dealership refuses to accept your rejection, Please help

**Pezza54** · 14th January 2024, 10:00:AM

Hi
What has happened to the car since May 2021? Are you still driving it?
You bought the car with a PCP contract. Was that based on 36 months loan period?
Have you kept up with monthly repayments?
You don't actually own the car unless you make the final "balloon" payment.
Did you keep the finance company up to date about the faults with the car?
What were the motor ombudsman's reasons for rejecting your claim?

**Shadi** · 14th January 2024, 13:19:PM

Hi,Pezza54 and thanks for replying.
I stopped use the car on the 4/1/24.
yes I’ve kept up with payment never miss any in 36 months.
I’ve complained to the fainace that was my second step after the dealership. And the have send out a person to assess the car outside my house !!!
I will continue posting the story step-by-step
thank you for reading

**Pezza54** · 14th January 2024, 13:38:PM

What was the total amount of the loan agreement including interest and balloon payment?
How much have you paid to date, deposit plus monthly payments?

**Shadi** · 14th January 2024, 14:08:PM

Repairs rejected on 10/05/2021 due to out of service schedule which is due every year.

This was because the service invoice was out of the service schedule, they could not accept

approval under warranty. I contacted Peugeot customer care and the sales manager at

RRG about this. The delay in the service being carried out was because it was due during the first lockdown of the covid pandemic. It was agreed that the repair would be covered under warranty. The repair
was then carried out.

This is a finance company report

Upon arrival we connected diagnostic equipment of our own. This revealed no stored or pending fault codes.

There was evidence of refinishing to the offside front wing. This did not appear to have been removed or filled.

We inspected both the nearside and the offside rear doors. These appeared to have been repainted. The tailgate and rear bumper had also been refinished.
The tailgate nearside corner was noted to be uneven and approximately 10mm further in the recess than the offside corner of the tailgate by approximately 10mm.
We next inspected the suspension. There was no visible damage or evidence of repairs to the steering or suspension components.
We started the engine, after carrying out oil and coolant levels checks which were at acceptable levels.

There was a metallic rattling type noise on start up which lasted for
approximately 20seconds. We were informed that the vehicle had had a replacement turbocharger fitted at some point in the past. We declined to road test the vehicle due to the metallic tapping type engine noise.

We were shown two tyres, which were reportedly from the vehicle. However, the origin could not be confirmed. These were Michelin tyres and displayed noticeable wear to the inner and the outer shoulders. The cords were noticeably visible to the retained tyres.

We inspected the tyres on the vehicle. There were Michelin tyres and displayed 6mm of tread in an even wear pattern. The tyres were visibly serviceable,as were the lower suspension arms, bushes, steering rack, ball joints, track rods and track rod ends.

We next checked the function of the collision sensors. We placed an object in front of the sensors. All sensors activated, indicating they were detecting objects.
The service light / spanner warning light was noted to be illuminated on the dashboard display.

OPINION
In our opinion based on the visible evidence we would conclude that the spanner warning light was illuminated on the dashboard display, which we would consider requires simply resetting.

02

There were no faults with the collision detection system. The wheel alignment displayed no obvious defects.

03

The tyres presented to us, reportedly from the vehicle, appeared to have been driven in a under inflated state, causing heavy wear to the inner and outer edges.

04

There was no evidence of any poor accident repairs. However, there was some misalignment and evident of previous body rectification. The nearside area of the tailgate displays misalignment, which requires adjustment.

05

We would consider that these faults would not have been present or developing at finance

06

inception and would not be considered the responsibility of the selling agent.

We have completed a limited identity check on the vehicle. This confirms the registration date as 31/05/19

CONCLUSION

C1

We would conclude that the vehicle does display minor issues relating to the bodywork and also evidence of wear to the previously replaced tyres, which we would consider has occurred due to under inflating of the tyres. There was misalignment to the nearside area of the tailgate.

The service light is illuminated. However, these minor issues would not be considered the responsibility of the selling agent.

**Shadi** · 14th January 2024, 14:21:PM

Total Car cost : £23,446.10

Total amount paid : £14,225.72

£256,27 X 36 months = £9,225.72 +

deposit : £5,000

Balloon payment: £9220.38

**Shadi** · 14th January 2024, 14:51:PM

The Motor Ombudsman provisional decision
1/11/23

complained about a used Peugeot 3008 she bought from RRG Peugeot (RRG). She
reported a number of faults with the car. Mrs said the tracking of wheels and alignment was out. There were also signs of repairs to the bodywork.

