Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please also take photos of the sign at the entrance as well as any signs inside the car park especially any that are different. Please take them from a distance where we can read them and if there is a payment machine, the sign on the machine or very close to it that explains their T&Cs for the machine.
    • Thanks for getting the signage posted up so quickly. The sign on entry should explain their T&Cs. As they don't it means that  what they have given you is  an offer to treat, not a contract. For there to be a contract they would have had to put their offer at the entrance.  You cannot put a notice saying that their T&Cs are inside the car park and expect motorists to be subject to those T&Cs when they are unaware what the terms are.. They have to be able to read them and understand them before they can accept them. My feeling is that the sign that includes the charge of £100 is too small to be acceptable On top of that the sign at the entrance is for Parking Control Solutions while the signs inside are from HX Management-a completely different animal. To strengthen your case for not paying them is the fact that their PCN is not compliant.  Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there are certain wordings in  the NTK  that by Law must comply with the Act. They don't  have to quote that part of the Act in their PCN but the relevant wording has to be included. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 [2]   the notice must  [f]   warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;   Your  NTK does not include  [if all the applicable conditions  under the Schedule have been met ]thus rendering the NTK non compliant.  
    • I agree its about time but why has it taken for the National Crime Agency to flag this up for then to take action and not Ofcom.   Yet again a Government Agency that is meant to deal with this hasn't Ofcom but flagged by another Agency NCA.   If the telephone companies have this facility in place already to do this then why hasn't Ofcom been pushing them to stop all these scam calls and giving them massive fines for not doing so.    
    • Hi   Send this to them:   Dear Sir/Madam   Formal Complaint   Reference:            (insert their complaint reference number here)   Thank you for your response letter dated XX/XX/2021 which I received by email on XX/XX/2021 that contained your Original Email sent that showed due to your Maladministration that you had sent the Original Email containing my Personal Data to an incorrect email address due to spelling errors in the email address.   a)      Due to this Maladministration of this email being sent to the incorrect email address this email contained my Personal Data which is a Data Protection Breach therefore I require clarification from yourselves that this Breach has been reported to your Data Protection Officer and what action is being taken to ensure that my Personal Data contained in that Original Email has not been read by the recipient that you sent that email to with the incorrect email address.   As the email was sent by yourselves to my correct email address containing the original email showing the incorrect email address was due to spelling errors (maladministration) your IT Department will be able to obtain those emails sent.   If I do not get a satisfactory response that this has been dealt with by your Data Protection Officer, I will report this Data Breach to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/   b)      Due to this Maladministration I failed to receive your Stage 1 complaint response within the allocated time limit for a Stage 1 response therefore this complaint should be dealt with as a Stage 2 Complaint and if you refuse to treat this as a Stage 2 Complaint, I require Full Clarification for your refusal.   I was placed in this Tenancy via the Rough Sleepers Initiative and I find your response about damaged/destroyed items that you would not be able to look into this as this happened 2 years ago but all tenants regardless of private or social housing are responsible for arranging their own contents insurance totally unacceptable as again, I was never notified nor informed of this requirement on taking up this tenancy.   I require clarification from yourself that when a New Tenant takes up a Tenancy Agreement with yourselves why are the not informed of this requirement of Contents Insurance which you should be duty bound to inform all tenants on taking up a tenancy agreement if such a requirement and it should also be noted within that tenants Housing File which you have full access to as dealing with complaint so I require clarification as well if this is noted in my Housing File.   You state multiple properties throughout the area were affected by sewage flood on the same day and the issue will have stemmed from the mains which is not your responsibility.   a)      You have failed to take into that the above statement from yourself blaming the Mains is without any actual evidence from yourselves to back up this claim therefore I require clarification as to what actual evidence you have and to be provided with copies.   b)      You also failed to take into account that in my initial complaint letter that on 12th July 2021 basement flats 1 & 2 were flooded by sewage exacerbated by blockage in the property’s drainage. The blockage has been confirmed by two contractors after the flooding including CCR who were subcontracted by Pyramid Plus that it was the properties drainage that was blocked. Also, while I was decanted from this property, I was contacted by CCR who confirmed that the drain was blocked but they could not access manhole as it was inaccessible as it is located in a utility cupboard underneath carpet, floorboards so how could this be the Main and not your responsibility when it is within the properties boundaries.   