Rejecting a car under SOGA

[tezza1234]

Ok so brought a car exactly 3 months from garage, its a used car and i paid about the market value (certainly no lower)

 

During the 1st 4 weeks i was noticing i was putting about a litre of oil in every week and the heat shield fell off (minor but still) and the air con and blower packed up completely. It was not leaking oil it was burning it.

 

Contacted the garage who agreed to take it back and 'have a look' they did and 'fixed' the car.

 

fast forward to now and the car is suddenly using a litre of oil a week again, basically i think they temporarily hid/fixed the problem rather than a proper fix, I think its burning so much because of the piston rings and all they did was clean the breather pipes out.

 

So i got it, it went wrong, they had it back, fixed it (apparently) and now again its broken again.

 

As said ive had for exactly 3 months, can i still reject under SOGA

[silverfox1961]

Hi

They have had it back twice now and still the problem exists. In my opinion, you have given them the opportunity to fix this and they have failed.

 

I would write a letter rejecting the car on these grounds. SoGA is your friend here.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

[tezza1234]

Hi

They have had it back twice now and still the problem exists. In my opinion, you have given them the opportunity to fix this and they have failed.

 

I would write a letter rejecting the car on these grounds. SoGA is your friend here.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

 

This is along my line of thinking, SOGA on a used car pretty much covers up to 6 months dosnt it

[Last Of The Time Lords]

If they were to claim you have had it too long for rejection, then you can counter that by saying that the time spent trying to repair, does not count when considering if sufficient time has elapsed to say that you have accepted the goods.

 

Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320

 

With regard to the deemed acceptance provision in s.35(4), the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 had altered the law with regard to the correct approach to the lapse of reasonable time. Consequently, the time taken to effect modification or repair was to be taken into account in resolving questions of fact arising under s.35(4), Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All E.R. 220 disapproved.

 

 

In Clegg v Andersson T/A Nordic Marine, speaking of Bernstein v Pamson Motors, Sir Andrew Morritt VC said: "As the judge acknowledged that decision has been criticised (104 LQR 18). Further it was based on the terms of s.35 before amendment by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. It is unnecessary to express a view as to whether the decision of Rougier J was correct before the amendment to s.35 effected by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. In my view it does not represent the law now. As originally enacted s.35(1) provided that a buyer was deemed to have accepted goods, inter alia, “when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them”. S.59 provided then, as it does now, that what is a reasonable time is a question of fact. The material difference arises from the removal of that part of subsection (1) to subsection (4) and the addition of subsections (5) and (6). Thus subsection (5) provides that whether or not the buyer has had a reasonable time to inspect the goods is only one of the questions to be answered in ascertaining whether there has been acceptance in accordance with subsection (4). Subsection (6)(a) shows that time taken merely in requesting or agreeing to repairs, and, I would hold, for carrying them out, is not to be counted."

[tezza1234]

Cut a long story short, Brought a car on may 1st, for £1295 a 02 plate Picasso, within 2 weeks id noticed i was using lots of oil, reported the issue to garage purchased from they said they could take back in 2 weeks to take a look, In the 2 weeks the AC/Blower both stopped working also and the heat shield fell off under car.

 

So garage took the car back for repair on about 5th June then gave back and said problems were sorted, AC/Blower appeared to be working and for a about 12 weeks the oil consumption was ok, then i thought oh no here we go again, so i called Citoren who said yes the Picasso can have a high oil usage but should never, ever be anymore than 1 litre of oil per 1000 miles.

I have done just under 5k miles in the 5 months of owning the car and put 15, yes 15 litres of oil in it, so 3 times the maximum usage.

 

I wrote to the garage again who said, well its a used car, they do use a lot of oil, if you want us to take back we will give you the trade price of the car which is £500

 

My problem is this problem obviously existed from day 1, they have had it back to repair and in my opinion tried to cover the problem up for a few months and it has not worked, And there response is its a used car what do you expect.

 

I have been looking in to SOGA and feel i have a strong case, the car was not sold as faulty and certainly not sold cheaper than going value + they have had it back for repair already and failed to do so.

 

I should mention there have been other issues also, small electrical faults developing ect..... but for me its mainly the oil consumption one that worries me, A car burning oil at that rate obviously has a duff engine.

 

So if i take this to SCC what do you think, i personally feel i have a good chance.

 

Thanks as always.

[dx100uk]

very good case IMHO.

 

the dealer should be refunding you fully NOY offering £500!

on a car you paid £1250 for in MAY!!