Background

Consumer’s evidence and arguments
bought a used Peugeot 3008 from RRG on 14 December 2020. The car was first registered in May 2019.
He told us that on 15 January 2021 a report was made to RRG that the interior lighting was not working, and the tracking was not correct. The light was fixed, but a clip on the door panel was not repaired. He said the tracking was not fixed.
On 13 February 2021, the passenger wing mirror was not operating. Mr Al Asfar said this was not working
when the complaint was made in July 2021.
On 22 April 2021, the car displayed more problems. These were:
• Engine management light (EML) appeared.
• Engine fault repair needed message appeared.
• AdBlue: Emissions fault message appeared.
• AdBlue: Emissions fault starting impossible in 700 miles message appeared.
• Red spanner light appeared.
• Global opening and closing not working.
The car was inspected at Trenton Priory Park. They identified a fault relating to a technical bulletin. After
recommending an ECU and UREA reservoir replacement, these repairs did not work. The turbo and
injectors were eventually replaced. This was under warranty after issues caused by the service history were
resolved.
The global open and close of windows was not working.
Mr … said:
• The service light was on due to the service schedule being out.
• Collision detection kept activating.
• Tracking of wheels and alignment was out for the front tyres on inner and outer edges.
Fraser Accident Repairs produced a report. I understand from the date of the photographs provided that
this was completed on 10 June 2021. They concluded that:
o Offside rear door painted.
o Nearside rear door painted and repaired.
o Both front wings had been painted.
o Nearside rear bumper was not fitted correctly.

Business’s response
RRG provided a timeline of events. This agreed with the timeline provided by . RRG said the
repair to the mood light was made by Trenton Priory Park and charged to RRG Peugeot Oldham.
Date: 1 November 2023

Mr Al Asfar visited Trenton Priory Park for the diagnostic of the EML emissions fault to be carried out in
April 2021. Following this they informed Mr…that the warranty company would not pay for the
repairs. This was because the service invoice was out of the service schedule, they could not accept approval under warranty. Mr .. then contacted Peugeot customer care and the sales manager at
RRG about this. The delay in the service being carried out was because it was due during the first lockdown of the covid pandemic. It was agreed that the repair would be covered under warranty. The repair was then carried out.
They also liaised with Santander Consumer (UK) PLC about the complaint, as Mr… contacted them
previously to request rejection of the car. This was on the basis that the car had already been repaired once, and there was a new fault. Santander did not support this as a report completed by ACE on 22 June 2021, suggested that the faults would not have been present at the point of sale.
The report by ACE concluded that:
• A warning light needed to be reset.
• There were no faults with the collision detection system.
• The wheel alignment presented no obvious defects.
• The tyres presented to the inspector were not on the car. They showed signs of heavy wear to the inner and outer edges. This appeared to the inspector to have been caused by being driven in an under inflated state.
• They did not consider the faults were present at the point of sale.
RRG were not aware of what the car was used for before the centre received it. they reviewed the
documents and could not see anywhere that the customer was informed it was a demo car. They confirmed that it was not used as a demo at RRG.
Our adjudicator’s conclusions
One of our adjudicators investigated the complaint. He concluded that there were faults with the car that had been repaired. The report from ACE did not identify any current faults. However, an inspection should
be made to establish whether there was a fault with the global window system. If a fault was found it should be repaired.
Consumer’s response to the adjudicator
Mr .. challenged the adjudicator’s conclusion. He provided a report from DEKRA. The conclusions
from this report were:
• The paintwork that had been repaired, the door clips broken, the rear bumper being misaligned and the rears wheels out of alignment all indicated that the car had been involved in an accident.
• There appeared to be no adjustment to allow for the rear axled being out of tolerance.
• This was causing the rear tyres to wear.
• The engineer suspected the rear axle was twisted.
Business’s response to the adjudicator
RRG replied to the adjudicator and accepted the decision. They said Mr … car had been inspected
by RRG. They found the following issues:
• Rear axle – the reading shows this as -0.08 which their technician said was ok.
• Global open and close window issue – the readings were sent to Peugeot. They advised to try a
new key initially, but that did not fix the issue. It has been escalated to a stage 2 complaint which was being handled by Peugeot in Europe. Although the car was out of the warranty period, Peugeot would cover this as goodwill.

