Jump to content

Chuffnut

Registered Users
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Chuffnut

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. A good point well made. I expect a number of people have pre purchase inspections carried out on vehicles (I know I have in the past) when doing so, would actually compromise our rights under the CRA it seems! Better to live in ignorance it seems
  2. All I was querying was your statement that the severity of the defect isn’t relevant and any defect is grounds for a rejection. I think a lot of people coming to the forum would read that statement and, as people generally do, they would read what they want to read and may indeed consider a brake light bulb or split wiper blade a reason for rejection. You will no doubt agree, as you have already suggested, should such a ridiculous case get before a judge he would be quite embarrassed that a case for rejecting a used motor vehicle on account of a blown bulb has been brought before him. People do look up to you on this forum for advice and from what I have seen you have given plenty of good advice. The notion of rejecting a used motor vehicle under the short term right to reject for “any defect” is not correct and taking a literal view of that piece of law isn’t wise for anyone. Whilst there is no differentiating between a major or minor fault in the CRA, the CRA defines what a “fault” is and that is not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality or not as described. It’s clear that a blown bulb, split wiper blade, worn (but roadworthy) brake pads, worn (but roadworthy) tyres etc do not make the vehicle unfit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality therefore under the CRA do not constitute a fault in the first place.
  3. You believe that if a brake light bulb fails after say 3 weeks of ownership (meaning an MOT fail) that would be grounds for rejection?
  4. Thanks for your opinion but I was asking BF, as he speaks as though he has actually been near a court room in his experiences.
  5. BF, i’m interested in the part of your post where you say that’s any defect is grounds for a rejection within 30 days, no matter the seriousness of the defect. Does this imply that something as simple as split windscreen wiper blade or a brake light bulb can be grounds for rejection?
  6. The only thing I would add to what has been said is that you bought a car knowing the 2.0 engine had an oil consumption issue. You say it’s known that the 1.8 engine has this same issue albeit not as well known. I don’t wish to sound harsh but you’ve seemingly done a little research into this, learned that the engine has a common fault yet decided to press on with the purchase and then subsequently found that the car you bought has the same issue you sought to avoid in the first place? I suppose you’ll have to wait to see what Audi say and as to whether the consumption is within their tolerances. As said above there’s plenty of info out there on this subject. How old is the car and how many miles and how many main dealer services has it had if you don’t mind me asking? It’s a shame about these engines, I really like the look of the Audi A3’s! Out of curiosity, did the thicker oil slow down (no pun intended) the issue? How much oil is the car using?
  7. Right. So you have been with the AA for ten years, broken down with them twice in the last 5 years, both times were difficult to get the money out of the AA but it's only NOW that you advise people (by dragging up a nigh on 4 year old thread) to stay away from the AA. I see.
  8. I expect like BF says, you would have to take them to court and sue them for the difference between £12,500 and £15,000. I dont imagine proving the vehicle is/was worth £15,000 will be easy. Cars are worth what someone is willing to pay for them. I imagine what you may be better off doing is suggesting as a compensation for your inconvenience, that Lookers put you in a like for like vehicle at their cost.
  9. Go into the garage with a friend filming you, not any of the staff involved faces, just you. Capture on film the garage refusing your payment and referring you to this FCE mob. Re-iterate on camera that you are here to pay for the fuel you used and you do not believe you have any contract with anyone else. I’d keep this video as evidence they are refusing to accept payment for the fuel and get on with your life.
  10. I find it bewildering that Hillside haven’t insisted you get the van back to them for inspection, in the first place! It would probably take a good auto electrician a few hours to diagnose and either bypass some sensors or, deactivate then incumbent alarm and fit a new one to the doors and engine bay only. I suspect they think that you are suffering from “buyers remorse” and that’s why they are digging their heels in but they’re clearly wrong and this is abysmal behaviour from them.
  11. And you haven’t answered my simple question. I don’t think this is an argument I think it’s a debate and would help anyone looking for advice, balanced advice rather than cherry picking the parts they want to hear. I’ll say nothing else on this subject and the mods will of course delete anything i’ve said that isn’t factually correct.
  12. There isn't legislation that expressly states that the age and mileage of a vehicle will be taken into consideration. There is a difference between how law is written and how it is used. I've answered your question, please answer mine. How do you think a judge interprets whether to rule if a car is of satisfactory quality or not? Consumers coming to this forum should receive well balanced advice. Simply stating "Briefly as per Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 22 if you purchase for instance a new or second hand motor vehicle from a trader and within the first 30 days, a fault occurs, you have the right to reject it without giving the dealer an opportunity to do a repair." is not balanced, it gives people a sense of entitlement they are not necessarily entitled to. A lot of the time people don't want to hear the other side of the coin because it doesn't suit them to listen. They just want to hear "don't worry, you're covered, any fault take it back to the dealer and get your money back" Consumers should be encouraged to exercise their rights. They should also be made aware of the rights of the retailers as well. The CRA protects both sides of the coin. In the context of the 30 day short term right to reject it protects the consumer from dodgy dealers selling unfit or poor quality cars. It protects the dealer against those customers who have "buyers remorse" and think they can reject a car and get their money back for any reason. That's all I'm saying. At the end of all the debate, people should be given a balanced view. Not be told what they want to hear.
  13. It has everything to do with it. I quoted you some legislation the other day and you ignored it so i’m not sure why you seem so keen now. Let me put it another way. Part of the contract that goods must conform to, states the goods or services must be of satisfactory quality, yes? How do you think that term “satisfactory quality” is determined? It’s not written in any legislation so how would a judge rule on what amounts to satisfactory quality? What criteria would he/she use? On a used vehicle? It would be easy to see if the goods matched the contract in terms of “as described” for example a description of “great specification including sat nav” would be broken if the consumer discovered three days later, actually it doesn’t have sat nav! Fit for purpose? Well, does it get me from A to B? Allows me to get to work? That’s easy enough for a judge to interpret. Satisfactory quality. On a used car. How do you think a judge interprets whether to rule a car of satisfactory quality or not? Answer, he/she uses age, mileage and price paid. The only reasonable criteria he can use. And the basis of whether a car can be rejected under the 30 day short term right to reject is if it does not conform to the contract.
  14. Would you consider a light bulb failing after 5 days to be grounds for a short term right to reject? This isn’t a loaded question, just foundations for answering your question.
×
×
  • Create New...