Challenge ! Find the Regulation.

[roythegrass]

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 !

[Prolix]

There's not a Regulation or Act that states this. When you reject you are reverting ownership of the goods back to the seller therefore you would be under no obligation to return goods to him. The goods would be his responsibility - not yours. An example - you lose the right to reject if you act in a manner incosistent with the sellers ownership. What this means is that if you modified the car you would lose the right to reject it because you wouldn't be able to put the seller back to the position he had been in prior to the sale i.e. in possession of a non-modified car. In practise it is often more convenient to return rejected goods yourself, but you don't have to. And strictly speaking you could claim for the costs of doing so as consequential loss. Hope this made sense!

[roythegrass]

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)

[Prolix]

1) - You are correct. But if he doesn't you can pursue for any storage costs or alternatively the cost of returning it to him yourself.2) - The legal owner and registered keeper can be 2 different people. Only the registered keeper is liable for tax etc. 3) - Yes 48B is to do with repair or replacement under the new remedies (brought in in 2002) and isn't strictly connected to 36. 48B says that any repair or replacement shouldn't cause significant inconvenience to the buyer.