Mr Al was provided with a courtesy car free of charge to keep him on the road while his car was repaired.

Further investigation
Our adjudicator issued a revised decision. He agreed with the report from DEKRA that the damage to the rear bumper and rear axle was likely to have been present when the car was sold. He said these should be repaired. RRG should also pay for the cost of the report from DEKRA and 50% of the cost of the rear tyres.

Mr Al rejected the adjudicator’s decision. He said he agreed with the findings but was not happy with the options that he was given. RRG have been given the option to rectify the car and repair any issues that have been sold with the car which have been unsuccessful. Each time it has caused nothing but stress and has been leaving him with a car that is unroadworthy.

He wanted:
• the car replaced with an identical car without any prior damage.
• compensation for the stress and trouble he had experienced.
• the costs reimbursed for the DEKRA report and tyres.
Mr Al told us in September 2023 that he had to replace the tyres again. He said this is because of the
axle problem highlighted in the DEKRA report.

My findings

I have considered all the available evidence. Having done so, I think that the complaint should be upheld.
Let me explain why.
I must assess the evidence using the balance of probabilities. What this means is that I assess all the
evidence and attach weight to each piece of evidence. I do this by assessing the quality of the evidence
and how important it is to the issues I am considering. I then think about placing the evidence on a set of
scales – one side for the evidence in favour of the consumer and the other side for the evidence in favour
of the business. For the complaint to be upheld the scales should be tipped in favour of the consumer.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) contains provisions that goods must be of satisfactory quality. If a fault is found within six months of the purchase, it is presumed the fault was present when the goods were
sold.

Was there a fault with the car?
There were problems with the car within the first few months. It is acknowledged that the interior light had to
be repaired. Following some investigation and repairs to the ECU and UREA units, the turbo and injectors
were replaced. These repairs were all made under warranty. I am satisfied that there were faults with the car when it was sold.
The evidence from Fraser Accident Repairs and DEKRA both indicate that there have previously been
repairs to the car. The bumper needed to be repaired as it had not been fitted correctly. The tyres had been
wearing unevenly. The DEKRA engineer thought the axle had been twisted. The interior light had been
repaired and a door clip was broken. The report from Frasers was completed in June 2021. Mr al confirmed that no insurance claims have been made whilst he owned the car. All of these factors lead me to conclude that the repairs were made before the car was sold to Mr Al Since the adjudicator issued his revised decision, Mr Al provided evidence of uneven wear on the
tyres. I think this is consistent with the rear axle being damaged. I am satisfied that there is still a fault with the car. And I think it is likely that the fault was present when the car was sold to Mr Al . I therefore uphold the complaint.

Remedy

The CRA contains provisions for the remedies available to consumers. There is a short-term right to reject.
This must be exercised within 30 days. The right to repair or replacement. Then there is the right to a pricereduction or final right to reject.
The right to a price reduction or the final right to reject may only be exercised after the retailer has had one opportunity to make repairs.
In this case, repairs were made under warranty to the ECU and UREA reservoir. The turbo and injectors
were then replaced. This means that RRG has had its opportunity to repair the car.
It is possible that RRG could find a replacement car. However, this is very often difficult to achieve. I think it is unlikely this would be a suitable remedy. If RRG has a replacement car available, they should provide
details in response to this provisional decision.
I am satisfied that the appropriate remedy is to allow Mr Al to reject the car.

