Premature rejection?

[killerbyte]

Hello,

 

I recently bought a 2011 Citreon Berlingo Multispace diesel with 98k on the clock. I paid a deposit on the understanding that the clutch would be fixed.

 

They did fix it and I went to pick up the car a few days later and paid the balance. On the drive home I lost control of the vehicle and had to pull over. I put this down to getting used to the car. As a precaution I put the car in to my garage the following morning. It was found to have play on the steering, shock absorbers at the front were gone, front brake discs excessively worn with 2mm lip and a bald and punctured tyre.

 

I informed the shop that day that I wanted a refund and they told me they don't do refunds. They said I should drive it over to them and they would fix it then decide whether I would be able to have a refund. I have refused to do that. They offered me a car in the interim while they fixed it and said one of their men would drive the car back. I refused that on the grounds that I wasn't sure of the legality of borrowing one of their cars and that the car cannot be driven. They offered to tow it over. I refused as at that point I had firmly decided I did not, at this time, want the car to be repaired as I required it to remain in it's current state so the faults could be proven once they sent someone to inspect it.

 

I have now formally rejected the car on the grounds that it was unroadworthy and unsatisfactory. The garage are refusing the hear my complaint unless I take the car over to them. I cannot do that as it is not fit to be on the road. I have offered for the garage to come to my mechanics garage to view it but they are refusing to do so. I have also offered for them to pay for an independent report so as to prove my case. I have also offered that if the report shows my case to be false and the car is roadworthy I will pay for it.

 

My question is: was I premature in rejecting the car?

 

My argument is: The car is in a poor condition for it's age and is has been sold illegally. These faults were spotted on a simple visual inspection by a qualified mechanic and therefore should have been noticed in the pre-sale checks all garages are obligated to carry out.

 

The garage has told me I will have to take them to court. I have told them I don't want to do that.

 

EDIT: Sorry, didn't say I paid £5450 for the car. £3950 n cash and £1500 for my previous vehicle.

Edited January 15, 2014 by killerbyte
More info added

[i hate bailiffs]

 

The garage has told me I will have to take them to court. I have told them I don't want to do that.

 

.

It probably is the best way forwards why would you not want to it is a straightforward process and winning is in your favour

You need to send them a letter before action outlining what needs to be done then on to court

You are quiet entitled to reject the vehicle but court may be the way to get money back

 

How have you been dealing with the garage? Sounds like the phone

All correspondence needs to be in writing,keep a paper trail

[Westmead Fan]

I informed the shop that day that I wanted a refund and they told me they don't do refunds. They said I should drive it over to them and they would fix it then decide whether I would be able to have a refund. I have refused to do that. They offered me a car in the interim while they fixed it and said one of their men would drive the car back. I refused that on the grounds that I wasn't sure of the legality of borrowing one of their cars and that the car cannot be driven. They offered to tow it over. I refused as at that point I had firmly decided I did not, at this time, want the car to be repaired as I required it to remain in it's current state so the faults could be proven once they sent someone to inspect it.

 

 

so you are putting obstacles in the way, in regards that the other car seller is willing to look at it & even repair it, but you don't want them to. no excuse for them selling a a car with faults, did the vehicle come with a new mot with it? i ask this question because these items would have been picked up in it.

[killerbyte]

On the phone so far and now through formal letters. Over on the piston heads forum they're telling me to get a grip. But they would, they're piston heads.

[killerbyte]

so you are putting obstacles in the way, in regards that the other car seller is willing to look at it & even repair it, but you don't want them to. no excuse for them selling a a car with faults, did the vehicle come with a new mot with it? i ask this question because these items would have been picked up in it.

 

I'm concerned that the owner has said he wants to repair it and then he will decide on a refund. Sounds to me like he wants to repair it to cover up the faults and give me no evidence of the problems.

 

It didn't have an MOT because it's not yet 3 years old. I would argue that a pre-sale check would have shown these faults very quickly.

[scaniaman]

Approx 2 yrs old and 98,000mls?????? and bought without prior inspection by your mechanic????????

[oddjobbob]

I think you should give them an opportunity to repair it.

 

 

 

 

how long is / was the mot? as "play on the steering, shock absorbers at the front were gone, front brake discs excessively worn with 2mm lip and a bald and punctured tyre." are all MOT failures (unless the discs MIGHT be within limit)

 

 

Nevertheless, if they are willing to repair it that might be a better and easier option for you.

[killerbyte]

--

Edited January 16, 2014 by killerbyte

[killerbyte]

Yeah. Just not sure what to do. It's a bit more complex than I explained it. The garage would absolutely not do anything unless I brought it back over to them. They said they would fix it then decide whether to give me a refund.

 

I didn't want them to fix it because I wanted to keep it as it was so it could be investigated before we decided on what to do.

 

They just wouldn't move. I offered them the opportunity to come and see it at my garage as I couldn't bring it to them.

 

They seemed to be very concerned with getting the car fixed. When I said it was not roadworthy they said they'd need to see it but it had to come to them. I was so suspicious because if I let them have it I was concerned they would just fix it even though they told me they only wanted to investigate.

 

So again I offered for them to see it at my garage.

 

I put it in for an MOT and it has been deemed dangerous to drive on account of the track road end having excessive play.

