rejection of vehicle within 30 days - LS4U involved, dealer not responding.

[Guest]

Following email received from ls4u. Thoughts?


Further to your previous emails we would respectfully suggest that you adopt a common sense approach in these unprecedented times and it is preposterous of you to try and force your position without considering whether or not the outcome is actually achievable. We do not propose to continue to send multiple emails to you over the interpretation of legislation and ultimately if you are giving the advice to Ms Poaty to litigate then all parties are wasting their time in trying to reach a resolution.

It is of course entirely correct that once a trader accepts a rejection of the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 then the trader has 14 days from acceptance of the rejection to making the payment. Whilst you do not appear to accept that Government Lockdown due to Covid 19 is a valid reason for not making payment within 14 days then it would ultimately be for a court to decide who is right and what is reasonable in such circumstances. It is entirely reasonable that our Client follows Government guidance and their dealership will remain closed save for any online sales. Our Client has attempted to reach a commercial resolution with your Partner and buy back the vehicle, had it not been for Covid 19 then this would have happened by now.

Despite your assertion that the trader cannot impose any fees on a consumer in respect of a rejection you appear misguided in your position. Our Client has not tried to impose any fees on Ms Poaty. They have simply asked to inspect the vehicle to ensure that it is in the same condition as when your Partner purchased it. On the basis that there is no damage to the vehicle our Client proposed to make the repayment. Our Client is trying to reach a resolution with Ms Poaty and we would respectfully suggest that your procrastination is simply leading to further issues which are wholly irrelevant. Should Ms Poaty wish to litigate then this is of course her prerogative and her own commercial risk of which she should seek professional advice prior to doing so. You have made the case for Ms Poaty clear and we do not need it rehearsing again in any further emails from you.

For the avoidance of doubt and to conclude. Our Client has made a proposal to Ms Poaty in full and final settlement, this would normally be concluded within 14 days but due to Covid 19 and Government Lockdown this is not possible. Our Client is simply asking for a small extension of time to allow lockdown to be lifted in order that a resolution can be concluded. Our Client cannot change the timings involved. If it remains the position of Ms Poaty that she is unwilling to wait until the Government Lockdown ceases and she feels that her only resolution is to litigate then we are unable to assist any further.

[des8]

I'm not sure how much you intend to claim (and not reading back) something around £1700,?

Unless you have actually damaged the vehicle it would be interesting to see them be able to make a deduction for "cosmetic reasons" on an older car.
Their threat about costs can virtually be ignored as this would be a small claim.

Whether or not covid 19 is a reason that would stand up for delaying payment is a matter to be decided, but in any case the matter probably won't reach a hearing for another 6 months

The dealer is not buying back the car.
The vehicle is rejected and he is returning your purchase price.
It is not a new contract in which he becomes the buyer and you the seller!

.... and I love the final comment " we are unable to assist any further"
They haven't assisted you at all.

I reckon you would win, but whether or not it is worth your while to wait and have the stress of a court case for the sake of a comparatively small amount is your choice.
Perhaps accept the offer, but payment to be received within so many days.
If you go down that route head your letter "without prejudice".

Did you ever lodge a claim with the credit card company?
Viewing the dealers admission they might cough up sooner

[Guest]

the amount is around £1700 yes. we definitely haven't damaged it.

you raise a very good point about the framing of him "buying the vehicle back"

we were thinking of trying to get a simplified agreement that allows him 14 days from the point at which he is allowed back to work. I have already asked them to change the date of payment to within 14 days from the date of the agreement but they have refused.

CC company still haven't got back to me a month later... I have been told by which? to issue a joint claim against them both at the end of the week but not so sure about that.

[Guest]

to add - the settlement agreement allowed the dealer to do a cosmetic inspection and give us however much he felt. clearly this is unacceptable for us.

[des8]

If you are not in urgent need of the cash I would go along with which?

If you try and negotiate with the dealer, their cowboy legal team will play every trick in the book to reduce your payout and to delay matters.
If it goes to court the dealer will be on his own..ls4u aren't solicitors and don't do court
The liability waiver/ disclaimer on their website used to read:
Legalsolutions4u is not a regulated law firm and as such is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The website is not intended to create a solicitor-client relationship and by using this website no solicitor-client relationship will be created with Legalsolutions4u. Instead you are representing yourself in any legal matter you undertake through the websites services.
It now reads: https://www.legalsolutions4u.co.uk/website-disclaimer/

[Guest]

we've sent them a without prejudice revised agreement. much more simple. states the dealer agrees to refund us the purchase price with no deductions for cosmetics, no removal of the right to take action and in turn we agree to wait no longer than 14 days after restrictions end. I suspect they'll just reject it in which case we carry on with plan A.

These guys are honestly something else.

[des8]

Did you put a time limit on for acceptance of the offer, which was "without prejudice"?

[Guest]

yes, to coincide with thursday at the point we make the claims

[Guest]

LS4U have got back with an amended agreement. the section now states:

The Dealership agree to buy back the Vehicle. The Dealership will collect
the Vehicle and all associated paperwork. Subject to the Vehicle being in
the same condition as at point of sale, the Dealership will pay to the
Customer £1465.00

I have concerns with this as it leaves the dealer completely in control as to whether he thinks it is in the same condition and still references buying back the vehicle while still preventing us from going to court.

[des8]

If you are unhappy with that just tell them unacceptable, your offer is not for discussion.
Time limit still applies
"without prejudice"

[Guest]

also the email says

"We have firstly removed the “without prejudice save as to costs” as this is not relevant and we would further respectfully suggests that the omission of such a statement assists you in the event of litigation as it confirms the acceptance of the return of the vehicle."

is this true?

[Guest]

Also from what I have gathered, the dealer has accepted rejection and so payment is due. he cannot now refuse to pay us based on the cosmetic inspection of the car. signing an agreement that says he can seems illogical to me.

I have raised the fact that we won't accept anything that allows the dealer not to pay us the full amount or prevent us from going to court

[des8]

"without prejudice" allows you to negotiate without weakening your position if the matter should go to court.
"save as to costs" isn't necessary, as being small claim there should not be any costs consequences.

AFAIK their acceptance of the rejection was prior to use of WP, and so does not benefit from the protection.

[Guest]

"without prejudice" allows you to negotiate without weakening your position if the matter should go to court.
"save as to costs" isn't necessary, as being small claim there should not be any costs consequences.

AFAIK their acceptance of the rejection was prior to use of WP, and so does not benefit from the protection.

WP had been used prior but there are subsequent emails not marked WP which confirm this rejection. Whether or not that means we can use that, Im not entirely clear.

[des8]

Once WP has been used it probably applies to all subsequent exchanges dealing with that matter