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

[Guest]

Hi all, this is quite the saga. I've written a full timeline for my own records which I'll post below:


11/01/2020 – went to look at the car and the following problems were identified:

• large amount of condensation in the car
• Visible mould
• Parking sensors did not work as advertised.
• Boot did not open
• Carpet damp to the touch.

We were reassured that the damp and condensation was because the car had been left un-driven for a long time and that it would clear up once used regularly with use of the AC and with a full valet. I believed what I was told as I had no experience of this.
We agreed to put a deposit down on the car based on a full valet being performed, the boot being fixed, and the parking sensors being fixed should it not be too big a job. Sohail initially told us that the deposit would be £200 over the phone but this was changed to £500 due to ‘needing to pay for the space’. We did not feel in a position to decline but I had my concerns. We were told we could only get a refund should the above work not be done.
We looked though the limited service documentation and were comforted by the fact that the MOT done by SK Autobahn’s garage (as Sohail called it himself) was free of advisories. This led us to believe that issues identified in the previous 2018 MOT had been fixed.
25/01/2020 – purchase of the car
We finally purchased the car on this date and inspected it prior to driving. The mould was largely absent and I could not see any condensation at this time. The boot was fixed however Sohail informed us that fixing the parking sensors was, “too big a job”. I took this at face value. A rattling sound was observed coming from the engine area.
27/01/2020 – first complaint
I started noticing that the mould was returning and that the car was suffering from a large amount of condensation. This led me to investigate further and during this, I discovered a previously unseen square cut out of the right passenger’s side carpet. This had been covered by two floor mats and therefore was not clear to the eye without their removal. Upon peeling this back, I was shocked to discover the carpet was completely waterlogged. Holes had been drilled into the floor in an apparent attempt to let the water escape however it was everywhere. It appears the person who did this attempted a quick fix rather than actually solving the problem. It was clear at this point then that the mould was a direct result of the entire carpet being soaked through and that no amount of driving would ever fix it. The problem would get progressively worse until all the electrics corroded. I also noticed a rattling sound coming from the engine area. I did not know what was causing it at this time and assumed it was a regular noise for this type of car.
We called Sohail that evening to tell him of the issue but he seemed more pre-occupied with finding a way that this was our fault, going as far to suggest that the mild rain we had experienced was responsible. I sent him an email off the back of the call with a video link showing how bad it was. He did offer to look at the car but at this point I believed the repairs to be too urgent and after discussions with Rover experts, it became clear the entire carpet would need to be replaced in any case. I had no faith in his garage’s ability to carry out the work and so sourced a carpet myself and took it to an expert to deal with.


28/01/2020 - Complaint raised with the AA
As the dealer is an AA Approved dealer, I contacted them to raise a complaint. I asked that SK Autobahn fund the repairs that I was due to carry out.
28/01/2020 – further email sent to dealer
At this time I sent another email with further youtube links demonstrating how bad the issue was. I again asked for the dealer to fund the repairs. Whatsapp messages were also sent, requesting that the dealer reply. The Dealer informed me that he would send it on to his “complaints department” and that it would take 14 days to receive a reply. In my view this was completely unacceptable as the repairs needed doing well before this. No reply to date received on any of my emails (26/02/2020).
3/02/2020 – Drove to Halifax to obtain spare carpet
05/02/2020 – Drove to Liversedge to see Rover expert (note: not VAT registered garage)
Due to the urgent nature of the work needed, we drove to the expert to fix the leaks and also replace the carpet. During this time, the parking sensors were fixed within a minute at a cost of only £20.00. This further weakened my opinion that SK Autobahn were capable of dealing with any repairs, given what he had told me before. Upon taking the carpet out we noted huge amounts of water throughout the floor of the car and carpet. The sunroof drain tubes were not attached and therefore all water from the roof was emptying into the cabin, for quite some time.
More worryingly, we found that the airbag/SRS light did not light up on second key turn. In fact, there was no fuse in the relevant section which we suspect was to hide the warning light. We did however replace the fuse and the problem remained. This is likely due to subsequent water damage to the Airbag ECU which sits near the floor. This means that should we crash, the seatbelt restrain system and airbags will not deploy. This should have been an MOT fail and is obviously dangerous.
The cost of work was £120.00.
6/2/2020 – reported findings back to the AA mediator
At this point we were obviously concerned about the safety of the car but were reassured that this could be fixed at a reasonable cost of around £100 (rising dependant on work required). I therefore requested a partial refund of £250.00. Sohail refused to provide us with any more than £150 to cover the cost of carpets and water ingress, as well as expenses. I told the mediators I would accept this offer but would consider chasing him for work regarding the airbags. At this point while concerned, I felt that we could salvage the situation. The money I had spent on the carpet repair was required to fund the further repairs in any case.
12/2/2020 – mediation concluded
The AA confirmed that, “Further to our recent communications in relation to vehicle NX54 XAK, it has now been agreed by all parties that the dealer will refund the customer £150 for the repair to the carpet and leaks that they have carried out.”
20/02/2020 – battery light problem & message regarding “charging failure”
Whilst driving in the evening, we experience the above intermittent warning signs flashing on the dashboard. Unsure what the issue was, we drove home and agreed to take the car to the mechanics.
21/02/2020 – car breaks down
Minutes prior to arriving at the mechanics, all dashboard lights flashed on and the car then completely failed just as we pulled in. After diagnostic work, the garage confirmed that the alternator and battery had failed. The quote to repair was around £500. When you add to this to the existing problems we had already experienced, this came as a big shock. It became apparent that the rattling sound I had heard previously was likely the alternator failing.
21/02/2020 – email sent to SK & new complaint raised with the AA
I informed the dealer via email of this new development and offered him the chance to either pick the car up and fix the alternator and battery issue, fund the repairs, or to provide us with a full refund. A Whatsapp message was sent asking the dealer to respond to the email. I also opened a new complaint with the AA. No reply received from the dealer to date (26.2.2020).
22/02/2020 – Garage inform me of further issues
Call received from the Garage who informed me that they had carried out some further checks and observed the following issues:

