Car rejection and how to

[Retro123]

1st paragraph: include the year in the date

6th paragraph: do you really mean the "whole roof" or just the whole panoramic sunroof?

I wouldn't end with "happy to oblige you" You have been caused a lot of inconvenience and been put to much expense. You should state this firmly in your letter in its own paragraph

Would you consider a replacement vehicle? You haven't mentioned this in your letter. Under CRA the dealer is entitled to offer you a suitable replacement vehicle but you don't have to accept it if you wanted a particular model, colour etc

Year, very good point, I will add those.

I will remove "happy to oblige" and make it more direct.

It's a bit of a particular thing, I do have certain requirements in terms of car specification. It basically revolves around family needs, equipment carrying etc, so I was particularly after a version with 180Bhp. At this point, I would sooner reject it if a suitable replacement isn't available. Having a quick scan through their website, there is nothing of a similar specification.

The panoramic roof pretty much takes up the whole roof, if that helps. The Seat dealer said it was the roof cassette that required replacement.

[R0b]

Could be better worded and more succinct in my view, I've mocked up a quick example below but feel free to use as much or as little as you like.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Defective vehicle - Request for repair to be carried out under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

On or about XXXX I entered into a hire purchase contract with you (agreement number: XXXXXXXX) via the online car dealership www.cazoo.co.uk. Since then, the vehicle has developed a fault with the panoramic roof which has been leaking excessive amounts of water whenever there is rain. I have been engaging with a representative of Cazoo over the past five months on the understanding that they were the owner of the vehicle but I have since discovered that my contractual relationship is in fact with Blue Motor Finance.

As the purchase of the vehicle was a business-consumer transaction, the contract was subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). In particular, the CRA requires you to supply a vehicle is of satisfactory quality (section 9) and fit for purpose (section 10). It is also presumed that if a fault develops within six months of receiving the vehicle, it is presumed faulty from the beginning unless proven to the contrary (section 19(14)).

The vehicle has already undergone a repair but that repair has failed although I understand I am required to allow you an opportunity to repair the vehicle since you were not previously notified of the fault. I would appreciate it if you could contact me to arrange a suitable time to collect the vehicle to be repaired. At the same time, I would also require a courtesy car at your expense whilst the repairs are being carried out. You can contact me on [telephone number] or by email on [email address].

To assist you further, I have provided a chronology of events leading up to the date of this letter.

XX/XX/XX: Notified Cazoo of fault
XX/XX/XX: Vehicle taken to XXX dealership for repair at Cazoo expense.
XX/XX/XX: etc.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

[Retro123]

I have come back with an update and how to proceed.

The finance company did send out an independent inspector who confirmed all the issues absolutely, noting that mould was growing in the car and it was an health and safety issue as well as everything else.

However Cazoo, I guess upon hearing that I had contacted the finance company, authorised repairs. However, nobody seems to want to tell me what repairs were authorised. So far it seems only repair to the roof, it does not mention anything about decontamination of the car, nor does the repairing dealer have it on his notes about decontamination.

The finance company did send me a copy of the report and left the message that the retailer has authorised repairs and if I have set a date. Given that it is evident the car is unlikely to be repaired in totality, what legal grounds am I actually on? The damage the water ingress has caused is severe and is corelated by the independent inspector's report on behalf of the finance company.

Many thanks.

[R0b]

Given that it is evident the car is unlikely to be repaired in totality, what legal grounds am I actually on?

Can you explain what you mean by this statement? Any fault should be repaired as should any damages caused by the fault so if there is mould growing inside the car which requires cleaning and then the seats also need repairing as a result of if it is simply a case of a professional valet, all of that should be covered off such that the car is back in the state that it should have been had the fault not occurred.