 

give their local trading standards a call

 

they might already be aware of them.

they'll certainly help on the SOGA front.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

oh and the fact that its old & was not sold as faulty etc etc

 

make NO DIFFERENCE under SOGA.

 

he sold a duff car, refund please

 

dx

[tezza1234]

thanks DX will ring trading standards now

[tezza1234]

Have just spoken to TS who agree that yes i have a very good chance of winning this BUT, it could be a very long drawn out process. I have been advised to get 2-3 independent inspections done on the car to confirm it is a fault and not wear and tear and i may not get these costs back, that would be down to a judge to decide.

[dx100uk]

under soga th retiler should rfund any inspection fees

 

however as its under 6mts its down to the retailer to do these for free.

 

they cant say its W+T after just 5mts!!

 

dx

[tezza1234]

under soga th retiler should rfund any inspection fees

 

however as its under 6mts its down to the retailer to do these for free.

 

they cant say its W+T after just 5mts!!

 

dx

 

This is what i thought but im just quoting TS :/

[blackknight]

If it goes to court the judge will make a deduction for the 5,000 miles travelled in 5 months, i think you need to get them to up their offer a bit and take the money

[tezza1234]

If it goes to court the judge will make a deduction for the 5,000 miles travelled in 5 months, i think you need to get them to up their offer a bit and take the money

 

Are you sure about that, if it goes to court i will obviously be claiming for more than the purchase price, I will be claiming for the 15 litres of Oil for a start

If the garage was to be sensible about it, as i have been, then i may have been open to a fair and sensible offer, but there stance is we couldnt give a ****, take £500 or start legal proceedings.

[Prolix]

Even if you win in the SCC it doesn't mean you will automatically get the money. Try and reach a settlement.

[Conniff]

take £500 or start legal proceedings.

 

So, have you started legal proceedings ?

[tezza1234]

So, have you started legal proceedings ?

 

I have sent a LBA and when that expires i will be starting a claim against them.

 

They have been in contact via email basically saying if i want to sell it back to them its worth loads less ect.... I have tried to explain i don't want to sell it back, i am returning it as it is faulty, They were aware of the fault less that 4 weeks after ownership, had back, apparently repaired (bodg job, cover up) which has now gone hugely wrong again hence why i think i am entitle to all/most of the original price paid.

[Conniff]

The regs state, "you have for a short period ...." but it doesn't say how long that period is. If you are rejecting the car, it must be done in writing. After this so called short period, it is then 'repair, replace or refund with the seller choosing which one.

There is also an allowance that if a refund is given, they can deduct an amount for what the regs call 'enjoyment'. The longer you have had it, the bigger the deduction for enjoyment.

[tezza1234]

The regs state, "you have for a short period ...." but it doesn't say how long that period is. If you are rejecting the car, it must be done in writing. After this so called short period, it is then 'repair, replace or refund with the seller choosing which one.

There is also an allowance that if a refund is given, they can deduct an amount for what the regs call 'enjoyment'. The longer you have had it, the bigger the deduction for enjoyment.

 

Which is fine, i have attempted to reach a compromise but they consider £500 a fair offer. And of course i will be claiming for the £200+ ive spent on oil alone which is not normal usage. Yes ive had use of the car for 5 months, but the problem existed within a couple of weeks and they knew about it yet didnt fix it properly. TS seem to agree i have a good case. £500 is offensive but im not the one refusing to compromise.

[Conniff]

The regs also state that during the first six months, any faults are assumed to have been there at the time of purchase and it is up to the seller to prove otherwise..

[tezza1234]

The regs also state that during the first six months, any faults are assumed to have been there at the time of purchase and it is up to the seller to prove otherwise..

 

Exactly my point, how can the seller prove the faults were not there, they cant, its impossible. Assuming the car was filled with oil just before purchase within a couple of weeks it had burned through 3+ litres of it, to which i filled it up again giving them the benefit of the doubt and then it just burned it again within another 2 weeks hence why it went in for repair.

[Conniff]

Is the offer of £500 in writing ?

[tezza1234]

Is the offer of £500 in writing ?

 

Sort off, Email, which i have saved and stored.

[Conniff]

Email comes under the same classification as registered mail so is fine.

[tezza1234]

Email comes under the same classification as registered mail so is fine.

 

Thats good, so the LBA which i sent via email is also acceptable yes. Is it advisable that i post the email conversations between me and the garage (minus any personal details) for further advice, thanks

[Conniff]

I shouldn't just yet, if you think you need some legal advice, just shout and I will put a marker on you