Rejecting a car - 30 days?

[bungley007]

Hey, so to cut a long story short. I bought a used car from the "world's largest dealer" in July.

Within 30 days I reported a fault with the suspension (written)

This was acknowledged, I was told to find a garage, get a diagnostic and report back.

This process took place, a fault was found after a visual inspection by a franchised dealer - quote produced including to fix a second fault (EML light due to a failed sensor) which occurred whilst waiting.

Seller agreed to work and was booked in. I stated I didn't want to drive the car in its current state (Google told me especially with the engine sensor fault could cause long term damage) and emailed to request a courtesy car. Was told they were "short staffed" so were not accepting in house repairs and courtesy cars. They would consider reasonable public transport claims if needed. Also stated they were happy to have the car driven with these faults after I clear wrote I do not want to be held liable if I keep driving the car.

Repairs happened, fault remained.

Second diagnostic booked in, another 2 new faults occurred whilst waiting (issue with ignition key and infotainment system acting up). Quote produced and accepted again to fix the fault. Main dealer confirmed in writing the further work required is indeed related to the original and first fault reported.

At this point I have requested a rejection under CRA but crucially I'm wondering:

If they accept under the past 30 days rule having had a single chance to fix and not managed to, I've had not much choice as I stated in writing to them to have driven the car for work (and have added ~7k miles in nearly 4 months) - I'm fully expecting to put up a fight on reasonable charges and intend to use Dinomans' case here as case law. I've not given the full sequence of events but it's been an absolute nightmare, including waiting at the dealers post diagnostic for over 3 hours to get it paid for because they were "busy". I fully intend to claim every single penny of my time and effort throughout if their position is one of silly usage charges.

OR

As the fault was originally reported within the firs 30 days, do I have a case to return with no charges or issues from myself? does the clock stop on the 30 day return rule or did I miss the boat because I accepted the first attempt to fix ?

Thankfully every communication was done by email so I have a good wad of comms with dates and everything that's been said.

Thanks so much!!

[bungley007]

Just to add to this, my reading of the act (although I'm not an expert) is subsection 6 seems to suggest the 30 day period pauses and enters into a waiting period?

3. The time limit for exercising the short-term right to reject (unless subsection (4) applies) is the end of 30 days

6. If the consumer requests or agrees to the repair or replacement of goods, the period mentioned in subsection (3) or (4) stops running for the length of the waiting period.

8. Waiting Period begins with the day the consumer requests or agrees to the repair or replacement of the goods


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ion/22/enacted

[Pezza54]

You have to be very careful.
You informed the dealer in writing you drove the car for work and you have clocked up 7k miles.
The CRA would cover a consumer driving the car to and from their place of work, not during the course of business.

[bungley007]

Hey to be clear I did not use my car for work purposes, just for commuting - I work in an office

[Pezza54]

You stated you contacted the dealer and requested rejection. You had given the dealer a chance to repair the fault concerning the eml and sensor and he failed. You are entitled to reject the car under CRA
What did your letter or email to the dealer say when you rejected the car?
If the dealer refuses rejection and only offers repair you will need to start a court claim.
The court process could take up to 12 months and during this period you should not drive the car. To minimise your damages claim you may want to think about buying a cheap car for work and then sell it when you receive your refund and can replace your original car.
As the first fault was never fixed you could base your claim on the short term right to reject but because of the time and additional clocked mileage I suspect the judge will make a reduction to your claim.

[bungley007]

Yeah it’s highly unlikely to go to court - I’m just anticipating a silly 25-45ppm charge for the mileage. I don’t mind being charged because I have used the vehicle but I feel I should also charge back all the time and expense I’ve had to exert running around solving these issues for them?!

[Pezza54]

Why not work out roughly how much time and expense it has cost you and argue this with the dealer if he tries to make an excessive reduction,
Forum members would be interested to know the outcome. Good luck.

[bungley007]

Dealer has come back with the following:

“

Looking at your email we can see that you have mentioned this is the same fault which we completely understand, but the part that is required now is not the same part that was replaced previously, so this does not come under a failed repair, this is a consequential repair,”

I’m not familiar with this “consequential repair” notion. There is an issue with the suspension (bad noises) it went in once and one part looked faulty so was replaced.

it didn’t cure it so the second time the diagnoses found another part that has play and could be the cause of the noise.

any advice? *♂️

[Pezza54]

Consequential loss in a court claim means the same as an indirect loss, not direct loss, and not normally recoverable in a breach of contract claim.
The dealer is trying to say that the repair now required to the suspension is not associated to the original repair.
I am not a mechanic so I am unable to say if the dealer is right. A mechanic would probably want to inspect the suspension and new part fitted before coming to a conclusion.
It sounds like the dealer is going to dispute your request to reject the car and you will have to decide on starting a court claim or letting the dealer carry out another repair.

[bungley007]

Yeah strange as it was in response to the main dealers statement below, which to me clearly reads “this is the same fault”?

”

As stated several times in the trail of emails the repairs are related to the initial repair carried out. The noise coming from the suspension was first indicated as the ball joints, as this had movement and can often cause a unappealing sound.

As this repair did not rectify the issues the customer advised us of, further diagnostics were carried out. From this we have found the tension struts to be worn which again is part of the suspension and can cause a similar fault to the ball joints. As both areas have failed the first point of the repair was done but it's not to say that the first fault masked the second.

This is not a new fault.”

[Pezza54]

The dealer has admitted in his last paragraph that "this is not a new fault" so he failed to repair the original fault at his first attempt. If he had tested the car after the ball joints were replaced the dealer would have discovered the knocking sound was still present and investigated further before returning the car to you. He saved garage time and expense by not testing the car on the road but caused you a lot of inconvenience.

[des8]

It is of no consequence if this is the same or a different fault causing the vehicle to be unsatisfactory.
Dealer has had one attempt, and that's his lot!

cf CRA2015 sec 24 (5):

(5)A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations—
(a)after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract;

[Pezza54]

That is interesting. On the website www.businesscompanion.info under 9.22 "Failed Repair" it gives the example of a serious engine fault that reoccurs after the dealer claims he has fixed it. Surprisingly there is not an example where a serious fault is fixed and a different fault surfaces within 6 months.

[bungley007]

Yeah strange as it was in response to the main dealers statement below, which to me clearly reads “this is the same fault”?

”

As stated several times in the trail of emails the repairs are related to the initial repair carried out. The noise coming from the suspension was first indicated as the ball joints, as this had movement and can often cause a unappealing sound.

As this repair did not rectify the issues the customer advised us of, further diagnostics were carried out. From this we have found the tension struts to be worn which again is part of the suspension and can cause a similar fault to the ball joints. As both areas have failed the first point of the repair was done but it's not to say that the first fault masked the second.

This is not a new fault.”

Bear in mind that's from the Main Dealer (who are diagnosing and repairing) not the Dealer whom I purchased from. But either way I agree!

I think the Dealers point tho is, the original repair, which didn't solve the noise problem, is a separate issue to the new suggested repair, therefore they are not related and thus not failed repair.

[Pezza54]

Please see Des8's post, it matters not whether it is the same or a different serious fault