Issues with Newly Bought Used Car - Trader not bothered

[hotmale]

yes sure however I keen to get recording of my conversation with bank as agent did mention that seller said "headgasket issue was there at point of sale" and customer was made aware of that. Do I've to raise a sar request as I've mentioned couple of time for the call recording and no where in their replies they have mentioned anything about this.

Thanks

Today, 10:41:AM
I’ve received call from executives office of my bank today and they have basically repeated what sec-75 has told me nothing new has been included. When I asked about the warranty issue she said – That is a gift and cannot be claimed against value.
I’ve requested her to provide me copy of the conversation between me and sec-75 where agent has mentioned that seller provided details of headgasket issue to customer. I ‘ve screenshots of the advertisement and no where any issues has been mentioned it says immaculate condition. I can prove in court with evidence as the argument bank is having is ‘I have to provide report to prove fault’ and my argument is

• Issue confirmed by local garage
• Issue confirmed by seller and agent – Call recording.
• Gave bank option to pay upfront to get the report – Bank refused as not willing to pay for report upfront.
• Warranty – Mentioned on invoice (not a gift)

I will receive this letter within next couple of days and I’ve told agent that I will now take legal action based on 14 days window.
Seems like no one is looking into this issue seriously as agent who called me was not even aware warranty details are there on the invoice she called this gift and she didn’t even listen to the call and said that she has reviewed interactions (and accepted that didn’t listen). Basically seems like she was another bank agent from the s-75 team.

Please let me know whats next as I’ve to take this to the local court now.

Thanks

[des8]

Are they going to confirm this in writing?
Your next step is to initiate court action, but not until the 14 days have elapsed.

[hotmale]

Hi I’ve received a letter today from the section-75 team stating as I’ve not provided evidence to prove misinterpretation or fault with Car at time of purchase my section-75 has been refused. I am still waitng for the letter from the complaints teams however there is not much of difference in two letters.

Now I’ve looked online and legal cost are around £205 however ombudsman action is free of cost.
What would be your recommendations? Legal action or Ombudsman as already wasted my saving on my car don’t want to spend a penny more if there is a free option for me?

And do I need to ask anything else from bank like letter of deadlock or final decision.


Regards

[ostell]

Looks like the bank are misinterpreting the Consumer Rights Act. You have proved a fault is in existence and therefore as this is before the 6 months the CRA states that the fault is assumed to be present at the time of purchase and the trader has to prove to the contrary.

I think a polite letterr back pointing out the error of their ways.

[des8]

Agree with ostell but wouldn't bother writing.

You sent a "letter before Action" so it is your choice.

I personally have no faith in the ombudsman service.
It is slow and often doesn't follow the law but what they think is reasonable
It is free however!

Legal costs are recoverable when you win.

[hotmale]

Ok I an happy for legal action what should be next course of action now.

thanks

[hotmale]

Here is the another letter ive received today from exec complaints team

[ostell]

That just confirms that they do not understand CRA. They seem to think that liability finishs at the end of 30 days.

A letter asking why they seem to be of the opinion that the requirements of the CRA do not apply to them.

[hotmale]

Do you have a template or wording to make this formal

[des8]

If you sent that "letter before Action" as previously discussed IMO there is no point in trying to explain further what CRA 2015 is all about.
You are just wasting your time, as you have explained the position many times already, and escalated it to a formal complaint.

now is the time to initiate court action, although normally I counsel against that step except as a last resort.
IMO that's the situation now.

[hotmale]

Hi thanks, can you pls clarify Do I need
- to send another letter
- is it through small court website and with all the relevant evidences
- anything extra or things I need to be carful about
- what are the success chances based on my case history


thanks

[des8]

No need for yet another letter.

You can register and make your claim on line (https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome)

If you are on low income you may qualify for fee remission (/www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees)

Before you complete the form , you might like to post up your Particulars of Claim so they can be given the once over.

Chances of winning: if I thought you did not have a good case I would have said so; however court is always a bit of a lottery.
If the bank dispute your claim and decide to fight in court, they will be employing solicitors.
That can be daunting, but don't despair as at least one of our members won against a bank that employed a team of solicitors and a barrister!

[UnitedFront]

It's been a fairly long time since I've been on the forum, but I've stopped by and taken an interest in this particular thread (since I've been dealing with a large number of consumer contract litigation files for the past 3 or 4 years).

There is some misleading information that has been posted in this thread and some fairly basic questions that have not been asked, as far as I can see.