charging rate incorrect
o/s/r number plate light
n/s/f indicator full of water
front pads @ 70%
o/s/f/ fog lamp unit damaged
accident damage n/s/f
n/s/r wheel unserviceable
o/s/r brake pipe (dangerous)
coolant leak (radiator)
Coolant Level Low
In our opinion this vehicle should not have been sold and is not road worthy, we have recommended the customer seek legal advise, also the customer should inform the DVSA the MOT validity.

22/02/2020 – Email, Whatsapp & recorded delivery letter sent to dealer regarding rejection of car
Given all the issues we had experienced, it was no longer possible for us to have any confidence in the vehicle. The MOT provided by SK’s Garage had clearly not been done properly as some of the faults identified had been present in the 2018 MOT as advisories and yet no advisories were listed in the 2019 MOT. These are serious faults which could not have manifested themselves in the 3 months since the MOT, let alone in the 28 days we had the car. An email was sent to SK clearly stating we wished to reject the vehicle along with a whatsapp message and a recorded delivery letter. To date I have not received a response (26.2.2020).
25/02/2020 – Called DVSA & Consumer Helpline
26/02/2020 – Spoke to Which? Solicitor
26/02/2020 – AA mediation told me that Sohail stated, “the previous mechanic may have caused the faults” and that he now refuses to correspond with us.
26/02/2020 – spoke to Dealer’s supposed legal department which turned out to be legal solutions 4 u
26/02/2020 – sent email to dealer and LS4U which large amount of evidence, including two reports, one from initial repair and new report.






I am thinking of towing the car to another garage for a second report as I think they will obviously reject the one I have, then tow back to ours, of course letting the dealer know.

few questions:
- is the date at which rejection is registered the date you send the recorded delivery letter or the date the dealer receives it?
- the sales invoice was in the name of my GF but most correspondence has been done in my name, the rejection letter was in both our names. is this going to cause an issue? (I paid on my card and am a named driver and we use the car equally. Im aware that's section 75 out of the question)
- I offered repairs for the alternator but rejected upon finding out the car was unroadworthy, will this also be an issue?

I'm anticipating a fight...

[Blue123]

was the car an expensive used car? or possibly a low end garage specialising in MOT failures?

[Guest]

was the car an expensive used car? or possibly a low end garage specialising in MOT failures?

the car was purchased from an independent dealer for £1500 - 2004 rover 75. they do not have a garage of their own per se.

[des8]

You'll receive lots of legal sounding drivel from LS4U, but if what you have told us is accurate there should be no problem if it goes to court.
Did your letter of rejection mention the possibility of court action?

[Blue123]

the car was purchased from an independent dealer for £1500 - 2004 rover 75. they do not have a garage of their own per se.

so a lot of the faults would not come under the MOT like parking sensors and various light issues - and an altinator can fail at anytime - and not normally predictable - had the seller sold the 16 year old car in immaculate condition with everything 100 per cent no doubt he would sell for much more. Surely you cannot expect him to spend 1000's on it ? to restore it to original condition ?

