now retracted his offer to accept return. I was left with an uninsured vehicle (prior to repair) with faulty brakes so suing for repairs under SoGA is my only option - specifically under the section quoted in my original post. PS Vehicle purchased 3rd October.

I buy used vehicle from dealer. ('05 Ford for £3300) Faults are discovered on journey home and I email dealer next day rejecting vehicle. My local garage confirm faults with diagnostic check. Dealer declines to pay for repairs but offers to take vehicle back for refund but refuses to refund my necessarily incurred consequential losses (tax, insurance, travelling costs etc) or collect the vehicle as we are a long distance apart. I take vehicle to another garage for second opinion who diagnose faulty brakes and advise not to drive vehicle until repaired. Insurers say I'm only covered for theft until vehicle is repaired or collected by dealer. I can't return vehicle and dealer won't collect - hence we're at an impasse. I decide to keep vehicle so instruct that garage to proceed with repairs. I claim cost of those repairs off dealer under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Dealer refuses to refund sighting that he had originally offered to take vehicle back. I argue that it would have been impossible for me to have returned* vehicle given issue with brakes and his refusal to reimburse my costs.. Thoughts appreciated before I issue a small claim specifically how the dealer could defend my action. PS There are no relevant t&c’s on the dealers invoice. * SoGA Section 48B (2) (a) (b) “……without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer.” Posts: 6Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:31 am