Your response about how complaints have been made by residents in relation to this issue is that your system does not allow you to find that information is completely unacceptable as your Housing Association should be able to produce these as part of ongoing repairs and maintenance/procurement processes to present these to your Board for there yearly Budget meeting if not why not.   Then you state you are under no obligation to share that information; therefore, your organisation is not being Open and Accountable to your Service Users and under which Article of the General Data Protection Act (GDPR) are you using for this refusal.   You have also failed to mention that I can make that above request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and what is your process for such a request again not being Open and Accountable.   I await your response.
    • RE: EC261 Compensation   It's normal they won't have asked you to contact them . Your initial rescheduling was obviously done by a bot - and there was no human to notice the mistake, as far as the bot knew your scheduling was perfectly normal so there was no need to ask you to contact them.   As long as that was done 2 weeks in advance the carrier's liability to notify you is fulfilled.   (You could have contacted them there and pointed out that the new schedule was impossible. Unfortunately you didn't. Claiming you didn't notice is not likely to work in your favor)   The bot who sent you the 24h confirmation didn't notice the mistake either, obviously.   At some point a human or another bot finally identified the problem and that's when they called you. As far as they are concerned neither you nor them had noticed the scheduling mistake and they took it on them to notify you so you don't have a bad surprise when you try and check in.   However as far as I know, neither flight was delayed or cancelled. You could have taken both flights, if you had the power to be in two places at the same time.   So I don't think there is any scope to claim for EC261. But claim forms are free so feel free to try.     Then, you can certainly make an old fashioned claim (directly to BA)   What could perhaps play in your favor:   It's the carrier's responsibility to ensure that they don't sell you a ticket where the flyer cannot meet the minimum connection time or MCT.   This situation mostly applies to situations where the flyer doesn't know and gets caught. For example say you connect at LHR and you are given 35 minutes to connect. This may look just fine to an unsuspecting tourist, but in reality there is practically zero chance to make the connection, therefore the airline is liable here for selling you this ticket resulting in you missing your connection   In your case though it could be argued that even an unsuspecting tourist should be able to tell that it is not possible for them to depart 5 minutes prior to disembarking and therefore that you should have checked your notification more carefully.   The fact that the bot allowed such a glaring mistake to happen is certainly an argument in your favour shall you decide to make a complaint.     What doesn't play in your favor:   The airline obviously did their best to get you to your destination as soon as they noticed their mistake. They offered you more than one alternative (the first alternative would have got you in time at your destination, but you declined) and you then accepted another alternative, and fully travelled the ticket. That is a very strong position for them.     What did you lose and what do you intend to claim for?   You took the overnight connection so obviously you had to stay at an airport hotel. Is that correct? Did you keep the receipt for your hotel and meals?   You certainly should have asked them on the phone when negotiating your re-route that they provide a hotel. Within 20hrs of the flight it's something they would most probably not have denied to you (but airlines will generally avoid offering off the bat. Why lose money when a customer is just going to roll with it and pay for their own stay anyway, right?). After the fact it's going to be a lot more difficult to claim.   I do certainly think it would be reasonable to try and write them a polite but firm letter to claim for that. Not 700 euros, not damages and hardship and all that jazz, just the extra expense you incurred following a scheduling mistake that they made (that should have never happened) and that they didn't notice until way too late in the day , with your categorical inability to leave 3 hours earlier (you had very important business meetings or something critical, it certainly wasn't just convenience) and the extra costs incurred, and asking that they kindly provide compensation for the hotel and meals, which you feel it was their duty to offer you and you are politely disappointed that they didn't, and thafully you happen to have kept all the receipts. Put Alex Cruz on copy for good measure.   No guarantee but I feel it has a fair chance of success. Most probably you will be offered a heap of Avios instead of cash. It's then up for you to decide whether you want to accept that. Personally I wouldn't bother going further, but that's just me. See if anyone here disagrees, and do let us know what you decide and keep in touch with how it went.            
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Bargain Cars Bristol - Rejecting used car after EML appears on 5th day - **RESOLVED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 133 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hopefully I haven't made too many errors up until this point, but I just wanted to check rights/compliance here before continuing.

