Rejectiing new car due to faults SOGA - need some professional advice - any recommendations ?

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

Hi

Bought a new car from a franchised dealer recently, 3 faults become apparent very quickly Within 10 days they are advising the car needs taking apart so we reject the vehicle under sale of goods act and ask for a refund.

They refuse.

We now need a solicitor to advise but don't really want to go through with county court etc due to solicitor costs. (car cost 20k so won't go to small claims court)

Any recommendations for some professional help ?????

Thanks

[BankFodder]

I you have all of your evidence clear and in writing and it is all beyond dispute then you have nothing to fear from bringing a claim in the County Court because you have no chance of losing the case.

 

What are the faults?

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

1Dashboard panel not fitted correctly

2 Electric window does not close properly and auto close button causes window to close and then re-open

3 door seals on one side appear mal formed or flapping about.

It's not really about the chances of losing. I have a strong case as the reject letter was put in within 10 days of collection. It's more a case of inconvenience + cost for a solicitor and time. I have photographic evidence and detailed log of all events/conversations.

[Conniff]

Minor factory faults that should have been picked up in the PDI and corrected. I don't think you will find rejection that simple. Soga does not give a clear 'any faults and you are entitled to a refund', it does say that the seller should be given a chance to put it right.

[BankFodder]

Yes, I agree. It all sounds fairly minor. Get two written estimates for the repairs. They will probably be less than £10k.

[heliosuk]

You don't need estimates.... the car is under warranty if new. As conniff points out these issues should have been picked up on the PDI. Window is anti trap mechanism working so needs adjusting slightly but is doing what it is designed to do. Cannot believe you want to reject over these minor issues and you'd probably have very, very low odds on winning if you did take it to court.

 

What car is it for interest?

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

SOGA states goods should be free from minor defects and I don't have to accept a repair if rejected and the faults were there from new. there is caselaw to say so. Yes it's covered by warranty but that's not the point. Ripping the car apart will result in all sorts of rattles and noises and it possibly will not go back together the same way it was made. Looking at the dealers performance so far this is a very likely to happen. Why should I accept damaged goods ?

What I really need is a tame solicitor who can help me ensure this nightmare doesn't get any worse eg they repair it and later on after well and truely having messed it up they claim I should have claimed at the outset. This has happened in the past. Sorry I don't want to reveal the manufacturer but it's a quality brand that you should not expect this kind of issue with.

[Conniff]

You can take it for rectification and hand them a letter saying 'allowing them to attempt a repair does not relinquish your right to reject at a later date'.

 

You will not, nor will you be entitled to a full refund, if rejection is accepted, (and I don't think it will, even by a court), you will have reductions including for 'enjoyment'.

[heliosuk]

Well if you're quoting SOGA like that then is it because you are sticking to the letter of the law and you would accept the car with a major defect? With such a thing as a car there are bound to be minor defects. Quite often this, and manufacturers have proved this to be the case, it's a case of customer perception. You don't have to use the dealer you bought it off for warranty repairs, you can use any franchised dealer in the whole of the EU. From what you describe there is no need to "rip the car apart" and the car as delivered is far from what could be described as damaged goods. Cannot think why you won't name the type of car, cannot see what relevance not doing so might have and a 20 grand car, whilst I appreciate is a lot of money, is not deemed to be a premium quality brand anymore.

 

Think you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here with respect.

 

You asked for professional help and you've got it from at least two here.

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

Thanks for the replies.

Conniff - thanks for the good point re reserving right to reject later. I understand I can get a refund if I have rejected the goods - which I have done.

 

Heliosuk can you give a reference to a manufacturer having proved the case that it's OK to deliver with minor deects. I'd be quite interested. The reason I say this is that actually I have seen case law that says that AFTER repairs a rejection can still stick but other case law says can't reject after a longer period of time than I have rejected in. So I'm looking for reference points to determine how reasonible it is to continue to reject.