Point 1:

Starting with the first point regarding liability with faults with the car. It is not correct to say that it is enough simply to prove that the car is faulty and was faulty at the point of sale/supply. The question, under the CRA 2015, is whether the car "conforms to the contract". In short, you need to show that the fault is such that the car is not fit for purpose and/or of satisfactory quality.

Point 2:

It has been said that between 30 days and 6 months you must allow the trader 1 chance to repair. Whilst it is correct that you must allow 1 chance to repair after the 30 days is up (save for when the initial right to reject has been extended), there is no upper limit; i.e. the final right to reject is not time limited (other than by standard limitation and evidential issues caused by passage of time).

Point 3:

The question of age, mileage and price are very relevant to determine whether the faults will render the car unfit for purpose and/or of unsatisfactory quality. For example, a head gasket leak on a £1,000 car with 150k miles may be acceptable, whereas it would not be on a £10,000 car with 50k miles.

If you can show that the fault exists and that it is sufficiently serious to render the car unfit for purpose and/or of unsatisfactory quality, then because the fault has manifested within 6 months of purpose/supply, the burden of proof is on the trader (or credit card company if bringing a claim under s75) to prove that the fault was not present at the point of sale.

I hope the above is of some use.

[des8]

It's been a fairly long time since I've been on the forum, but I've stopped by and taken an interest in this particular thread (since I've been dealing with a large number of consumer contract litigation files for the past 3 or 4 years).

There is some misleading information that has been posted in this thread and some fairly basic questions that have not been asked, as far as I can see.

Point 1:

Starting with the first point regarding liability with faults with the car. It is not correct to say that it is enough simply to prove that the car is faulty and was faulty at the point of sale/supply. The question, under the CRA 2015, is whether the car "conforms to the contract". In short, you need to show that the fault is such that the car is not fit for purpose and/or of satisfactory quality.



Point 2:

It has been said that between 30 days and 6 months you must allow the trader 1 chance to repair. Whilst it is correct that you must allow 1 chance to repair after the 30 days is up (save for when the initial right to reject has been extended), there is no upper limit; i.e. the final right to reject is not time limited (other than by standard limitation and evidential issues caused by passage of time).

Point 3:

The question of age, mileage and price are very relevant to determine whether the faults will render the car unfit for purpose and/or of unsatisfactory quality. For example, a head gasket leak on a £1,000 car with 150k miles may be acceptable, whereas it would not be on a £10,000 car with 50k miles.

If you can show that the fault exists and that it is sufficiently serious to render the car unfit for purpose and/or of unsatisfactory quality, then because the fault has manifested within 6 months of purpose/supply, the burden of proof is on the trader (or credit card company if bringing a claim under s75) to prove that the fault was not present at the point of sale.

I hope the above is of some use.

Thanks for your input but if you have read the complete thread you will have noted that breach of contract was brought up at the beginning, and certainly most mechanics would regard excessive loss of coolant and loss of power in high gears unsatisfactory (and the latter even dangerous) in any vehicle.
My 1971 MGB uses no water and certainly doesn't lose power.
And if you think a head gasket leak is acceptable on any vehicle, no way will I buy a car from you or your favourite mechanic

The 6 year limitation is rarely mentioned in threads dealing with CRA 2015, as the main point is Sec 19 (14) of the act. .
After the 6 month period has passed the purchaser has to prove the faults existed at the time of purchase

Your final paragraph sums up exactly what we are doing.

[UnitedFront]

I did read the whole thread. Whether or not the car is of unsatisfactory quality is a question of law - not one for mechanics to answer. It is a question for the judge to decide, based on all the facts.

Equating the existence of a fault at the point of sale with an automatic breach of contract is simply wrong. Completely wrong and, quite frankly, a ridiculously simplistic approach to the law. As far as I can see, nobody has actually asked any of the relevant questions to stand any realistic chance of having a meaningful analysis of whether or not there has actually been a breach of contract.

How much was paid for the car? How old is the car? What is the mileage?

I have seen countless claims where the judge has dismissed claims because he/she has decided that such faults are to be expected from goods of the specific age/type/price concerned (this is why these things are expressly mentioned in the CRA, just as they were with the SGA).

I think you have misunderstood my point re. the 6 month thing. My point is that one of the said that "between 30 days and 6 months" you have to give the trader one chance to repair before you can reject. That post therefore suggests that the final right to reject is only available for 6 months after purchase (which is wrong).