Has the dealer breached the law and what can I do?

[Pezza54]

Thanks R0B
with regards to the last sentence under point 9 on page 4 of the link, would the misleading omission in OP's case not count as a misleading action?
OP did ask the dealer if the car had been involved in an accident but the salesman didn't answer
Is to stay silent and not answer a question an action that could be regarded as misleading?

[trover]

The right to redress only applies to misleading actions and aggressive practices (excludes misleading omissions) and the remedies available are to either seek compensation or to unwind the contract.

Thanks for that, I’ve gone through the three links as much as I could. Does it mean I can only remind them of their breach of CPUTR and threaten to report to Trading Standards, and ‘hope’ that will rectify/refund, as no private remedy is available?

[Pezza54]

Yes it seems that way. The salesman knew what he was doing when he didn't answer your question about accident damage. Had he answered anything but "yes" he may have been guilty of misrepresentation. When he answered your question with "All our cars are HPI checked" (nothing to do with accident damage) he could claim in court that he misheard your question

[R0b]

Well, you may be able to argue a misleading action (though I couldn't say how successful an argument might be) because:

1. In an earlier post you raised an issue with the bumper/headlights car and the salesperson mentioned that it was simply a misalignment. If the service records show an insurance payout related to material repairs then I think it could be argued that the statement from the salesperson amounted to a misleading action in that it was a false if not deceiving statement.

2. Even though the salesperson dodged your direct question about whether the car has been in a collision before, he nevertheless responded by saying that a HPI check has been carried out and it had passed all checks. The ordinary consumer might think take the assumption that the HPI check covered accidents and write-offs and therefore may rely on that statement as the car not previously having been in a collision. Again, possibly a false or deceiving statement amounting to a misleading action. Unless you already knew at the time what a HPI check covers, then you wouldn't be able to argue that you were misled, and you should have pressed the question.

[trover]

I’ve a new finding with the car. I visited my local dealership and looked for cars of the same model, and looked closely at their front. There was two screws behind the front grill (the inner part of the bumper should I say?). However, on my car, while the two drills, as well as the marks caused by turning the screws are present, the two screws are missing. I’ve taken pictures from both cars, and I believe it may be one of the important pieces of evidence.

I also realise that the car shakes when parking brake is applied (the car is already stationary with auto hold in place). And, after a night drive, I also realised the two headlights are of different angle (height), which might’ve been caused by the unnecessary adjustment due to the gap I discussed with the salesperson.

[trover]

Yes it seems that way. The salesman knew what he was doing when he didn't answer your question about accident damage. Had he answered anything but "yes" he may have been guilty of misrepresentation. When he answered your question with "All our cars are HPI checked" (nothing to do with accident damage) he could claim in court that he misheard your question

They’re well trained to do that. I really should’ve read more posts prior purchase and should’ve been more careful. Are we in the dilemma that we need to record everything we spoke with a stranger?

[trover]

Well, you may be able to argue a misleading action (though I couldn't say how successful an argument might be) because:

1. In an earlier post you raised an issue with the bumper/headlights car and the salesperson mentioned that it was simply a misalignment. If the service records show an insurance payout related to material repairs then I think it could be argued that the statement from the salesperson amounted to a misleading action in that it was a false if not deceiving statement.

2. Even though the salesperson dodged your direct question about whether the car has been in a collision before, he nevertheless responded by saying that a HPI check has been carried out and it had passed all checks. The ordinary consumer might think take the assumption that the HPI check covered accidents and write-offs and therefore may rely on that statement as the car not previously having been in a collision. Again, possibly a false or deceiving statement amounting to a misleading action. Unless you already knew at the time what a HPI check covers, then you wouldn't be able to argue that you were misled, and you should have pressed the question.

It’s great to hear that. Unfortunately, I don’t have evidence of what had been said between us, so it’ll be my word against his I’m afraid.

At the time I’d have assumed the car wasn’t involved in major accidents, especially those insurance was involved. However, how could someone know how much I knew?

[trover]

I have some good news! Unexpectedly, the dealership has diagnosed that the repair requires a ‘radiator panel assembly’ (basically the part behind the front grill that holds the front of the bumper up straight). I’ve had it in writing. Does this imply that they have admitted the car is of unsatisfactory quality? If yes, can I claim reasonable expenses regarding the repair (e.g. mileage and fuel costs of driving to and from the dealership) under s.23(2)(b) of CRA2015?

They’re asking for a quote for the cost of the parts and will decide how to proceed base on that. If they agree to repair, can I ask them to collect my car, repair, and deliver it back to me under s.23(2)(b)? My dad has to drive his car as well so I wouldn’t be stranded at the dealership when it gets diagnosed, which isn’t something I want to happen again.

However, they said that they couldn’t replicate the issue with the parking brake, so they wouldn’t fix it. I’m wondering if they insist that the parking brake isn’t faulty, can I reject the car because of the issue with the bumper? I’m aware that s.23(6) specifies that I can no longer reject the car when I require or agree to repair. Is a diagnosis considered part of a repair?

[Pezza54]

The dealer has admitted there was a serious fault with the car they sold. Why not use your short term right to reject ir?

[trover]

The dealer has admitted there was a serious fault with the car they sold. Why not use your short term right to reject ir?

Because I don’t really want the hassle of searching for another car and messing around with insurance quotes. It’s not easy to find one with the options I wanted. The car drives alright apart from the front parking sensors/bumper/headlight alignment and the parking brake, hence my questions.