Unfortunately, you didn't follow the correct path so you no longer have any legal advantage other than repair or replacement. Unfortunately if the replacement is disproportionate to the other option then BMF can reject that and insist on repair.**

Before you make any arrangements for repairs to be carried out, I think there's a few points that need to be clarified with BMF or at least offer them an opportunity to respond within a reasonable time. For a belts and braces approach if I were in your shoes, I would probably write back to BMF along with the following points:

1. You are in receipt of the report and also a voicemail from BMF saying that Cazoo have authorised the repairs to be done. Given that Cazoo are authorising the repairs, you presume that they are acting on behalf of BMF since your contract is with BMF and not Cazoo.

2. As to the 'authorised repairs' it is unclear what these repairs are going to cover. In your opinion, the authorised repairs should cover repairing the original fault but also the damage that the fault has caused to the car. Not surer if the report covered any additional damage to the car as a result but I would in the first instance do a visual check to see if there is any damage and/or take it to a reputable damage to verify if there is other damage likely to have happened as a result of the rainwater. That list should therefore be your 'authorised repairs' although before going to a garage as you may have to pay them, you should offer an opportunity for someone to come and do a full inspection of the repairs that are agreed to be carried out. If they decline then you should add that to the cost being refunded to you.

3. Speaking of costs, who is paying for them? Has that been agreed? Even though Cazoo has authorised the costs, I wouldn't be paying for them out of my own pocket as this should come at the expense of BMF who is the creditor under the agreement. Think that needs to be confirmed in writing before anything else happens. If you are too impatient to wait and go ahead without confirming then you might run the risk of not recovering your money.

4. Are they offering you a courtesy car or alternative transport whilst you have no use of the car?

5. Finally, BMF should have a window of time to respond to your letter/email maybe 14 or 21 days in this instance but I may be inclined to offer 30 days (and I'll explain why below).

** The CRA does say that the repair must be carried out within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to yourself. The loss of the car without a courtesy car being offered could be considered significant inconvenience. The CRA also says the costs of repair must be borne by the trader, hence point number 3.

Determining what is a reasonable time can be a bit more difficult for car repairs especially, if you have a courtesy car because on the one hand, BMF may argue you have not been significant inconvenienced if there are delays on repairs such as several months, since you have something to drive around in. On the other hand, your argument may be, well I'm paying for specific car that I am not having full use of, particularly if the courtesy car is not a like for like in terms of make or model or spec. So the significant inconvience is that you are paying for something you are not getting and the enjoyableness (is that even a word?) of driving the car and its features/functionality.

Depending on the extent of the repairs required, I would be asking a reputable garage how long it would take for these repairs taking into account any allowance for delivery of spares etc. and use that as a baseline, but maybe get a few quotes for reference. You could then say to BMF, having made enquiries the time it would take to repair the car is X weeks or months and therefore I should have the car back by X date, allowing for maybe a week or 2 variance for unknown things that might crop up.

If the repairs are going to take significantly longer than that, then you may want to say that you are treating the contract as repudiated under the CRA and terminating the contract. The CRA allows you terminate if the repairs are not carried out within a reasonable time or if its going to significantly inconvenience you. Treating contracts as at an end under the CRA means it is considered a material breach by the trader.

The above should be enough food for thought, how you go about this is ultimately up to you.

[Retro123]

Can you explain what you mean by this statement? Any fault should be repaired as should any damages caused by the fault so if there is mould growing inside the car which requires cleaning and then the seats also need repairing as a result of if it is simply a case of a professional valet, all of that should be covered off such that the car is back in the state that it should have been had the fault not occurred.

The repairing garage have stated that they are only authorised to repair the roof and none of the other damages caused by the fault. Sorry it is not simply down to a professional valet; the mould is under the carpet, water under the floor and parts of the carpet have rotten. Rust has also appeared on some of the metal components above the carpet level suggesting much more damage likely below the carpet, but the inspector was not able to go further.

Unfortunately, you didn't follow the correct path so you no longer have any legal advantage other than repair or replacement. Unfortunately if the replacement is disproportionate to the other option then BMF can reject that and insist on repair.**

I don't understand how I have no legal right to reject? Could you explain more? I have allowed the retailer an opportunity to repair it, they failed to do so. I have gone to the finance company and offered the same. If this means I have now no legal right to reject, that's simply nuts.