We bought a used car less than a week ago - it was sold to us with no faults, and with an MOT carried out by the dealer with no advisories. They made a particular point of stating that they didn't sell any car with advisories on the MOT, and also drew attention several times to their AA Approved status implying that this meant they *had* to ensure the cars were of good quality/they were more legally compliant etc (I thought that AA Approved was just something dealers paid for to have a 'badge' and to have cars advertised on their website). The dealer also mentioned repeatedly during the viewing how 'immaculate' the car was.

Whilst test-driving, I noted the air-con wasn't working (it was 25 degrees that day). The dealer tried to insist it was cold when it really wasn't (this did ring some alarm bells at the time), I said that it would need to be fully working. Dealer agreed to fully test and regas the system before purchase, which they did.

Three days after the sale (and less than 150 miles driven), the engine management light came on, accompanied with a strong emissions/exhaust smell. We've also realised that the 'stop-start' function doesn't work (this could have been deactivate due to the fault code though), and that a replacement windscreen had been fitted rendering the rain-sensing wipers, automatic headlights and heated screen non-functioning. We didn't notice these faults prior to driving it, although I did mention the stop-start during the test drive (having never owned a car with this function) and the dealer made no mention of it not working.

I have an OBD scanner/reader, which tells me that the fault is a P0420, so is related to the catalytic converter.

I emailed the dealer outlinging these problems, and suggesting that the best course of action would be a refund as I need a fully operational car for work, and this fault could take them time (and money!) to fix. I should add that the dealer is a 2-hour round trip away (in good traffic), so I really do not have the time to take it back and fore.

 

They replied very quickly apologising for the fault, and saying that they will fix the engine management issue ASAP and 'hopefully before the weekend'. Regarding the windscreen, they say that is out of their remit as it was on the vehicle when they purchased it, causes no mechanical defect, and the rain sensors, auto headlights and heated screen were not specifically mentioned in the advertisement.

 

They have offered to have their mechanics look at these issues and if a straightforward fix, they will do this free of charge as a goodwill gesture, or find out the cost of repair and offer to do this (at our cost) if more complex. (To clarify, I did not mention repair being an option in my initial email, and only referred to a refund being the best option).

The car was sold with a 'full service history', although this consists only of stamps in the service booklet. We have no receipts of any work done apart from the dealer's MOT. This particular car is known to have issues with the timing chain (it's a Mini Cooper) after 100k miles, and the fault code could well be in relation to this problem. I mentioned this known model's fault during the test drive and was told that it would be very obvious/noisy if the car had this fault (which didn't really have anything to do with my question which was specifically 'has the timing chain and tensioner been replaced, as I know this is a known issue with these cars').

I've had bad experiences with used cars and dealers in the past, so my faith is easily shaken, hence me asking for objective opinion and advice here. Despite the 'extras' not being advertised with the car, surely the fact there are specific buttons/switches relating to the lights/heated screen etc, along with their not working not being pointed out at purchase mean that the car is not as described?

 

Where's the line here - there are windscreen wiper stalks/headlight switches etc, but these weren't specifically mentioned either in the advert, so are they also not covered? The EML so soon after purchase (and the code being potentially a serious one) is alarming, and having consulted mechanics specialising in Mini, they (without having seen the car) suggest that this could be an expensive problem to fix.

My partner paid for the car, and unfortunately did so part cash, and part BACS. This of course means we've lost full control of the money. Our bad experience previously was with a dealer who sold us a car with a 'new MOT' which then suffered a tyre blow-out, revealing a tyre which was literally threadbare on its inner edge. We got a refund from that dealer by sitting in their office and refusing to leave until the money had been refunded into our account. When we returned the following week with the logbook, the whole lot was empty - no cars, logos, nothing. Lucky escape there, so my partner assumed he'll be able to get the money back just as easily this time.