Section 24(8) of CRA states that where the final right to reject is exercised, the retailer is entitled to make a deduction to account for use of the car. A well maintained car is generally expected to last for 100,000
miles. That is without any major mechanical expense.
For a used car, the mileage already covered at the point of sale is deducted from 100,000 to reach the remaining mileage expected for the car. The purchase price of the car is divided by the remaining mileage to reach the price per mile remaining.
This total is multiplied by the miles covered by the consumer in the car to reach the total deduction. This figure is then deducted from the purchase price to reach the final depreciated refund to be paid to upon return of the car.
My calculation in this case is as follows:
100,000 – (mileage of the car at purchase) = (remaining miles expected for car to cover)
(purchase price of car) ÷ (remaining miles) = (per mile deduction)
(per mile deduction) x (miles covered by the consumer in car) = (total deduction)
(purchase price of car) – (total deduction) = (total depreciated refund due to Mrs Bouallal)
I will need to see:
• The purchase price.
• The mileage when the car was sold to mr al
• The current mileage.
In addition to the refund, should be paid the cost of the report from DEKRA and the additional;
cost of tyres worn because of the faulty back axle. At the moment, I think that will be the cost of the tyres
just put on the car. I will consider any further arguments on the amount to be allowed for tyres before issuing my final decision. I will need to see evidence of the tyres bought including the cost.
My provisional decision

I uphold the complaint for the reasons set out above. Mr AL is entitled to reject the car. The
calculation of the refund amount should be calculated as set out above. RRG should also pay for the cost of the report from DEKRA, and the cost of tyres worn because of the faulty back axle.

Next steps

As this is a change in outcome, I am giving both parties 10 working days to provide me with further
comments, which they can do by completing the webform – a link is included in my email. Once I have
received responses, or this time has elapsed, I will look to review the complaint again within 5 working
days. However, in the absence of this, it is likely my final decision will be along these lines.

**Shadi** · 14th January 2024, 16:22:PM

My reply to The Motor Ombudsman provisional decision

On 1/11/23

I would like to say that I am happy with you decision and that I would like to reject the car and be issued with a refund. The purchase price £23,446.10 minus the mileage. The mileage on the day of purchase was 21,318 miles and the current mileage is 60,439 miles which may go up slightly as the car is still in use. I have also attach proof of the mileage and purchase price ,DEKRA.

I would also like to add that I do not think it is unreasonable to ask to be reimbursed for the cost of the dekra report and also the cost of the replacement tyres that I believe were unnecessarily replaced due the the faults that are present with the car. I have also attached proof of purchase of these tyres which are total 16 tyres as I believe these would not have to be changed so frequently if the axle and tracking of the car were correct.

If possible could you please advise me on the next steps that I should take to have a refund processed as the car is still on PCP finance and the steps I should take to return the car and if the dealership is responsible for collecting the car as there is 200 mile travel both ways.

I would like also to thank you for the time that you have put into my case as it has been ongoing for a number of years but I am happy that we have been able to come to this decision so that me and my family are able to put this behind us and move on.

**Pezza54** · 14th January 2024, 18:00:PM

I thought you started the thread because the ombudsman had rejected your claim and not found in your favour.
I asked how much you had paid because under PCP the consumer can voluntarily terminate the loan agreement and return the car once they have repaid 50%
You probably achieved 50% about 11 months ago so you could have returned the car then.
If you are unhappy with the reduction the ombudsman calculates, you should still return the car after contacting the finance company and consider making a court claim to cover all your costs, including transport costs when the car was undriveable (either at your home or in the garage)

**Pezza54** · 14th January 2024, 18:32:PM

I might be wrong, I make the deduction about £11,300 based on the ombudsman's equations.(about 29p/mile deduction)

As you have paid a total of £14225 you should expect a refund of about £3000 plus tyres and Dekra report

**Shadi** · 14th January 2024, 19:10:PM

22/11/23 the Moto ombudsman final decision.

Background

I issued my provisional decision for this complaint on 1 November 2023,

Consumer’s response to my provisional decision

Mr Al accepted my provisional decision. He said:

• He would like to reject the car and be issued with a refund. The purchase price was £23,446.10.

The mileage on the day of purchase was 21,318 miles and the current mileage is 60,439 miles

which may go up slightly as the car is still in use.

• He asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the DEKRA report and the cost of the replacement tyres that he believes he had to replace due to the faults that are present with the car. He attached proof of purchase of these tyres which are total 16 tyres as I believe these would not have to be changed

so frequently if the axle and tracking of the car were correct.

• He also asked about the next steps that he should take to have a refund processed as the car is still on PCP finance. He also wanted to know about the process to return the car and if the dealership is responsible for collecting the car as there is 200 mile travel both ways.

Business’s response to my provisional decision

RRG said that they would reply to my provisional decision. I have not yet received their response.

