CRA 2015, Right of rejection

[GrumpyMonkey]

Hello Beagles,

Do any of you know if the right of rejection has been upheld in the courts in respect of a used car?

Thanks

Steve

[des8]

yes.

[GrumpyMonkey]

Thanks. That's useful, can you point me to any cases please? I am about to begin proceedings against a dealer who is of the opinion he just simply refuse my rejection.

[pt2537]

Hello Beagles,

Do any of you know if the right of rejection has been upheld in the courts in respect of a used car?

Thanks

Steve

Yes, i had a case recently that was the result of a car which was inherently faulty, we had to issue proceedings but the claim was successful on the grounds that the client had the right to reject the vehicle

[R0b]

Thanks. That's useful, can you point me to any cases please? I am about to begin proceedings against a dealer who is of the opinion he just simply refuse my rejection.

If you want to look for reported cases then you can try BAILII and put in a keyword search. A lot of the consumer-related cases don't tend to go any higher than the County Courts and unless a transcript is obtained, they will go unreported.

The other thing is that in my view, the dealer is perfectly entitled to refuse your rejection of a used car and could be for a number of reasons, for example: the dealer already pointed out to you the issues wrong with the car, the reason for rejecting the car is not sufficient taking account of the car's age, mileage, number of previous owners etc.

You've not actually explained why the car is being rejected or the reasons why the dealer is refusing to accept your rejection, so it's a bit difficult to point you in the right direction.

[GrumpyMonkey]

If you want to look for reported cases then you can try BAILII and put in a keyword search. A lot of the consumer-related cases don't tend to go any higher than the County Courts and unless a transcript is obtained, they will go unreported.

The other thing is that in my view, the dealer is perfectly entitled to refuse your rejection of a used car and could be for a number of reasons, for example: the dealer already pointed out to you the issues wrong with the car, the reason for rejecting the car is not sufficient taking account of the car's age, mileage, number of previous owners etc.

You've not actually explained why the car is being rejected or the reasons why the dealer is refusing to accept your rejection, so it's a bit difficult to point you in the right direction.

When I bought the car it was sold with a new MOT with no advisories. The dealer did not say there any problems with car, in fact they guaranteed it was "free of mechanical defects". I had had the car about 10 days when discovered it had a broken spring. It was obvious from the degree of corrosion on the spring it had been broken a while. I took it to a main agent to get it inspected. They told me the discs were pitted, the pads were nearly worn out and the transmission had a leak. I rejected the car in writing quoting the act. The dealer recovered the car to his premises and without my knowledge or consent repaired it and demanded I collect it. Which I refused to do. The dealer is simply refusing the rejection and the basis that he can just say no, irrespective of what the law says.

[Christctc]

What did you end up doing with this mate? Did you take him to court?

[GrumpyMonkey]

What did you end up doing with this mate? Did you take him to court?

Hi, It's on track now. However, they have sent a gun to a knife fight in the form of a barrister. His defence, is all hear say from somebody who wasn't involved until 3 years after the sale. He also wants the car examined by an "expert" even though the dealership replaced the defective parts after I rejected the car and wants me to share the cost.

I hope the judge will listen to the facts and not just the legalese the barrister will spout.

[GrumpyMonkey]

This case has finally been listed a hearing. I have the judges directions. One of the directions is to supply a disclosure list, by list and category. I don't know what list and category mean and struggling to find an answer. Could somebody point me in the right direction please?

Thanks.

[des8]

To which track has this been allocated?
How much is your claim?

This seems to be directions under CPR 31 /www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31
See also Practice Direction 31A http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...t31/pd_part31a

[GrumpyMonkey]

Fast track.

The dealer has put a barrister up against me and allowed them to instruct an expert to examine the car, which is completely pointless as the dealer had the car repaired years ago. You can't examine what's no longer there. At least he didn't order me to share the costs as the barrister wanted.

They have a witness list to call. None of these "witnesses" where involved in the sale. They only have knowledge of emails 3 years down the line. Doesn't that make all their "evidence" hearsay? The original people involved have all left the business five years ago.

[des8]

Did you obtain a written report (or anything in writing) from the main dealer as mentioned in post 6?

[GrumpyMonkey]

There was no written report, just the warranty guaranteeing the car was free from mechanical defects. They claim to have health reports for the car which they didn't mention until after the car was rejected and recovered by them. I have never seen them, despite asking for them multiple times. According to the Motorcodes code of conduct, which the dealer is a member of, all documentation should be presented to the customer before the sale.

In any case, why does it matter? The dealer insists the spring broke after the sale. There is no dispute about when they were told about it. It was well within the 30 day limit and they were informed in writing that I was rejecting the car. Doesn't that meet the requirements of the act?

[des8]

It matters because as you are rejecting the car within the first 30 days after delivery, you have to prove the car was unsatisfactory at the time of delivery.

You claim the spring was broken when you purchased the vehicle.
Other than your word, what proof do you have?
You say "I had had the car about 10 days when discovered it had a broken spring. It was obvious from the degree of corrosion on the spring it had been broken a while," as diagnosed by a main dealer.

The dealer is going to point to the new MOT and their own pre delivery checks, which did not mention the broken spring.
The inference will be that the spring broke after delivery, possibly by driving over a pothole or some other obstruction. It happens.

[GrumpyMonkey]

The MOT was done about a month earlier at another branch of the dealership. The car was then driven about 250 miles to the dealership were I saw it.

The spring broke after purchase according to the dealer, how is that not a fault occurring within 30 days? I can not prove it broke before collection any more than the dealer can prove it wasn't.

I never said a main dealer diagnosed the broken spring. I found it myself. I said it must have been broken for some time as extensive corrosion just doesn't appear overnight.

The car did not hit a pot hole when I was driving it. I can't prove it didn't any more than the dealer can prove it did. If all the dealer has to do is claim it might have, then the law is completely useless.

The terms of the act seem pretty clear. It doesn't say anything about the condition at the time of sale. It mentions faults present at the time of sale being excluded, but that only makes sense if the purchaser is made aware of them. It says "a fault occurring in the first 30 days" there are no caveats mentioned in the text.

The Ombudsman's initial decision was that "I had an automatic right of rejection", and instructed the dealer to refund my money. When the dealer complained "it wasn't fair on them" and that "it had taken too long for her to adjudicate", she replaced my "automatic right" with her opinion that the dealers offer was fair. Not once has the dealership acknowledged that consumers have rights. The sales manager's comment (I have it in writing) was "I don't have to agree.

Rights can not simply be ignored. If can be, then they are not rights.