advice on legal rights for faulty new car

[izzy wizzy]

Can anyone help me with this issue please? I bought a brand new peugeot 206cc on 1st Mar 2006, it was my 2nd 206cc so straight away I noticed that the roof wasn't fitting properly and the wind noise when driving was really bad. Anyway since then the car has been in the dealer about 15 times and its still not right, the roof now even leaks when you put it through a carwash and its only done 8000 miles. I've been waiting for peugeot to give me the figures for a deal on their new model, the 207cc, which they have done today. However they've only offered me 60% ish of the price I bought the car for last year as a trade in, thats over a 3rd deprecaition in less than a year and although they are offering a £1000 dicount on the new 207cc that means i'd have to pay out a whopping £6500 for a replacement vehicle. I feel sick, I cant believe that i have no come back at all, but they're saying that is a really good offer...HELP!!??

[Rob S]

If the car has been back numerous times for the same fault and they have failed to rectify it then you have given them ample opportunity to try. I would contact your local trading standards and I would also advise the dealer that the car is not fit for purpose and that you are taking the matter up with trading standards and see how they react to that.

[rosiecotton]

How did you buy the car?

 

Incidentally you have indeed given them more than reasonable opportunities to put this fault right and as they have failed to do so you should now be able to claim either:

 

- Replacement vehicle (like-for-like, same model, mileage etc, if this is possible)

 

or

 

- Rescission of the contract, they take back the car and give you a partial refund allowing for the wear and tear you have had from the vehicle.

 

You wouldn't be entitled to betterment, i.e. a brand new replacement or a replacement of a better specification.

 

I won't advise in full until I know how you paid, as this can make a difference.

[izzy wizzy]

Thanks for the responses so far, I have just spoken to the Hants Trading Standards Dept who have advised me to send their template letter for faulty goods and breach of contract due to unsatisfactory quality under the sale of goods act 1979; which I will prepare and send today/tommorrow.

 

In the meantime I bought the car by trading in a 2 year old version of exactly the same car and I paid the balance in cash, so any further advice related to that will be much appreciated.

 

As for a like for like replacement, I understand that but if they dont have one and I have to go for full and partial refund, how do I assess what is a reasonable reduction for a car 11 months old, with 8300 miles on the clock? It cost between £15-£16k, (need to dig out the paperwork and check exact figure) and they are offering £9.5k which is the book price and I dont think thats reasonable, plus the salesman freely admitted he would sell it on at about £12k. I know thats how the motor trade works but after all this hassle dont think they should be looking to make a further profit out of my custom a year on (a very stressful year!) I'm now thinking I should forget trade-in with them completely and go for a cash settlement.

 

I am so glad I have found some help on this, thanks guys!

[rosiecotton]

It's a hard one, rescission; ultimately only a judge can decide what constitutes a reasonable refund.

 

From my own point of view I would say that they should not expect to profit from the fact that they have sold you faulty goods. Therefore they should not offer you a partial refund which is any less than what the car is worth to them, if they re-sell it.

[Glenn UK]

On the issue of replacement like for like, if they cannot find one the same and offer you a newer model then you cannot be expected to pay the difference I believe.

 

Whilst this may be putting you in a better position than you are now that would not be your fault. They have other remedies which include partial refund.

 

Rosie is right about whats fair, but i would argue that book price selling out is your loss, not their buying in price.

 

The damages to you is the cost of having to replace the vehicle like for like at what you would have to pay i believe.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[rosiecotton]

That's right, if they can't offer you a like-for-like replacement and do offer you a different vehicle, they can't insist that you pay - however if rescission is a cheaper option for them they can insist that this is the course of action to follow and you can't demand a replacement if it's going to be more expensive for them than rescinding the contract, if that makes sense!

 

It would make sense to me to award you damages of whatever it would cost you to replace the car with a theoretically "identical" model.

 

If I were a judge that would indeed be my way of thinking, anyway.

[izzy wizzy]

Thanks. I've sent a letter asking to them to source me a like for like replacement or asked them for the retail price of a like for like model. I'll let you know how I get on!

[oz4725]

Izzy Wizz

 

I deliver these motors and this happens more than you would believe. Dont let them tell you that they cant source a particular make or model and dont put your hand in your pocket. I know of 3 cases where dealers have replaced Coup Cab cars thru dodgy roofs. Dealers will fob you off all the time because most people give in, but hang on in there and get a new car replacement from them. (After 1st march so you get the new plate!)

[izzy wizzy]

Thanks Oz, I will keep going! Have had holding reply from them so far. Am intending to speak with Trading Standards again next week to see how long i should reasonable allow them to 'investigate the problem'.

[MrFancypants]

Izzy don't want to be a wet blanket but whilst you are certainly entitled to compensation for your loss of amenity when it was being repaired numerous times I don't think you will be entitled to a refund.