[Pezza54]

You need to agree with the dealer on the solution
If the dealer agrees to repair the car you should stipulate that the dealer picks up your car and leaves you with a courtesy car. This would prevent the dealer causing you significant inconvenience meaning you wouldn't have to make a court claim. Ask the dealer how long the repair work will take.
You could get a quote/estimate from another garage for the repair work. If you don't want to reject the car because you want to keep it, a price reduction may be an agreeable solution so you can use the partial refund to pay for the work elsewhere.
If you can't reach an amicable agreement, rejection of the car may be the answer

[trover]

You need to agree with the dealer on the solution
If the dealer agrees to repair the car you should stipulate that the dealer picks up your car and leaves you with a courtesy car. This would prevent the dealer causing you significant inconvenience meaning you wouldn't have to make a court claim. Ask the dealer how long the repair work will take.
You could get a quote/estimate from another garage for the repair work. If you don't want to reject the car because you want to keep it, a price reduction may be an agreeable solution so you can use the partial refund to pay for the work elsewhere.
If you can't reach an amicable agreement, rejection of the car may be the answer

Thanks for that, I was weighing the options. However, I believe it may be in my interest to reject it, as I started noticing some weird noises when driving, not to mention the issue with the parking brake. I have a few questions after reading others’ posts:
1 I understand that I’m required to notify the dealership of my rejection, can this be done via email?
2 Should I include the repair invoice from the previous owner to prove that the fault existed at the time of purchase? I don’t want to get into trouble with GDPR.
3 Should I mention the potential breach of CPUTR?
4 Should I claim for costs (insurance, road tax, costs to and from the dealership) at the same time or wait until I received the full refund?
5 How should road tax be calculated (in days of my possession of the car or full amount)?
6 I had a pro rata increase in insurance and paid an admin fee for switching to this car, how should it be calculated?

Much appreciated!

[Pezza54]

My advice is to write a formal letter of rejection which you could attach to a email and also send by 1st class post and obtain a certificate of posting
You should state the rejection is under CRA 2015, provide details of the serious fault(s), say the car is available for collection, and you expect a refund within 14 days of collection
Wait to see what the response is from the dealer before claiming insurance, road tax
You can mention potential breach of CPUTR briefly. No need to go into detail
No need to include a copy of the repair invoice

[trover]

My advice is to write a formal letter of rejection which you could attach to a email and also send by 1st class post and obtain a certificate of posting
You should state the rejection is under CRA 2015, provide details of the serious fault(s), say the car is available for collection, and you expect a refund within 14 days of collection
Wait to see what the response is from the dealer before claiming insurance, road tax
You can mention potential breach of CPUTR briefly. No need to go into detail
No need to include a copy of the repair invoice

Thanks for your advice. I’ve drafted the letter, would you mind giving me some feedback?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Registration number: XX19YYY
Make: Audi
Model: A4

On 29 March, I purchased the above vehicle from you. On 3 April, I discovered that it was not of satisfactory quality; the bonnet and the front grill were misaligned, and the front parking sensors were faulty. On the same day, I made a phone call to 0xxx xxxxxxx and reported the faults. On 5 April, an appointment was made for 8 April to diagnose the vehicle. On 8 April, the vehicle was taken to your Manchester branch for diagnosis. On the same day, you confirmed that in order to repair the vehicle, the ‘front complete radiator panel assembly’ and ‘top cover for bonnet handle assembly’ have to be replaced.

Section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires dealers to supply goods that are of satisfactory quality. However, the vehicle is clearly not of satisfactory quality. You are, therefore, in breach of contract. I am entitled to reject the vehicle and to be reimbursed the original purchase price of £17,000 under section 19(3)(a) and 22(3)(a) of the Act. I look forward to receiving a refund for this sum through my original payment method within 14 days. I have stopped using the vehicle. The vehicle is available for collection at the following address: [address]

Moreover, on 29 March, prior to the purchase of this vehicle, I found that there was a gap between the headlights and the bumper. Your representative claimed that it was due to misaligned headlights and had nothing to do with the bumper. This is simply not true, and I only found out after purchase about a repair invoice involving refitting of the bumper and surrounding components. I asked your representative whether the vehicle was involved in a collision that may have caused the misalignment of the headlights and the bumper. He only responded that all the vehicles were HPI cleared. His actions were misleading as they contained false information, and the way he presented information to me was deceptive, which caused me to take an informed transactional decision I would not have taken otherwise, as set out in Regulation 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and is an offence under Regulation 9.

His failure to disclose the fact that the vehicle was involved in an accident and repaired is an offence under Regulation 10, as he omitted or hid material information and caused me to take an informed transactional decision I would not have taken otherwise, as detailed in Regulation 6(1)(a) and (b).

If you fail to reimburse me, I have no choice but to take legal action against you in the County Court for the recovery of the money, and report you to Trading Standards. Any further correspondence should only be in writing.

Yours sincerely
Trover

[Pezza54]

3rd para 6th line "as they contained false information" not strictly correct, his statement that all vehicles are HPI checked is probably true.
My advice is to condense paras 3 and 4 - see line 6 of my post 28
Use the words "may be" when accusing the dealer of breaching legislation, otherwise you are likely to get his back up ("is an offence" in paras 3 and 4)
Last para "I have no choice" again not strictly correct. Say "I intend"