I haven't yet replied to their email, so would like to know the best way to proceed. Thanks in advance for any and all assistance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have reported problems within the short term right to reject period of the consumer rights act.

you are legally entitled to demand a full refund with no quibble. they are not able to choose repair should you not want it and you most certainly should not have to pay ANYTHING should you go that route..

 

pers i'd dump the car .

 

others will give more help tomorrow.

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for you response. I'm usually an endless researcher when it comes to buying used cars, but my OH is paying for this (I've been out of work since the pandemic started), and he insisted on just getting it done. I'm also kicking myself for not paying even £1 by credit card to invoke associated rights.

The dealership has been very friendly so far, but no doubt will likely keep insisting that they are entitled to fix the issue rather than issue a refund.

I should have added in the OP that the car is a 14 year-old Mini (so, a relatively 'premium' brand), with above average mileage (110k). I appreciate that wear and tear would be expected, but the car is physically externally and internally immaculate (this is where I'd expect and accept wear to be), but surely mechanically (engine and 'extra' electrics like stop/start, heated screen etc) should not be expected? I find it amusing that the dealer is passing off the non-OEM windscreen as out of their control as it was on there when they purchased the car. Er, that's your fault, mate! You're a car dealer so should've checked that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the name of the dealer? How far are they away from you?

It looks like you're another person who has fallen for an old car and paid by cash or paid by bank transfer and the surprising thing is that you seem to have been bitten by this before.

 

You also say that the MOT has been carried out by the dealer. This is never something that I feel comfortable with and frankly I would think about putting in for a new MOT elsewhere – somebody completely independent who might give the car a look over at the same time.

You say that the car was advertised "free from faults". Do you have a copy of this advertisement?

Your rights are that if a defect manifests itself within the first 30 days, then you have a right to reject the vehicle out of hand. If you want you can allow them to carry out a repair and if that repair fails then reject the vehicle under the six month rule. The six-month rule is that if a defect manifests itself within the first six months then you have to allow the dealer to attempt one repair. If that repair fails or they refuse to repair then you are entitled to reject the vehicle.

Although these are your rights, don't necessarily expect the dealer to comply and it is something that you might have to enforce through the courts

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BankFodder said:

What is the name of the dealer? How far are they away from you?

Bargain Cars Bristol (also trades as Southwest Vans and Commercials). They're around 55 miles away; Bristol is the nearest place to us which has a decent amount of car dealerships.

 

3 hours ago, BankFodder said:

It looks like you another person who has fallen for an old car and paid by cash or paid by bank transfer and the surprising thing is that you seem to have been bitten by this before.

My partner has (and had previously), yes. He's the very opposite of me - doesn't research endlessly, doesn't always err on the side of caution. I'm not in a financial position to buy a car, but need one for a new job, so the deal was that he paid for it but I wasn't to interfere with my 'over-cautiousness'. Yes, he's regretting that now! (I have so far managed to refrain from saying 'I told you so'). If it was up to me, I'd spend 3 months researching the history of car, dealership, MOT testing garage etc before buying, which is why he usually ends up taking over.

 

3 hours ago, BankFodder said:

You also say that the MOT has been carried out by the dealer.

Apologies, the dealer themselves didn't carry out the MOT, but they booked it in at a garage of their choice (which appears to be a couple of miles away from their business). Personally, I don't trust any MOT carried out by the dealer's garage of choice as there were no advisories on the car that had a blow-out either (I did report that garage after the blow-out, so hopefully it was assessed and action was taken).

 

3 hours ago, BankFodder said:

You say that the car was advertised "free from faults". Do you have a copy of this advertisement?

The ad doesn't explicitly state that, but the dealer stated it verbally (which obviously I can't prove now). Their own website's ad is still visible here, but the one on eBay (which is the one we saw) has been deleted, and I foolishly don't seem to have stored a copy of it.

 

3 hours ago, BankFodder said:

Your rights are that if a defect manifests itself within the first 30 days, then you have a right to reject the vehicle out of hand. If you want you can allow them to carry out a repair and if that repair fails then reject the vehicle under the six month rule. The six-month rule is that if a defect manifests itself within the first six months then you have to allow the dealer to attempt one repair. If that repair fails or they refuse to repair then you are entitled to reject the vehicle.

