Had a reply from the 'lawyers' trade cars are using:
We have recently been instructed by the above named Client in respect of your purchase of the aforementioned Vehicle. We are in receipt of your letter of the 05 March 2019 addressed to our Client and we respond as follows.
We understand that you purchased the Vehicle from our Client in or around the 23 February 2019 for a total consideration of £1,990. Prior to selling the Vehicle to you, our Client had completed a pre-delivery inspection on the Vehicle and it was sold with a valid MOT certificate.
Our Client is fully aware of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “CRA”). The Vehicle must be of satisfactory quality s9 CRA, fit for purpose s10 CRA and as described at point of sale – s11 CRA 2015. Our Client will rely on the aforementioned documents to discharge the burden upon them as per s19(14) CRA 2015.
We understand from your letter that you allege that the Vehicle has a leak in the fuel tank. We understand that you took the Vehicle to an independent third party garage for an inspection, you then go on to allege that upon completion of the inspection the garage informed you that half of the fuel tank was corroded. You believe that you are entitled to reject the Vehicle under the CRA 2015. We can advise that you have no grounds to reject the Vehicle at this stage.
We respectfully refer you to s22 CRA which deals with a consumer’s short term right to reject. In order for a consumer to seek to enforce their short term right to reject, the Vehicle must have a fault that renders the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality at point of sale. Please note that it is not any fault that then allows the right to reject. We note that you have not provided any evidence to support your allegations. We ask that you now do so by return. We would respectfully refer you to the provisions of s19(14) CRA 2015 and can advise that they do not apply to the short term right to reject and the burden is upon you as the consumer to show non conformity with the CRA 2015.
Further and in the alternative we would refer you to s9(4) CRA 2015 which states that when considering whether a fault would render the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality a consumer cannot seek to rely on an issue where the consumer has already examined the goods before the contract was made and which such examination ought to have revealed such an issue. We would aver that in relation to the fuel filter you have signed the pre-delivery inspection confirming that you were aware of such defects at the point of sale. As this would have been reasonably clear to you at the point of sale, you cannot seek to rely upon this in order to reject the Vehicle nor does our Client have any liability to repair the same.
In summary we can advise that our Client has no liability in relation to the Vehicles fuel filter. In the event you believe the Vehicle to have further issues, we would invite you to provide evidence to support your allegations by return. Upon review of the evidence we will revert to you with our Clients findings and proposal for resolution.
Please ensure that all future correspondence is sent directly to this firm.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Any advice on how to respond from here would be much appreciated.
I would ideally like to settle out of court and get the full price of the car back, although im not bluffing and will go to court if necessary. I have a report from a 3rd part mechanic which states that the fuel tank is heavily corroded resulting in a petrol leak and therefore, in his opinion, it is unsafe and not road worthy.
Again, any help with a response here is very welcome