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

[Conniff]

 

 

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,

 

 

Rejection is still a court decision and the rejection reason. There was at a case where a boat was allowed to be rejected two years after purchase so that is not a precedent time limit or it would have been incorporated into the legislation.

[postggj]

Mistake

[postggj]

Rogers v parish 1987 is a court of appeal, queens bench so precedent set

 

unless i am missing something??

Edited June 27, 2013 by postggj

[Conniff]

I'll see if I can dig it out, there might have been special circumstances.

[postggj]

Lee v. York Coach and Marine

 

IS THIS IT

 

the fact that a defect is reparable does not prevent it from making the res vendita unmerchantable if it is of a sufficient degree: see Lee v. York Coach and Marine [1977] R.T.R. 35.

[heliosuk]

@heliosuk - What did I not declare ?

 

"@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."

 

This is the first time you have stated that they have already had a go at fixing it

 

@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.

 

They don't have to have a planned programme. It's routine repair work probably detailed in the workshop manual. How can they inform/help the dealer if they don't know of a problem?

 

@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)

 

The manufacturer probably doesn't even know this is going on. Have you registered the complaint with their Customer Relationship Centre? If they don't know they can't help can they?

 

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

 

They are acting within the law...it's you not following protocol .

 

If you state the make then it's quite possible someone on here knows the best route to get to the big cheese who can intervene for you.

[heliosuk]

Lee v. York Coach and Marine

 

IS THIS IT

 

the fact that a defect is reparable does not prevent it from making the res vendita unmerchantable if it is of a sufficient degree: see Lee v. York Coach and Marine [1977] R.T.R. 35.

 

Essentially then ggj the key is "if it is of a sufficient degree"

 

I can't see this in this case. It's minor easily rectifiable stuff which seems to have been carried out by incompetent technicians.

[Conniff]

These aren't repairs, they are 'adjustments'. All Dealer sales expect brand new cars to come in for the first service with a list of things the buyer would like attended to.

[heliosuk]

Yes....very true..and I of all should know better!!

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

Hi

Heliosuk. re not giving the full story I see where you are coming from. I didn't omit that deliberately - I just tried to keep it short in my initial posting and hadn't had occasion to mention it before.

Re planned programme and who the manufacturer is, the dealer has spoken to the manufacturer and the manufacturer agreed they can have a motor for the window - but this was authorised by non technical support staff who don't know what a window is let alone what the sale of goods act is. They did not lookup the recalibration process and have not told the garage about it. I did contact the manufacturer and they basically said sod off as there is nothing they can do for me as I am a customer of their customer - which I accept. I actually rang the manufacturer to support the dealer as they are the one who are stuck in the middle.

 

Anyway, today I had confirmation from 2 solicitors that I am absolutely correct and entitled to a full refund. Section 48 seems to be the mainstay of the case. So I refute your assertion about protocol !! However I have asked the dealer for a repair with several conditions including if the repairs fail they accept my letter of rejection. This is not something I wanted to do but something I have had to do.

 

So if you have a contact at Honda who can wave a magic wand then now is the time to wave it. Cos if I have to accept a repair and the manufacturer doesn't support the dealer with a replacement vehicle then the world will be entitled to know about it.

[postggj]

1. S.48B (1) Repair or replacement

 

 

S.48B provides that the buyer can require the seller to repair or replace the goods at the sellers expense. The seller is required to do so within a reasonable time. If the buyer makes this request they lose the right to reject the goods unless the seller does not comply within a reasonable time. The seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

 

2. S48C(1) Reduction of price

 

The seller may be required to reduce the purchase price under s.48 C (1) where the seller has not complied with a request from the buyer to repair or replace because it would be disproportionate to do so. This is a secondary remedy and can not be requested without the buyer first making a request for repair or replacement which has not been fulfilled.

 

3. S. 48C (2) Rescission of the contract

 

This is another secondary remedy available only where a request for repair or replace has not been complied with. Rescission is putting the parties back in their pre –contractual position ie the buyer gives back the goods and the seller gives back the purchase price. However, the seller can deduct from the purchase price any value for the use the buyer may have had of the goods

[heliosuk]

At last!!! It's a Honda.

 

Right then. Japanese manufacturers are notoriously slippery for dealing with customer complaints such as this. I think Mazda hold the top spot at the moment closely followed by Toyota and the recent press to admit there is a problem in Toyotas is a classic example.

 

What's interesting, now the full tale is coming out, is that the dealer had to phone for permission to change the motor for the window. What this indicates is that they either have an emerging problem or that there is no problem and dealers are changing motors without fully confirming they are faulty. It also indicates that the issue is under investigation. The dealer will not necessarily deal with a tech savy person either. It's just a check to determine/confirm a set of checks have been carried out as the engineering teams determine what might be the issue. They won't know anything about SOGA nor is it their position to do so.

 

I would take issue with your second paragraph and respectfully point out that whilst they are right, there is still a protocol to follow, which has been pointed out to you all along not just by me. The steps you have subsequently taken are what to all intents and purposes people have been saying is the way to do it based on the limited information you supplied.

 

Get the car looked at again by the dealer with the letter as you have done. Then give them one more go with the proviso that if not right at the time of collection you will refuse to take away and have then formally rejected.

 

At that point you are on firm ground having complied with all protocols and meet the requirements of the precidents set.

[IWonVsWoolwichBarclays]

Yep so we seem to be in s.48b

[postggj]

seller need not repair or replace the goods where this would be impossible or disproportionate to do so.

 

YOUR VEHICLE HAS NOT HAD ENGINE FAILURE ETC

 

ONLY MINOR ISSUES