My findings

I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to reach my decision. There are no further arguments to consider. I have therefore reached the same conclusion as set out in my provisional decision and for the same reasons.

Tyres
Mr Al provided invoices for a total of 16 tyres.

25 January 2021 x4 £662

18 June 2021 x2 £351

11 January 2022 x2 £343

28 July 2022 x2 £343

07 February 2023 x2 £684

21 August 2023 x4 £382

I think this shows that mr al has had to buy tyres on a regular basis. I am satisfied that he bought tyres more often because of the fault with the rear axle. The tyres would have to be replaced at some point.

Mr al has driven about 40,000 miles. In that time, he has replaced all four tyres twice. I assume

that he replaced the front tyres when he changed all four. But when he only changed two tyres, this was for the rear tyres. I think replacing front tyres every 20,000 miles is normal. Rear tyres may last longer depending on driving style.

In my view, Mr al should have had to replace the rear tyres once or twice during the time he has owned the car. This means she would have replaced at most eight tyres. I therefore make an award for RRG to pay Mr al the cost of eight tyres. This can be taken from the invoices when he only bought

two tyres. That is a total of £1,419.

DEKRA report

RRG should also pay for the cost of the report from DEKRA of £199.

Mr al can reject the car.

Mr al may reject the car for the reasons given in my provisional decision. RRG should arrange to collect the car from Mrs Bouallal. RRG should calculate the refund

due to Mr al as follows:

Section 24(8) of CRA states that where the final right to reject is exercised, the retailer is entitled to make a

deduction to account for use of the car. A well maintained car is generally expected to last for 100,000

miles. That is without any major mechanical expense.

For a used car, the mileage already covered at the point of sale is deducted from 100,000 to reach the

remaining mileage expected for the car. The purchase price of the car is divided by the remaining mileage

to reach the price per mile remaining.

This total is multiplied by the miles covered by the consumer in the car to reach the total deduction. This figure is then deducted from the purchase price to reach the final depreciated refund to be paid to

Mr an l upon return of the car.

My calculation in this case is as follows:

100,000 – 21,318 (mileage of the car at purchase) = 78,682 (remaining miles expected for car to cover)

£23,446 (purchase price of car) ÷ 78,682 = £0.30 (per mile deduction)

£0.30 x 39,121 (miles covered by the consumer in car) = £11,736.30 (total deduction)

£23,446 – £11,736.30 = £11,709.70 (total depreciated refund due to Mr al )

The final amount will need to be adjusted to allow for the actual mileage when the car is returned.

***RRG should arrange to settle any outstanding finance from the refund to be paid to Mrs Bouallal. The balance should then be paid to hem. ***

My final decision

I uphold the complaint. RRG must allow Mr al to reject the car. They should calculate and pay him the amounts as set out in my provisional decision.

Next steps

This is The Motor Ombudsman’s final decision on Mr Al complaint, and it represents the last stage of our process – this complaint will not be reviewed further. Mr Al can either accept this decision, at

which point it becomes binding on both parties, or reject it and pursue the matter legally.

Mr Al can now decide whether to accept this decision or reject it. There is further information about

the options available to Mr Al , and how to respond to this decision, in my email.

22/11/23

My response the Moto ombudsman final decision.

Thank you for your email. Please pardon my need to clarify further to ensure what I am agreeing to. It is vital that I fully understand before I accept the terms of your offer.

I am confused about the “outstanding finance”.

RRG should arrange to settle any outstanding finance from the refund to be paid to Mr al . The balance should then be paid to hem.

After I complete my 36 month finance agreement (in 1 months time) there is an optional balloon payment (to keep the vehicle) at the end of the finance agreement of approximately £9200. Will this ~£9200 come out of my ~£11,709.70 refund leaving me with ~£2,709.70, which may I add, is less than the initial deposit that I put down on the car? Please could this be clarified?

For my understanding I should be getting a refund of £11,709 (depending on mileage)

Refund of £1,419 for tyres and a refund of £199 of the DEKRA inspection.

look forward to hearing from you soon.

response from the Moto ombudsman 1/12/23

Your understanding of my award is correct. You should receive:

£11,709 (depending on mileage)
Refund of £1,419 for tyres and
A refund of £199 of the DEKRA inspection.