As it was purchased on a card and you have informed him of the right to reject I would speak with your card company, next car perhaps invest in an AA report first?

[Guest]

You'll receive lots of legal sounding drivel from LS4U, but if what you have told us is accurate there should be no problem if it goes to court.
Did your letter of rejection mention the possibility of court action?

The letter itself doesn't specify this however the email sent the same day states, "Under the consumer rights act 2015 I am legally entitled to reject the car and receive a full refund of £1495.00. I look forward to receiving this within 14 days.If you fail to reimburse me I will have no option but to seek further action."

the email dated 21/02/2020 referring to the alternator issue stated, "Please note I will not hesitate to issue court proceedings against you, as well as opening a section 75 claim should you refuse."

[Guest]

so a lot of the faults would not come under the MOT like parking sensors and various light issues - and an altinator can fail at anytime - and not normally predictable - had the seller sold the 16 year old car in immaculate condition with everything 100 per cent no doubt he would sell for much more. Surely you cannot expect him to spend 1000's on it ? to restore it to original condition ?

As it was purchased on a card and you have informed him of the right to reject I would speak with your card company, next car perhaps invest in an AA report first?

Absolutely I do not expect him to restore it to its original condition, all i wanted was for it to last a year. To expect me to pay £500 after 28 days for something that is supposed to last 100,000 miles (60,000 on the clock) though is something else.

In any case, the actual reason for rejection is not the alternator but the garage report stating that the car was unroadworthy. Had it come to it I would have forked out for the alternator repair.

As for section 75, it is my card but not my name on the sales invoice which I believe means I'll have no luck?

[des8]

You might consider pointing out to the dealer that the car was in an unroadworthy condition (corroded brake pipe) and so he has committed an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 75.

Your difficulty with rejecting is that you have requested repairs and this suspends your right to reject.
You need to tell them that they have to put repairs in hand by eg 7th March, or your rejection will them take effect and you (ie gf) will initiate court action after eg 14th March without further reference

You could also report him to Trading Standards. It won't help you recover your money, but it might stop him selling unroadworthy vehicles in future if he is already on TS radar.

[Guest]

So is it actually the case that because I offered the chance to repair on the alternator the day before, that I now can't reject even though the subsequent faults changed the situation?

if that is the case then I will wait to see what legal solutions propose (if they reply to me in decent time), send a letter to dealer giving him 7 days to get and repair the car.

if they refuse to repair then, I can exercise final right to reject and they would have to prove the faults weren't there at sale, is that right?

I have already reported to TS.

[des8]

Yes, having requested repair you cannot then reject unless the dealer refuses or does not respond.
However if he opts to repair, he has to put the vehicle into a satisfactory condition, which will mean correcting all those faults.

We had a similar case on here a couple of years ago, where having asked for repairs the customer found other major faults and tried to reject.
The court pointed out CRA 2015 sec 23 (6).

LS4U will probably tell you there is no case for their client, the dealer, to answer!
Don't believe them, don't enter into letter tennis with them and keep the dealer in the loop.
LS4U are not solicitors and will not represent their client in court

[Guest]

Yes, having requested repair you cannot then reject unless the dealer refuses or does not respond.
However if he opts to repair, he has to put the vehicle into a satisfactory condition, which will mean correcting all those faults.

We had a similar case on here a couple of years ago, where having asked for repairs the customer found other major faults and tried to reject.
The court pointed out CRA 2015 sec 23 (6).

LS4U will probably tell you there is no case for their client, the dealer, to answer!
Don't believe them, don't enter into letter tennis with them and keep the dealer in the loop.
LS4U are not solicitors and will not represent their client in court

ok thanks, one thing I'm still not sure about though, the email offering repair was through my email referrring to 'us' and 'I'. My partners name was not on there. Does this invalidate this request as it did not come from the person on the sales invoice? would a judge look at it in such black and white terms or would it be sufficient to satisfy him as to why I did this (eg. its a joint car and bearing in mind I've been communicating with him throughout)

if it is invalid, the rejection letter would stand I assume. If this is the case, can we now go down the repairs route? I actually think it would be beneficial.

[des8]

ok thanks, one thing I'm still not sure about though, the email offering repair was through my email referrring to 'us' and 'I'. My partners name was not on there. Does this invalidate this request as it did not come from the person on the sales invoice? would a judge look at it in such black and white terms or would it be sufficient to satisfy him as to why I did this (eg. its a joint car and bearing in mind I've been communicating with him throughout)

if it is invalid, the rejection letter would stand I assume. If this is the case, can we now go down the repairs route? I actually think it would be beneficial.