 

The problem is 1st that you kept the car too long You gave them too many opportunities to put it right causing time to pass.

 

2nd most new cars devalue to the tune of 1/3 as soon as they leave the showroom so the offer they have made might not be so bad. However now that you have involved TS I should press for more

[Glenn UK]

Izzy don't want to be a wet blanket but whilst you are certainly entitled to compensation for your loss of amenity when it was being repaired numerous times I don't think you will be entitled to a refund. I disagree at least in the sense that the OP is entitled to a like for like replacement.

 

The problem is 1st that you kept the car too long You gave them too many opportunities to put it right causing time to pass. I disagree the problem of the roof was that it was ill fitting, now a leak has developed. This means that the car is not fit for purpose. I have heard similar comments before and I think you are refeering to acceptance/rejection of the goods. im not certain if a new problem arises then its relevant. if the leaky roof isnt a 'new' problem you may have a point. be interested to see what Rosie thinks.

 

2nd most new cars devalue to the tune of 1/3 as soon as they leave the showroom so the offer they have made might not be so bad. If they are attempting to settle then they need to offer a like for like reaplcement, although not one with an ill fitting leaky roof.

However now that you have involved TS I should press for more

 

JMHO

 

glenn

[MrFancypants]

Glenn I agree the car was not fit for purpose & didn't say they wouldn't be entitled to a like for like but they wouldn't be entitled to a full refund not after this length of time

 

Also I think the original fault referred to was a badly fitting roof which has now started to leak which can hardly be described as a new! problem. They may be entitled to claim additional compensation for the loss of use but I think they will have difficulty claiming more that 1/3rd for the car alone which is what is being offered

[Glenn UK]

Glenn I agree the car was not fit for purpose & didn't say they wouldn't be entitled to a like for like but they wouldn't be entitled to a full refund not after this length of time Ok but i thought we had got past that and the OP understood it was a like for like not full refund, perhpas i misunderstood somewhere.

 

Also I think the original fault referred to was a badly fitting roof which has now started to leak which can hardly be described as a new! problem. LOL well i guess its about degrees, the original complaint as i understood it was that the roof was noisy, now it leaks, we can argue the toss but its further degradation of the problem and imho changes the position.They may be entitled to claim additional compensation for the loss of use but I think they will have difficulty claiming more that 1/3rd for the car alone which is what is being offered

 

LOL we can agree to differ then i suppose but theres no harm done it wouldnt be any fun if we all agreed all the time would it.

[rosiecotton]

I think we did already discuss that the OP can't reject for a full refund; the advice given was that as they had had a reasonable opportunity to repair the faulty roof and had failed to do so to a satisfactory standard, the options were now either a like-for-like replacement, or if such a car cannot be sourced, then rescisson of the contract which would be a refund to equal the cost of a like for like replacement.

[izzy wizzy]

Yes, I think I'm with Rosie on this one. TS have advised me that I am entitled to a like for like replacement which the garage are trying to source. Apparantly if they cannot do that then I can reject the car and claim a 'full or partial refund' as I have given them ample opportunity to fix the problems. I'm not expecting a full refund but I will be expecting enough to purcahse a like for like replacement. i.e. I have asked for the retaill price for my car not the 'trade-in' price. I'll let you know how I get on when i hear more.

[MrFancypants]

Izzy then your missing the point. I'm NOT saying your not entitled to a 'like for like' what I am saying is that if the garage have offered you a replacement 1/3 less than you originaly paid then that IS 'like for like'

 

When you drove your new car out of the showroom it devalued by 1/3 so even if it was fault free it is now still only worth 2/3rd's of it's original purchase price

 

However if you didn't have use of a courtesy car from the dealer you may be able to claim for loss of use at about £10 per day or any other costs you may have incurred

[oz4725]

Mr FP

 

I think you are missing the point. Firstly this is not uncommon with Coup Cab type cars. As stated the car was bought new so izzzy needs to be hanging out for a new car replacement. I aint no legal eagle, i just deliver the things. What i can say is that your way of the mark with your monetary workings. Izzys car will go to another part of the country,(prob south coast as it has best coupe cab sales and prices) get fixed and be flogged at a grand less than new being 1 year old. Peugeot will take the hit on replacing the car not the dealer.

If it was a washing machine you would be saying take it back to the store and get it replaced, i dont see a difference.

In my view Izzy will get a "deal" out of the dealer. I was actually speaking today to a salesman who last year had replaced a 2yr old motor for a new car as they had had a recurruring fault for 18 months.

[rosiecotton]

Mr FP

 

I think you are missing the point. Firstly this is not uncommon with Coup Cab type cars. As stated the car was bought new so izzzy needs to be hanging out for a new car replacement. I aint no legal eagle, i just deliver the things. What i can say is that your way of the mark with your monetary workings. Izzys car will go to another part of the country,(prob south coast as it has best coupe cab sales and prices) get fixed and be flogged at a grand less than new being 1 year old. Peugeot will take the hit on replacing the car not the dealer.