Any outstanding finance will need to be repaid. As your agreement comes to an end in 1 month I would anticipate the outstanding finance will be at most one months payment.

I have not seen the finance agreement. My understanding is that the balloon payment would only be payable if you want to keep the car. As you do not want to keep the car, you would not have to pay that or have it deducted from the refund.

I hope that clarifies the position. Please let me know if you want further clarification. RRG should be able to clarify what will happen to the finance agreement.

I spoke to RRG on 11/12/23 to arrange collection and they refuse the Motor ombudsman final decision See below what RRG reply was:

Hi ,

Thank you for calling me today. I am happy to tell you that we are getting close to resolving this matter. I can confirm I now have a valid settlement figure for your car (£9220.

letter attached to this email) N.B. I have also pasted below the screen shot of the email from the ombudsman to show you where I get the to figures as follows

Total refundable value of your car £11709.70

Dekra report £199

8 x tyres £1419

Total refundable amount £13327.70 The settlement amount (which we will settle on your behalf) is £9220., therefore the amount we will refund to Mr's Bouallal's account will be £13327.70 -

£9220 = £3581.05 That is to say we will transfer fund £9220. to finance agreement and £3581.05 to your account.

am aiming to collect the car at the soonest opportunity that is mutually convenient for us both,

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION - PLEASE NOTE

You will need to provide along with the car, the following.

The full service history of the car
2 working keys
The locking wheel nut key
Manuals and book pack
V5 certificate

A condition report of the car will be conducted from the transporter and a further report when it is delivered to our Peugeot Centre. For your protection please retain a copy of a condition report from the transporter when they come to collect the car.

On receipt of the car (delivery from the transporter/delivery driver, to ourselves) with all the required items listed we will confirm the mileage and final amount. The refund amount will not be adjusted unless the milage or condition of the car is significantly different from in information we hold (screen shot from ombudsman email.

13/12/23

I’ve send email to the Moto ombudsman

I have spoken to RRG, and they have rejected your settlement. They have sent me an attachment of their calculations and settlement figures.

They want to collect the Car and They believe to deduct the outstanding ballon balance out of my refund.

RRG asked you to contact them regarding this matter.

3/1/2024 response from the Moto ombudsman

Following your acceptance of my decision and subsequent emails I have now received an email from RRG. A PDF copy of their email is attached for your information.

RRG do not have a copy of the finance agreement. I have not yet seen a copy. However, the email from RRG sets out details of the figures they think you should be paid.
You will see that RRG said you bought the car using a PCP finance package. You paid £13,327.70. But you are due to pay about £9,200 as the final payment for the finance package. This means you have paid just over £4,000 for the car.

Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding about the calculation. It now appears to me that RRG are correct. You should receive a refund of the amount you have paid for the car less the deduction for the mileage. As you have not paid the balloon payment you would not be entitled to a refund for that amount.

In addition to the refund for the car calculated in line with my decision you should receive a refund for the cost of the tyres and the DEKRA report.

email from RRG to Moto ombudsman

I am informed by our sales manager that they do not have a copy of the finance agreement unfortunately. We are unable to obtain a copy once it has been forwarded toSantander Financial Services it is no longer accessible by

ourselves. The customer would need to contact the finance company.

The centre are concerned that the final lump payment is due to be debited from the customers account mid January.

Our sales manager has provided the information below.

If the customer had paid cash for the car the customer would be receiving £13327.70. The customer paid using

finance so they are still receiving £13327.70, we in this situation, settle of the customer’s finance as they chose to pay for the car utilising a PCP.

Therefore, the customer is receiving the same NET amount £13327.70 however circa £9200 will be sent to settle

THEIR account with Santander Financial Services. The remaining fund will be given to the customer.

Please note that we RRG Peugeot and Santander financial services are two separate entities. The ‘hand the vehicle back’ aka voluntary termination is between the customer and the finance company and there will be

no asset to refund once this has happens.

If this matter is not resolved before the final balloon payment is paid (middle of January) then the customer will

either have to pay the lump sum OR if they do not have the funds, consolidate the debt by rescheduling the

agreement with the finance company directly, OR utilising a personal loan. If the PCP is re-scheduled a further

interest balance will be added to the customers debt meaning they may receive (NET) less cash/equity that

remains once the debt is settled.