The court would interpret your email the way it was meant, ie you would be seen as acting on behalf of your partner.
At the moment a repair has been requested.
If the post of repair is disproportionate the dealer can refuse.
If repairs aren't carried out within a reasonable time, or are refused, you may reject.

[Guest]

ok brilliant. I will update this post as everything develops.

[Guest]

update - I received this email from LS4U

We have recently been instructed by the above-named Client in respect of your purchase of the aforementioned Vehicle. We are in receipt of your recent email correspondence and note the contents of the same.

We understand that you purchased the Vehicle from our Client in or around the 25th January 2020 for a total consideration of £1495. Prior to selling the Vehicle to you, our Client had completed a pre-delivery inspection on the Vehicle, and it was sold with a valid MOT certificate.

Our Client is fully aware of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “CRA”). The Vehicle must be of satisfactory quality s9 CRA, fit for purpose s10 CRA and as described at point of sale – s11 CRA 2015. It is accepted that if a fault occurs within the first 6 months of purchase then that fault is deemed to have been present at point of sale. The burden is upon our Client to show that the fault was not present at the point of sale. Our Client believes that the pre-delivery inspection document and the MOT may go towards discharging this burden – s19(14) CRA 2019.

We understand from your email that you allege the Vehicle has developed issues in relation to the brake discs and other unspecified issues. We understand our Client has previously covered the costs of repair work in relation to the water ingress however you allege further issues have occurred whereby you have had an independent inspection carried out. We understand you have failed to provide a copy of this report to our Client. We note you believe you are entitled to reject the Vehicle under the CRA 2015.

We respectfully refer you to s22 CRA which deals with a consumer’s short-term right to reject. In order for a consumer to seek to enforce their short-term right to reject, the Vehicle must have a fault that renders the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality at point of sale. Please note that it is not any fault that then allows the right to reject. We note that you have not provided any evidence to support your allegations. We ask that you now do so by return. We would respectfully refer you to the provisions of s19(14) CRA 2015 and can advise that they do not apply to the short-term right to reject and the burden is upon you as the consumer to show nonconformity with the CRA 2015.

Our client is a professional car dealership who takes customer satisfaction very seriously and we would therefore propose the following resolution to the matter. Our Client is willing to accept the rejection of your Vehicle subject to a settlement agreement being signed by both parties in full and final settlement of the matter. We would be grateful if you could confirm by return if you will be accepting our Clients rejection.

In the event that the above resolution is unacceptable then we can advise that our Client is a member of an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme and would be willing to use ADR as a means to reach a resolution. They have subscribed to Automotive Mediation Ltd who are an independent firm who specialise in motor retail disputes. The website is www.automotivemediation.co.uk and their contact number is 0161 359 8028. We trust that this will not be needed, and we hope that the matter can be settled without further redress.

Please ensure that all future correspondence is sent directly to this firm.


My reply:

Thank you for your email dated 3/03/2020.

Your email is filled with inaccuracies and contradictions and appears to have been drafted with no consideration to the facts.

Your client was provided with the report stating that the car was sold in an unroadworthy condition on 26/02/2020, 7 days ago, shortly after you were provided with this very document which you claim you have not received, along with multiple other documents.

You have stated that your client is, “willing to accept the rejection of [the] vehicle subject to a settlement agreement being signed by both parties…”. No such settlement agreement has been presented to us so whilst we agree in principle, this is dependent on the contents of this agreement.

You have requested that all future correspondence is sent directly to your firm. You are not authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and therefore have no authority in this matter. Whilst I am prepared to keep you aware of proceedings, given that our complaint is against SK Autobahn Ltd, they too will receive our correspondence.

We are not prepared to let this matter go on indefinitely. If your client’s offer is indeed genuine then we would ask that the full details, including settlement agreement, are provided to us within the next 7 days. If no such offer arrives, we will have no option but to proceed with further action which could eventually result in a claim being lodged in the courts.

I would note that your client has still not arranged to pick up the vehicle. He is free to contact us at any time to arrange this. If he prefers, he can arrange this with Moorfields Garage in Yeadon, the details of whom he has already received. Should this not be done by the end of the week, we will have to make arrangements for it to be placed at our residence as the Garage has requested this.

[Guest]

update - I received this email from LS4U

We have recently been instructed by the above-named Client in respect of your purchase of the ...

I wonder what their game is here. It all seems too easy.