So, within the first 30 days I have the right to reject without having to accept a repair option, from day 31 up to 6 months I have to allow one repair attempt before having the right to reject? Is that correct?

My OH wants to 'compromise' with the dealer and say that if they process a refund immediately, we'll return the vehicle today at our own cost, but if they are unable to refund today then they will have to collect the vehicle from us instead (in line with our statutory rights).

However, this section of the CRA confuses me - doesn't this mean that we have to return it as stated on our receipt?
 

Quote

(7)From the time when the right is exercised—

(a)the trader has a duty to give the consumer a refund, subject to subsection (18), and

(b)the consumer has a duty to make the goods available for collection by the trader or (if there is an agreement for the consumer to return rejected goods) to return them as agreed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Bargain Cars Bristol - Rejecting used car after EML appears on 5th day

The return under the consumer rights act of the item bought would have to be at the expense of the retailer.

If the dealer themselves has arranged for an MOT at their own preferred garage – then frankly I would be prepared to cough up another 50 quid and go get another MOT at a garage of your choice. I think this would be a good move before you try anything. It's still very early days and say you are well within your 30 days.

Find yourself an MOT station with a good reputation and tell them that you want them to be particularly exigent because there are questions over the condition of the vehicle.

If you get MOT which failed or pointed out some serious defects, then this is grist to your mill.

This may seem to be a nuisance – but given that so far you have cut corners to save time and money, I think that you will have to treat this as payback time. Just because nobody took the trouble to be careful when buying the car, doesn't mean that some care and preparation shouldn't be taken when preparing to challenge the dealer and maybe to return it.

If you don't want to tell your partner that you told him so, then bring him here so that he can see that we think that he's acted quite irresponsibly in the way that he has chucked his money around.
Now there is a price to pay in terms of time, money, stress, uncertainty.

Your partner now wants to try and cut more corners by compromising but you don't really know what you are compromising over. Get the MOT and the check-over which I've suggested so that you understand exactly what you've bought and then you could understand what sort of compromises you might be prepared to make.

If the vehicle fails its MOT for some reason or other then I would be looking to recover not only the cost the vehicle, but the cost of the MOT failure, the cost of travelling to Bristol to purchase it and the cost of driving back with it.
In other words, if the vehicle is worth rejecting then there is no reason why you should be out of pocket at all.



 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dealer has agreed to a full refund today on return of the car (my OH insisted we offer to take it back to them). I'll post back later if this all goes through as planned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well given the amount of trouble it could have taken you otherwise, it's not a bad result – but the dealer is actually breaching his statutory obligations.

If you want, after your refund is in the bank, could pursue him for your out-of-pocket expenses. Take photographs of the car inside and out. Hope that there is not a dispute about the condition of the car on its return.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be sure to make this point to the dealer when we collect later. OH is now very clear on what to do on future car purchases (after the arguments subsided), and I will be ensuring that the deposit  (and preferably the whole amount) of a future car purchase is paid via credit card.

I'm not expecting the refund to go smoothly today either, as the dealer has since called claiming they have forgotten the code to the safe, so can only refund the bank transfer amount today (£700 was paid cash, the remaining £1600 via BACS). I'm aware that refunds ought to be processed via the payment method, but also that I have previously had refunds via different methods (for example if a card had expired). Is the dealer able to refuse a full bank transfer refund due to money laundering regulations in these circumstances? Are there UK laws governing this in general, or is this his own company's policy? (he said he would have to speak to his accountant to confirm whether he's able to refund the whole amount via BACS). He says that if they are unable to 'remember' the safe code, that they will call an engineer to remove the lock and we could have the cash back tomorrow. I suspect the code hasn't been forgotten at all, so why the delaying tactic?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that the dealer has any basis for refusing the refund. I'm not sure what you are on about when referring to money laundering.

Forgetting the code to the safe sounds like the most unlikely excuse I can possibly imagine. It rings alarm bells.

So I am hearing that you have to return the car and then you have to return later on for a refund – is this correct? This means that for a period of time he has your car and he has your money.