If it was a washing machine you would be saying take it back to the store and get it replaced, i dont see a difference.

In my view Izzy will get a "deal" out of the dealer. I was actually speaking today to a salesman who last year had replaced a 2yr old motor for a new car as they had had a recurruring fault for 18 months.

 

She may well be able to get a "deal" but legally she would only be entitled to a like-for-like replacement or a partial refund to cover purchasing a like-for-like replacement. Rescission of the contract (getting a refund after the initial rejection period, which is only a matter of weeks in most cases) is a partial refund to allow for any wear and tear that she may have enjoyed from the product, so that's what the letter of the law would cover.

 

I think we already established that anyway

[oz4725]

She may well be able to get a "deal" but legally she would only be entitled to a like-for-like replacement or a partial refund to cover purchasing a like-for-like replacement. Rescission of the contract (getting a refund after the initial rejection period, which is only a matter of weeks in most cases) is a partial refund to allow for any wear and tear that she may have enjoyed from the product, so that's what the letter of the law would cover.

 

I think we already established that anyway

 

Hi Rosie

I was at a Pug Garages so i posed a few "what if" type questions to the sales manager. As i said i aint no legal eagle and this bloke wasn't either, he said they have guidelines from above to adhere to. I'm guessing some where up the food chain there is a legal type person who sets the guidelines.

Basically they he says that if a punter buys a new car and it develops a fault then under warranty it has to be fixed. The dealer will do this on a major fault (Izzys is a major fault) 3 times. If it goes again it then goes of to HQ where a top man technition has a butchers at it. If after that it it goes again then it would need replacing for a NEW car as the new car sold was unfit for purpose. The only real time guideline that they look at is the reporting of the first fault in the cars first year. They also say that if the car has some kind of finance on it then the customer is in a better position because the fin house bears some responsibility too??

I guess this is more of a shop floor explanation as opose to board room level but sometimes they work.

[rosiecotton]

Well if that was the case that would be very generous of them as legally they only have to do what I advised

[MrFancypants]

your missing the point oz

 

what 'might' be obtained from the garage isn't the same as saying what izzy's legal rights are. What the garage do over & above their legal obligations is upto them. If izzy obtian's a new car then great we are only advising on their legal rights & the dealers obligations

 

As for the rest of you scenario I can only comment that you haven't been around car manufactures for very long if you think that is the norm

[izzy wizzy]

Hi All

 

Thanks for your contributions, very interesting what you're saying Oz. I had a letter from Peugeot Dealer yesterday saying they would look for like for like but can't guarantee there wouldnt be similar probelms (doesnt say much for their opinions of 206ccs does it!) They also said they were having trouble finding one (yeah ok). Anyway they've offerd me £11,500 but only if I part ex and they're still asking for £6.5k balance for a new 207cc (206cc is now defunct). I've said no I want like for like or £11.5 cash. I'd probably consider the trade in if they came down to around a £2k difference and given what you've said Ox, I will certainly not be tempted with anything less! I've given them 7 days to choose an option or I will engage legal rep, so again given what Oz is saying this is an option that if they force me down I'll go for it. I'm fed up with being treated like I'm stupid by salesmen because I'm a woman and yes I am blonde!!

 

By the way they did offer a couple of weeks ago to send it back to Peugeot and I said no, I've given them enough attempts to fix it (TS agree)! This week the creaking is back from the roof latch so I have a car one year old exactly that creaks, leaks and lets the wind rush in my ears!! NOT HAPPY!

 

Thanks guys, will keep you posted!

[izzy wizzy]

Hi Guys, well Peugeot have agreed to find me a like for like replacement by 31st mar. Hoorah! They say if they are unable to source this then they will give me a refund equivalent to the trade price. Now obviously if they only give me the trade price for the car I woudn't be able to buy another car of an equivalent standard as I would be paying the retail price. Essentially if I bought the equivalent to my car from an independant garage (not a Peugeot dealer) I would pay around £11.5 k but they are offering me a trade price of £9.5k. Anyone know where I stand on this? I feel I should be able to claim the retail price for a new car otherwise I'm losing out as I wouldnt be able to get a car of equivalent age and standard as mine for £9.5k. I'm willing to push the issue and get some legal representation if I have a case for this. Rosie, your advice would be much appreciated please.

[rosiecotton]

If it comes to it, it is my opinion that they should refund you the retail price so you are able to purchase a like-for-like replacement.

 

Otherwise you are losing out by their failure to provide you with a like-for-like replacement, and that is not right - your rights should be comparable regardless of what remedy you accept.

 

I would advise that it is reasonable to expect them to pay you the retail price, and although I am not a judge I would be amazed if any judge found otherwise.