Before you make any arrangements for repairs to be carried out, I think there's a few points that need to be clarified with BMF or at least offer them an opportunity to respond within a reasonable time. For a belts and braces approach if I were in your shoes, I would probably write back to BMF along with the following points:

1. You are in receipt of the report and also a voicemail from BMF saying that Cazoo have authorised the repairs to be done. Given that Cazoo are authorising the repairs, you presume that they are acting on behalf of BMF since your contract is with BMF and not Cazoo.

Cazoo are not operating on behalf of BMF. Cazoo have also not authorised the full repair of the car which has been sat outside now for a month not moving as nobody can be in it. The independent report itself says that it is a health hazard and it is.

2. As to the 'authorised repairs' it is unclear what these repairs are going to cover. In your opinion, the authorised repairs should cover repairing the original fault but also the damage that the fault has caused to the car. Not surer if the report covered any additional damage to the car as a result but I would in the first instance do a visual check to see if there is any damage and/or take it to a reputable damage to verify if there is other damage likely to have happened as a result of the rainwater. That list should therefore be your 'authorised repairs' although before going to a garage as you may have to pay them, you should offer an opportunity for someone to come and do a full inspection of the repairs that are agreed to be carried out. If they decline then you should add that to the cost being refunded to you.

3. Speaking of costs, who is paying for them? Has that been agreed? Even though Cazoo has authorised the costs, I wouldn't be paying for them out of my own pocket as this should come at the expense of BMF who is the creditor under the agreement. Think that needs to be confirmed in writing before anything else happens. If you are too impatient to wait and go ahead without confirming then you might run the risk of not recovering your money.

4. Are they offering you a courtesy car or alternative transport whilst you have no use of the car?

5. Finally, BMF should have a window of time to respond to your letter/email maybe 14 or 21 days in this instance but I may be inclined to offer 30 days (and I'll explain why below).

** The CRA does say that the repair must be carried out within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to yourself. The loss of the car without a courtesy car being offered could be considered significant inconvenience. The CRA also says the costs of repair must be borne by the trader, hence point number 3.

Determining what is a reasonable time can be a bit more difficult for car repairs especially, if you have a courtesy car because on the one hand, BMF may argue you have not been significant inconvenienced if there are delays on repairs such as several months, since you have something to drive around in. On the other hand, your argument may be, well I'm paying for specific car that I am not having full use of, particularly if the courtesy car is not a like for like in terms of make or model or spec. So the significant inconvience is that you are paying for something you are not getting and the enjoyableness (is that even a word?) of driving the car and its features/functionality.

Depending on the extent of the repairs required, I would be asking a reputable garage how long it would take for these repairs taking into account any allowance for delivery of spares etc. and use that as a baseline, but maybe get a few quotes for reference. You could then say to BMF, having made enquiries the time it would take to repair the car is X weeks or months and therefore I should have the car back by X date, allowing for maybe a week or 2 variance for unknown things that might crop up.

If the repairs are going to take significantly longer than that, then you may want to say that you are treating the contract as repudiated under the CRA and terminating the contract. The CRA allows you terminate if the repairs are not carried out within a reasonable time or if its going to significantly inconvenience you. Treating contracts as at an end under the CRA means it is considered a material breach by the trader.

The above should be enough food for thought, how you go about this is ultimately up to you.

I would imagine a complete repair would not be a short amount of time. Seat have confirmed that the roofs are back ordered until the end of April. I have no idea what their lead time is to cover components with regards the rest of the electrical failures (e.g. reverse camera no longer working due to visible corrosion to the wiring harnesses) etc. However as Cazoo have not authorised any of those repairs, I don't intend to even make a booking.

Hence before I get back to BMF, the big question for me to you is why you think I have no further right to reject at all anymore given I allowed Cazoo to attempt a repair.

[R0b]

Edit: I see you have made a longer post, which I will reply in more detail.

[R0b]

I don't understand how I have no legal right to reject? Could you explain more? I have allowed the retailer an opportunity to repair it, they failed to do so. I have gone to the finance company and offered the same. If this means I have now no legal right to reject, that's simply nuts.