 

This is not a warranty issue it's a "not as described and not free from minor defects" case. I'm not naming the brand as I don't want the dealer or manufacturer being party to this public conversation and really it shouldn't make a difference as to what the position is.

Thanks

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

Oh yeah !!!

A simple flow chart.

google the file 12-937-enhancing-consumer-consultation-supply-of-goods-services-digital.pdf and look at page 40

It clearly shows I can reject and get a full refund.

[Conniff]

That is a consultation paper not regulation.

[heliosuk]

It is also a consultation in relation to digital goods plus a note "(A) The reasonable time for acceptance excludes time spent repairing the good "

 

There is no hard and fast rule about the time to reject but there are certain protocols which need to be followed such as the opportunity to rectify actual or perceived defects.

 

The action you seem to be taking does appear to be frustrating any attempt by the dealer to resolve the situation if indeed you have given them the opportunity.

 

Motor cars a very complex things to build and issues such as you describe are usually sorted out amicably quite quickly. I've dealt with many of these in the past and have even agreed buy backs so can say with some authority that steaming in with rejection demands will not help your case.

 

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

Hi Chaps,

Thanks for your responses. Please let me comment to each point

"That is a consultation paper not regulation." Yes it is a consultation that makes suggestions starting on page 63. The bit on page 40 that I am talking about is the law as it stands today in a readily understandible form.

 

It is also a consultation in relation to digital goods. Yes but it IS a consultatation on GOODS, AND services AND digital goods not only on digital goods.

 

plus a note "(A) The reasonable time for acceptance excludes time spent repairing the good " Yep I'm fine with that and well within everything I have seen on the subject.

 

"there are certain protocols which need to be followed such as the opportunity to rectify actual or perceived defects." But if I follow the rejection route I do NOT have to allow the seller the opportunity to rectify the faults it is up to ME. If however I do not notify them promptly I am forced to go down the repair route where they can determine whether they repair it or not - well that is my understanding and I am looking for someone who has experience of that path. (see page 40)

 

Is there a solicitor in the house who knows about rejecting goods under the sale of goods act ??

 

The reason for the rejection is based on the faults but behind that is my experience in the past with incapable "technicians" who made a similar situation much worse than it was in the first place. Therefore as I have the right not to accept a repair because I have moved quickley I am trying to be amicable by making the vehicle available for inspection but I have not authorised a repair. It might look like I am steaming in but I MUST reject quickley otherwise I loose the right to reject and ask for a full refund.

 

Thanks for the support.

[postggj]

Lets sort this out

 

To reject the vehicle of unsatisfactory condition is done under Part II Section 14 SOGA

 

By supplying a dodgy motor, the trader will be in breach of contract

 

Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987 has held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault

 

The goods must be returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork. (Scott and Scott v Blade Motor Company 1997.)

 

Rogers v Parrish 1987 has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject a car and obtain a full refund,

 

If a product that was not of satisfactory quality at the time of the sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer is entitled to a full refund if it is within a reasonable time of the sale,

 

Darren Egan vs. Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (18 October 2007) is a Court of Appeal case which saw the consumer who attempted to reject his vehicle lose out dramatically.

 

The legal expenditure of both parties was around £100,000

 

Lord Justice Ward to exclaim: "...one or other parties to the action, if not both of them..." were "...completely cuckoo.

 

These matters that you describe are totally insignificant to any major problems. If the dealer fails to correct the issues raised then you can reject the vehicle and claim a refund

 

Being blunt, you will be "cuckoo" to bring any claim to the courts without giving the dealer an opportunity to fix the defects

Edited June 25, 2013 by postggj

[heliosuk]

Your missing the point Iwon. You do not lose the right to reject at any time.

 

However you make an assertion that the car is faulty based on an assumption. It could be that the dash mis fitted could actually be within design limits or manufacturing tolerances. Is it a gapping problem between the A posts, is it an angle setting problem?

You have no proof that the seal has not been damaged in transit. The electric windows again can be an adjustment or even down to the seal you complain about. Without the details of the car affected it's not possible to say.