 

Not sure where to go from here.

[oddjobbob]

Difficult one to call really. I think it might well go against you if they are offering to fix it and you don't let them.

 

 

After it's fixed it either is or isn't, you know what's wrong with it, and it's all easy to spot and can't really be bodged. If the brake discs are only an MOT advise and not a failure then you can't expect them to replace those - after all at 98k it will have wear and tear, thats' life.

 

 

Personally a VERY gentle drive back and make it clear you want the MOT failure points attended to properly would be my way forward.

 

 

But it is a difficult one, and its up to you

[killerbyte]

They are not offering to fix it, they are ordering me to have it fixed. They have told me they don't give refunds and I don't have any statutory rights. I have a recorded answer phone message of one of their employees telling me I don't have any stat rights.

 

They have said that they will not be issuing a refund and will fix the car.

 

is that right? Can they do that? If not there's a big difference between breaking the law and enforcing the law.

 

We've had some very heated discussions on the phone. The communication has broken down.

 

Bottom line for me. I have a car that is dangerously unroadworthy. I am entitled to a refund. They should give me a refund.

 

No?

 

Thanks for your reply.

[oddjobbob]

No they can't do that...

 

 

but surely from your first post

They said I should drive it over to them and they would fix it then decide whether I would be able to have a refund. I have refused to do that. They offered me a car in the interim while they fixed it and said one of their men would drive the car back

 

If you can get the above then go for it IMO

 

 

But no, they can't say you have no statutory rights, unless you buy a car as a 'bona fide' car dealer, for spares or repairs, or at a 'sold as seen' auction such as BCA then NO ONE can take away your rights under the law.

[killerbyte]

Sure. That's what I would think.

Do I have a strong case for SCC?

 

* I rejected the car after one day

* The car is dangerously unroadworthy

* They have breached legal contract and their own contract

 

Can't see SCC letting them get away with that?

[heliosuk]

I put it in for an MOT and it has been deemed dangerous to drive on account of the track road end having excessive play.

 

Not sure where to go from here.

 

You are though putting barriers in the way of resolving the dispute and this WILL NOT go down well with a judge should you take recourse to legal action. They are under no obligation to collect the car either.

 

The mot you have had carried out, has the garage actually issued a red ticket on this? (If that is still applicable). Have you actually got an official failure notice? Or was it just a "pre MOT".?

 

If the garage doing the test are insistent that it is dangerous then just video the issue and ask the supplier to authorise to fix this particular issue. Then you can get it into a state where it is able to be driven back to the supplier who has offered to fix the remaining issues and give you a loan car, again something he is not obliged to do.

 

Taking the stance you currently have you are on a hiding to nothing at the moment. There is a set tried and tested procedure in law for this which you have to follow. If they fix the issues you cannot reject.

 

You need to calm down a bit and address the issues a bit more sensibly.

[killerbyte]

Hmmm. There's more to this but I don't want to say in a public forum. Anyways, thanks for your time and advice everyone.

 

Appreciated.

[heliosuk]

Delete this thread and rely on your previous one and calm down. At the moment you are blocking resolution. I can see it in the writing. You also confuse the issue. Put car in for MOT- MOT confirmed dangerous to drive yet then go on to say sent e mail to garage with MOT certificate.

 

If what you say is true then it must have a certificate. Are you referring to the advisories? Have the MOT garage actually issued a certificate with advisories or an actual fail notice?

[killerbyte]

yeah as I say, it's confusing isn't it. How do I delete a thread?

 

It wasn't a ceritificate it was a failure notice.

[heliosuk]

Yes there usually is isn't there. This forum is here to help and it usually does but issues requiring help by not declaring the full information soon get into trouble as it misleads.

[ims21]

Two threads merged and moved to the correct forum

[killerbyte]

Yeah I see. Only so much I can say here. Anyways, I have advice from some good sources. I'll work with that.

 

Thanks for your help

[heliosuk]

Stick to your original post but make clear it was a failure. Follow the procedure and you might get somewhere but at the moment the impression you give is that you are impeding resolution. I'll ask the site team to delete this particular thread.

[killerbyte]

Thank you. Deletion is fine.

[letsmakeamark]

Problem i can see is where the clutch has been replaced. This car should have been returned as soon as the first fault appeared. Correct me if i am wrong.

[killerbyte]

Problem i can see is where the clutch has been replaced. This car should have been returned as soon as the first fault appeared. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

Not exactly. I paid the deposit on the condiiton that they had the clutch replaced so the full amount hadn't been paid.

 

What I'm wondering (now) is not necessarily whether I'm within my rights to reject the car, I'm certain of the law and I'm certain I am. I'm really wondering about his response which, from the first day has been to tell me I have no statutory rights and give me the option to either him have it back and repair it or I would have to take him to court.

 

Is that legal?

[scaniaman]

I'm rather surprised the way this topic is going. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i always understood that if a punter had complaints with a car, they should inform the dealer immediately (6months rule).

Since everyone has statutory rights from a retail sale, it is up to the dealer to offer one of the following resolutions:- 1. Take vehicle back and repair defects. 2. Offer a replacement vehicle. 3. Offer a refund.

Note, it is at the dealers discretion which of the three resolutions he offers.