Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'forsaking'.
Found 1 result
Hi there. I hope this post makes sense. I'll try to be concise We bought a used car from a dealer and moved 250 miles away. 20 days later a grinding noise, which may have always been present and mistaken for a sports growl, became so loud that my wife pulled over and called the AA. It was taken to a local garage who had a transmission specialist tear down the gearbox to find the mainshaft was badly worn. The brake discs were also found to be badly corroded. It was the garage's opinion that there was no way this could have been caused in 20 days of driving. And that to a trained ear, the fault should have been noticeable at the point of sale. Total cost of repair £1200 We were in touch with the dealer throughout this diagnostic process. After speaking directly to the mechanic, he sent me an email stating that it was not his fault, that he couldn't tear down every gearbox before sale, and that the damage was most likely caused by reckless driving. He offered to pay about half of the fees, which I rejected and have filed a claim using MCOL. I have documented the damage and I'm the process of getting an independent report based on the evidence I have. My claim is that given the price and mileage of the car, it was not fit for purpose. Because the car was in 1,000 pieces on the other side of the country, I didn't feel it was fair (on the dealer) or convenient for us to pursue my right to reject. Instead I asked him to meet the full cost of the repair. It was the only convenient solution that I could see for all parties. Having said that, I did present both options to the dealer, but as he ultimately did not admit liability, my only course of action was to pay for the repairs and pursue the costs in court. Here is (one of) my questions. By bypassing my right to reject, where does the burden of proof lie in terms of the faults being present at the point of sale?? It is my understanding that by invoking the right to reject within the first 30 days, the burden of proof lies with the consumer and after the 30 days expires, that burden is transferred to the dealer. I essentially bypassed that right, and moved straight onto the right to a repair - but still within the first 30 days!? I have quite a few other questions as I begin to prepare my case, but this is one that is nagging me right now. Any advice, much appreciated. OR... perhaps once it reaches the courts, burden of proof no longer applies, and it simply moves to the balance of probability? (we both provide evidence)