 

You don't have any proof that the dealer will mess up any repair and you haven't given them the chance.

 

When did you buy the car?

 

Some manufacturers know they have an issue with certain things and have steps in place to fix. It does and frequently happens.

 

What is apparent that it seems to have had a poor PDI yet again I come across instances of supposedly poorly fitted seals on doors which are actually designed to be like that to deflect to deflect water or reduce wind noise.

 

Take it back....tell them in writing to either fix to manufacturers standards or give an explanation as to why it's like it is otherwise you will reject.

[heliosuk]

I think Postggj has it in a nut shell.

 

Take it back and ask them to fix it.

 

Again, please state what car it is......it won't hurt you or any case you may have but there are many posters here who can tell you if it's a known problem.

[scaniaman]

Please excuse my ignorance, but where do you get a NEW, QUALITY car for 20 grand in this day and age.

[Conniff]

If you want to reject, you 'must' do it in a letter and you 'must' stop using the car immediately.

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

@postggj The dealer does not have 3 chances if the goods are rejected because the buyer can choose whether to accept a repair. We have rejected the goods in writing already. The dealer has 3 chances if I don't reject in time (doesn't apply as I have) and they choose to repair it.

@postggj Re "returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork" - this was done but they refused to accept the rejection.

@ postggj Re "Darren Egan vs. Motor Services - In that case the reason it was not accepted was because it was deemed of satisfactory quality because "the sensitivity of the car to camber was in fact normal for that type of car" I would consider that it is not unreasonable for this car to be assembled carefully, and for the windows to work

@postggj You seem to be looking at the same site as me for your information. If you are connected to this case it would be inappropriate not to admit that now.

 

@helios - I have given the garage a chance to inspect the vehicle and they did leave it in a worse state than it was given to them. This does go some way to prove they might mess up the repair but as you say I can't (and didn't) reject it for that reason. The fact that their sales director said he would repair it at another branch that had better skilled technicians suggests that they don't rate the skills of their own staff either.

@helios the manufacturer has not identified or accepted any faults into a planned program. Equally they have not informed the dealer of a possible window re-calibration procedure that avoids replacing the window motor so they're as bad as each other.

 

@Conniff - The car has been rejected in writing and we stopped using it at that point.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply chaps. I'm still looking for a solicitor by the way !

[heliosuk]

All quiet on the IWon front it seems.

[heliosuk]

Ah ha....perhaps not. What else have you not declared?

 

Think I'll be off to Ladbrookes tomorrow to put some money on the dealer!

 

Still cannot understand why you won't state what car it is. If you did it might go some way to helping you resolve the issue amicably, quickly and satisfactory.

 

In my experience this smacks of errrr.................I don't like the car and have made a mistake.

[postggj]

Information is sourced from whatever social media is available

 

I have quoted the relevant case law that states you are ill advised to go down the route you desire for a form of redress

 

I have advised on a few cases under the SOGA and have gained my knowledge through mistakes which i freely admit to

 

If you carry on down your course of action, you will end up with a rather large costs order against you for being a vexatious litigant

 

It is your choice to make, make the right one

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

@heliosuk - What did I not declare ?

@heliosuk - How would naming the manufacturer resolve it any quicker unless the manufacturer is going to suddenly jump in to avoid the embarrassment of bad PR ? (I don't think so)

Oh and by the way we love the car but the dealers refusal to act within the law has spolit it.

 

@postggj OK understood and I appreciate your input. I'm trying to establish whether my understanding is correct around rejection NOT repair. Should it be proven wrong by someone on here then I may have to accept a repair. However I think I'm right in saying that nobody has said my understanding of rejection is actually wrong just that it may a) be difficult or b) may be challenged because of case law etc.

[postggj]

It might help under what statutory authority you think you can return the vehicle and instantly be given a credit note as to the vehicles value at time of sale

 

If you are quoting the SOGA

 

Then please advise which section of the act you are referring to substantiate your reasoning