Car Dealer - 30 Day Right to Reject

[Mitche11]

Just a quick question in regards to the above I posted earlier.

Should I send an email to the car dealer asking what work was carried out for the vehicle to be free from faults?

[des8]

You tell them that they were in breach of contract as the vehicle was unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose, and therefore you exercised your short term right to reject as per Consumer Rights Act 2015.
You did not request or agree to a repair or a replacement of the illegal tires (which alone made the vehicle unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose).
You require a full refund within 7 days and if it is not forthcoming you will initiate court proceedings without further reference to themselves.

Email and send hard copy first class with free certificate of posting from post office

[Mitche11]

Thank you so much DES8, the car dealer has been trying to phone and text me all day but I have not answered or replied as I wanted some advice on what to do next. I will write an email now and send a hard copy tomorrow, once again thank you for your help.

[Mitche11]

Email received from car dealer today:

As I monitored in my previous email the vehicle is inspected and free from any defects you motored regarding the rear differential. The noise was coming from the tires and they have been replaced with 4 brand new tires. You are keep saying that we are in breach of contract and the vehicle is not fit for the purpose. Unfortunately you can not just reject the vehicle because of a tire noise. They fore you have 7 days to collect the vehicle, notifying us prior your arriving. If you will not collect the vehicle with in 7 days we will issue a storage charge for the vehicle.

My email reply:

As my previous email, you were in breach of contract as the vehicle was unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose, therefore I exercised my short term right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I did not request or agree to a repair or a replacement of the illegal tires (which alone made the vehicle unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose).

The tires that you fitted prior to purchase did not meet The Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 which are part of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore made the vehicle unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose, also the fault with the differential.

The purpose of you collecting the vehicle was to inspect, I did not agree for you to repair or replace anything on the vehicle, therefore I require a full refund within 7 days from 31st July 2019, if this is not forthcoming then I will initiate court proceedings without further reference to yourselves.

Do I just ignore them now?

[des8]

not necessarily.... see what they come back with

[Mitche11]

Do I have to collect the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act or do I just wait for a response within the 7 days and if I have no response then proceed with court proceedings? I believe they have repaired the differential and are making out the noise and vibration was tyre noise (as they have the vehicle I am unable to inspect to know for sure if it has been repaired) and they have replaced the illegal tyres for 4 brand new ones, how do I stand now?

[des8]

You have rejected the vehicle
They did not have the right to repair it
You do not have to collect the vehicle

How would you know if they had repaired the diff or not?

[Mitche11]

Photo's were taken of underneath the vehicle and the differential housing, if there is any trace of oil or evidence of bolts being unscrewed on the differential then they have obviously done something.

[des8]

that would not be evidence of a repair, even if you could see such marks

[Mitche11]

How do I stand with the diffl fault now? The car dealer is saying it was tyre noise and I was told by the 4x4 specialist that the noise and vibration was the diff.

[des8]

That would be for the judge to decide, so who sounds most convincing?
The dodgy dealer (query the illegal tyres) or independent 4x4 specialist?
In any case you were supplied with a vehicle that was unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose by reason of it being fitted with incorrect tyres.
The dealer does not have the right to insist on repair, but the fact that he is now saying he has replaced the tyres is an admission the tyres were not satisfactory/fit for purpose.
Tyres are just as essential a part of the vehicle as brakes.
If the brakes were incorrect they would not have the opportunity to replace them: the same applies to the tyres

[Mitche11]

Just a quick question.

The car dealer and the company that inspected the vehicle both have the same registered office address on Companies House. Does it mean they are connected?

[des8]

Possibly, but not necessarily.
Name them and we'll see if we can find a connection

[ostell]

Sometimes the registered address of companies is the accountants office. They may both have the same accountant.

[Mitche11]

I am initiating court proceedings and would like to do it online, do I still fill out the N1 Claim Form but online?

Has anyone else used the MCOL? Is there anything I need to be made aware of?