It is not simply nuts, you just haven't followed the correct process. I've already explained why you have followed the wrong process but let me try it another way:

1. Consumer wants to buy a car from a dealership or online retailer.

2. Dealer/Retailer has agreements in place with various finance companies to offer vehicles on finance instead of cash. In return the dealer/retailer will get a commission.

3. When a consumer agrees to take the vehicle on finance, the dealer/retailer will sell the vehicle to the finance company and the finance company will in turn hire out the vehicle to the consumer on the terms agreed. When a vehicle is purchased on finance, the dealer/retailer is no longer acting as the seller of the vehicle, but is an agent of the finance company who is the owner of the vehicle hiring it out to you under a hire/hire purchase agreement.

4. Consumer signs the paperwork which clearly states the contract is between the finance company and the consumer. The dealer/retailer is not a party to the finance agreement, has no legal rights or obligations. This is a common mistake consumers make, thinking that the dealer/finance company are all the same thing - legally they are not.

5. For the purposes of the CRA, the finance company is the trader and therefore any rights a consumer wishes to exercise under the CRA must be communicated to the finance company. The consumer may choose to speak to the dealer/retailer directly if there is an issue and the dealer/retailer may offer help or assistance (but to be clear they have no legal obligation to do so), but that will impact what rights the consumer can exercise under the CRA because you cannot exercise a right to reject if you haven't already told the finance company of the problem.

6. Quite often, when the company is made aware of the issues, they will send the consumer back to the dealer/retailer to resolve. In this instance the dealer/retailer is now acting on behalf of the finance company to repair/replace the vehicle. If the repair or replacement is not successful, the consumer can then reject the vehicle. This is because the consumer contacted the finance company first and in the eyes of the law, they have now been notified of the issue.

Unfortunately, you went wrong at point 5 because you chose not to contact BMF straight and instead went to Cazoo. Cazoo have no legal obligation to help you but the fact that they did carry out a repair does not in of itself mean that you can now reject the goods. You never told BMF in the first place and in the eyes of the law, you need to communicate the fault to the trader who your contract is with before you can move on to the next step in terms of exercising your rights. Ultimately, that's your fault and nobody else's since you chose to go down an alternative route.

The repairing garage have stated that they are only authorised to repair the roof and none of the other damages caused by the fault. Sorry it is not simply down to a professional valet; the mould is under the carpet, water under the floor and parts of the carpet have rotten. Rust has also appeared on some of the metal components above the carpet level suggesting much more damage likely below the carpet, but the inspector was not able to go further.

So that's what you need to go back to BMF about all of the damage and what needs repairing and clarify what will or will not be done. I would refer you back to my previous post on suggested options.

Cazoo are not operating on behalf of BMF. Cazoo have also not authorised the full repair of the car which has been sat outside now for a month not moving as nobody can be in it. The independent report itself says that it is a health hazard and it is.

Again, if it has been a month already then you should put BMF on notice and give them an ultimatum to get these things fixed or supply a replacement like for like vehicle. You point out it has been a month already and nothing has been resolved, which is now significantly inconveniencing you. Put a deadline on getting the repairs done and if the work is not done by then, then you say you will exercise your final right to reject and treat the contract as at an end.

You will then probably have the battle of BMF arguing you wrongfully terminated the agreement but then you will need to take that risk if you want to reject an argue your case, possibly in court if it gets to that stage. The key is to set out very specifically, what needs to be repaired and in what deadline which should be reasonable. Again, I refer you back to my previous post for suggestions.

[Pezza54]

R0b
Would the claim be against the dealer if the dealer misrepresents the car before sale?

[R0b]

R0b
Would the claim be against the dealer if the dealer misrepresents the car before sale?

Arguably, yes. In respect of a misrepresentation, I believe there is case law that indicates the dealer wouldn't be acting in a principal-agent type relationship so the claim would be against the dealer in that situation. However, as always it will be fact specific.