4/1/2024 My response to the Moto ombudsman

There seems to be a misunderstanding.

I have previously sent you a copy of the agreement however I have attached the agreement again for your convenience.
I have purchased the vehicle using a PCP finance product and my agreement is coming to an end. As I am rejecting the vehicle, the balloon payment £9220.38 (would Only be payable if I want to keep the Car). As I’m rejecting the car I would not have to pay that or have it deducted from my refund.

The value of the vehicle will cover the balloon payment (as with any other PCP agreement if the customer chooses not the keep the car after the agreement). Once the vehicle is returned, the remaining balance (balloon payment), will be covered by the return of the vehicle, meaning there is no remaining balance. There is no reason for a £9220.38 deduction from my refund, when I am returning the vehicle.

However I’m rejecting the car to RRG under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).
Total Car cost : £23,446.10
Total amount paid : £14,225.72
£256,27 X 36 months = £9,225.72 +
deposit : £5,000
Balloon payment: £9220.38 to pay if I keep the car.
In addition to the refund for the car calculated i should receive a refund for the cost of the

Tyres : £1,419

Dekra Report: £199

11/1/2024 response from the Moto ombudsman

Thank you for providing the finance documents.I have attached a document setting out my revised award

My award

I issued my final decision on 22 November 2023 with an award that Mr al l was entitled to reject the car. There is now a dispute about the amount to be repaid if Mr al returns the car.

I explained that Mr al may reject the car. RRG should arrange to collect the car from Mr al.

RRG should calculate the refund due to Mr al as follows:

Section 24(8) of CRA states that where the final right to reject is exercised, the retailer is entitled to make a

deduction to account for use of the car. A well maintained car is generally expected to last for 100,000 miles. That is without any major mechanical expense.

For a used car, the mileage already covered at the point of sale is deducted from 100,000 to reach the remaining mileage expected for the car. The purchase price of the car is divided by the remaining mileage to reach the price per mile remaining.

This total is multiplied by the miles covered by the consumer in the car to reach the total deduction. This figure is then deducted from the purchase price to reach the final depreciated refund to be paid to

Mr al upon return of the car.

Mr Al provided a copy of the invoice for the car and the finance agreement. From this document I have summarised the following information:

• The purchase price was £20,357.

• An advance payment of £5,000 was made.

• This was followed by 36 monthly payments of £256.27.

• A final payment is due of £9,220.38.

• The total paid was £23,446.10.

• This included interest of £3,089.10.

My revised calculation

My revised calculation in this case is now as follows:

100,000 – 21,318 (mileage of the car at purchase) = 78,682 (remaining miles expected for car to cover)

£20,357 (purchase price of car) ÷ 78,682 = £0.26 (per mile deduction)

£0.26 x 39,121 (miles covered by the consumer in car) = £10,171.46 (total deduction)

£20,357 – £10,171.46 = £10,185.54 (total depreciated refund due to Mr al )

The final amount will need to be adjusted to allow for the actual mileage when the car is returned.

RRG should arrange to settle any outstanding finance from the refund to be paid to Mr al . The final finance payment of £9,220.38 is still outstanding.

The amount of £10,185.54 less £9,220.38 equals £965.16. This should be paid to Mr al.

My revised award

RRG should pay Mr al :

• Refund due of £965.16 – adjusted to allow for the actual mileage.

• Refund of £1,419 for tyres.

• A refund of £199 for the cost of the DEKRA inspection.

If Mr al arranges to return the car RRG should make the payment set out above. The deduction for

the use reflects the fact the car would have depreciated in value. As the mileage is nearly 40,000, this is a significant amount of use.

12/01/2024 My final response to the Moto ombudsman

I am writing in regards to your final decision that was made on my case regarding the Peugeot 3008 that was sent on 11/01/24

I am not satisfied with the outcome due to the fact that this case had been ongoing for the past 3 years and the car was not satisfactory from the day of purchase and had caused me nothing but problems. I had no other choice other than to use the car as I was liable for the finance payments and could not afford another car while I still had to make the payments towards this. I believe the settlement figure is ridiculous and will leave me out of pocket by thousands.