I think at the very least I would start recording conversations while you are there. Have a phone recording everything and have it in your pocket. Not that it will do you much good if you are about to be cheated.

When you return the car make sure that you bring along with you all documentation, extra keys et cetera so there is no sudden excuse as to why the return shouldn't be properly accepted. It could be an idea to ask for a cheque which you would return once cash refund has been paid to you. Of course that doesn't stop the cheque bouncing but it would be much easier to sue on a bounced cheque and for a dodgy vehicle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly, refunding by bank transfer when cash was paid would raise concerns about money laundering? I realise that most business have anti-money laundering policies in place, but that they were relating to due diligence, record-keeping etc. If they don't have to refund via payment method then we will take a full balance transfer. The majority was paid via this method anyway.

If the refund isn't made in full today, then they won't be receiving the car. I've also emailed a precis of the telephone conversation so that there is a 'paper trail' of it. Where can I find the legislation regarding refunds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I've found it:

 

Quote

(7) The trader must make the reimbursement using the same means of payment as the consumer used for the initial transaction, unless the consumer has expressly agreed otherwise.

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You buy something.

there is “offer, acceptance, ‘consideration’ and intent (provided there is also capacity to have the intent!) to ‘create legal relations’ “.

Those are the components of a contract.

 

It is a contract. Why do you think it isn’t a contract.

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I thought the Consumer Contracts legislation would be regarding online purchases, or contracts involving payments over a period of months, and the CRA was on purchases made in one go. If I'm wrong, great, as that clause quoted above is exactly what I need!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you are banging on about – but quite frankly it's not very relevant.

You have a certain right of refund and despite what regulations govern that refund, if the dealer isn't minded to respect your statutory rights, then you will still have to enforce that refund by going to court.

The fact that you find one seller regulations which you think applies as opposed to a different set of regulations, doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It all depends on the attitude and the willingness of the dealer to step up to the mark.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated earlier, the original method of payment was part-cash, part-BACS and the seller now says he's 'lost the code to the safe' so can only give us the BACS refund today and we would have to return tomorrow for the cash part of the refund. The seller suggested that he was obliged to refund via the original method of payment (despite being happy in principle to refund in full via BACS), but the legislation I quoted above suggests that the buyer can agree to a different method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legislation is not important. He can make the refund to you using any means which works for both of you – as long as you end up with the money.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

RESOLVED

We returned the car yesterday evening, and had a full refund via BACS. The dealer wasn't thrilled, naturally, and tried hard to get us to keep the car, saying that it was 'just a sensor' to fix the engine (he didn't inspect it, and seasoned Mini mechanics have said it's definitely not just a sensor) and also that he'd ordered a replacement windscreen that would fix the heated windscreen, automatic lights and rain-sensing wipers (possible). We refused this of course.

Despite my having quoted the relevant consumer legistlation, the dealer insisted that he had no obligation whatsoever to refund, and that the legislation I quoted only covered distance-selling/delivered cars (again, very odd for him to try this). So, he was 'providing a full refund as a goodwill gesture'. We bit our tongues.

I've suspended my insurance for the moment (with an aim to transfer it to the replacement vehicle if one is found before the end of the fee-free 14-day cancellation period), and cancelled the tax. So, I guess the only financial 'hit' I've taken is one month of VED (c.£11). The return trip to Bristol also included shopping/eating out so it wasn't a total waste of time 😄

I'm viewing a replacement car tomorrow and will be paying the deposit using a credit card! I realise that we could have fought for them to deliver/compensation for tax etc, but as I'm also going through an employment tribunal at the moment, I'm trying to keep stress to a minimum.

Thank you all for your assistance, it was invaluable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure that your ownership of the vehicle is cancelled. At the moment it could still be driven or parked somewhere and incur a penalty – or else the registration number could be checked and it can be discovered that it was no longer insured and if you would then have led to problems while you are trying to persuade the authorities that it wasn't you.

You need to type these loose ends

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Bargain Cars Bristol - Rejecting used car after EML appears on 5th day - **RESOLVED**

 

This Dealer has signed up to our Dealer Promise,
so you can trust them to:

😄🤣

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...