Section 24(8) of CRA states that where the final right to reject is exercised, the retailer is entitled to make a deduction to account for use of the car.

My finding as follow :

the balloon payment would only be payable if I want to keep the car. As I do not want to keep the car, I would not have to pay that or have it deducted from the refund.
the retailer is entitled to make a deduction to account for use of the car.
I would like to make you aware that I am wanting to take this case to court as I believe this will rule in my favour.

Hi,thanks for taking time and read all this this is long, sorry, but I know all the details are needed!

In summary: I’m stuck on what to do next regarding being misold a car that has basically been written off due to amount of faults and accident. RRG They are wanted to settle MY balloon payment on my behalf from the refund and take the CAR ????? So I will be left with

£965.16

I would like to know thoughts on if it is worth going to court ???

On the 21/1/2024 my balloon payment is due.

I’ve Contact santander they said is between you and the dealership. There is nothing we can do. Whether you want to keep the car or give it back to us You need to let us know by the 16/01/2024.

I’m thinking give the car back to the dealership and for them to deduct my balloon payment from my refund is wrong.

I have no other choice, i’ve decided to challenge this and go to court and give the car back to Santander finance company so they can close my account.

I would like to know thoughts on this

Thank you again.

**Pezza54** · 14th January 2024, 19:47:PM

You have arrived at my last paragraph in post 9 after several emails to the ombudsman. The flaw in the ombudsman's calculation is using the assumption that the car has zero value after 100k miles. which results in a high cost per mile reduction.
You need to search the internet for court cases where the judge has decided on a fair and reasonable cost per mile for the reduction and make a note of the court case.

**Shadi** · 14th January 2024, 20:19:PM

21,318 (mileage of the car at purchase)
39,121 (miles covered by me ) in 3 years
Total of 60,000 total car miles today

As I have paid a total of £14225 i should expect a refund of about £7000 plus tyres and Dekra report

I think the calculation should be paced on what I paid £14225. Not purchase price.

And RRG Should take the car back and pay the balloon payment if they want to keep the car.

Based on the Motor Ombudsman decision

The RRG is the winner. They’re taking the car back paying the balloon payment out of my refund and pay me £965.16 ??? Plus tyres and DEKRA.

So they cashed in purchase price was £20,357

And they got a car back which is worth now around £14,000 and paid me £965.16 Plus tyres and DEKRA.

So £14,000 - £1,419 tyres- £199 DEKRA = £12,382 this how much money they will make if the sell the Car for £14,000

Also, if I do accept the Motor Ombudsman decision won’t be able to take your RRG to court.

The final decision is the last stage of The Motor Ombudsman’s process. You may choose to accept or reject the final decision by completing our online form which can be found at the bottom of this email. You have 28 days from the date of the final decision to do so.

If you accept it, then it becomes binding on all parties – which means you won’t be able to take your complaint to court and that you accept the decision in full and final resolution of your complaint.

If you reject the decision, then neither party is bound by it – meaning that you reserve your right to pursue this case in the courts. If you reject it and a gesture of goodwill has been made, the accredited business may withdraw this.

Please remember that the final decision represents the end of The Motor Ombudsman’s involvement with your case. The decision won’t be reviewed any further and if you disagree with it, you might need to take the accredited business to court.

**Pezza54** · 15th January 2024, 08:57:AM

I might have missed something in the long posts. I can't see the date where you actually rejected the car in writing within 6 months of purchase.
The ombudsman doesn't mention the date either but he does say he believes faults were present at the time of sale.
You asked the question is it worth starting a court claim.
In my opinion it isn't.
You should win the claim but you may not be awarded the amount of your claim and you could receive the same or just a bit more than the ombudsman's award. The claim is likely to take 9-12 months to reach final hearing. There are forms and deadlines, reply to defence, witness statement (lengthy in your case).

**Pezza54** · 15th January 2024, 12:44:PM

There is a thread titled "Final right to reject-should I expect a refund?" under Vehicle finance and issues started on 16 August 2020
In this case the ombudsman at the FOS used the excess mileage charge to calculate the deduction
I think the rate was about 11p/mile as opposed to 26p/mile the motor ombudsman has used.

dealership refuses to accept your rejection, Please help

dealership refuses to accept your rejection, Please help

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?