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

[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]

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]

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?

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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?

[R0b]

Sorry I thought I already replied earlier but looks like I haven't.

I don't have much more to add to what has already been said, but with regards to CPUTR, rather me trying to explain it and potentially miss something out, the government has provided guidance on how it applies - see this link. 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.

To unwind a contract, you have to exercise that right within 90 days of taking possession of the vehicle and there is no formal requirement to exercise that right but for obvious reasons, putting it in writing is best and I would use email as the primary method of notification because it is easy to evidence whereas a letter may be more difficult if they say it was not received or some other reason.

Other useful published guidance that might help you:

BEIS Guidance for Car Traders: This guidance provides assistance to car traders on consumer rights, but is useful for consumers to read also. It covers CPUTR and CRA.

.Gov Goods Guidance for Businesses: This was the official guidance form the government on goods under the CRA. Don't think they have this listed on the .gov website but found it somewhere else.

[trover]

We often read from posters that they wish to reject a vehicle because of some fault or other
I was just pointing out it is not that straightforward.

If you look at the Act on line you might note a link to "Explanatory Notes" which makes interesting reading .and might answer your questions

As in post 9 by Pezza54 I think you should consider backing any claim you make with a reference to sec6 of CPUTR 2008
The vehicle might be deemed unsatisfactory as per CRA 2015, but also the dealer could be guilty of unfair trading practice

Thanks! I wasn’t aware of the existence of the explanatory notes, will read it thoroughly.

[des8]

We often read from posters that they wish to reject a vehicle because of some fault or other
I was just pointing out it is not that straightforward.

If you look at the Act on line you might note a link to "Explanatory Notes" which makes interesting reading .and might answer your questions

As in post 9 by Pezza54 I think you should consider backing any claim you make with a reference to sec6 of CPUTR 2008
The vehicle might be deemed unsatisfactory as per CRA 2015, but also the dealer could be guilty of unfair trading practice

[trover]

That is not quite accurate.
You have the right to reject the vehicle if it is not "of satisfactory quality"
In the words of the Act:
"The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—
(a)any description of the goods,
(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and
(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5))."

Also note:
The term mentioned in subsection (1)[satisfactory] does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—
(a)..........
(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal,


The fact there is a fault does not automatically mean the vehicle is of unsatisfactory quality.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I see that s.9(5) requires that relevant circumstances has to be statement made by the dealer. Therefore, the failure to disclose past accidents isn’t covered, as the dealer didn’t explicitly state that the car was free from collision and repair, am I understanding it correctly?

For s.9(4)(b), although a visual examination would reveal the misalignment, the fact that it might have resulted from a substandard repair following a collision wasn’t presented to me. Does it make any difference? Cheers.

[des8]

I’ve read somewhere stating that the right to reject is valid as long as I can prove the fault existed at the time of purchase,

That is not quite accurate.
You have the right to reject the vehicle if it is not "of satisfactory quality"
In the words of the Act:
"The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—
(a)any description of the goods,
(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and
(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5))."

Also note:
The term mentioned in subsection (1)[satisfactory] does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory—
(a)..........
(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal,


The fact there is a fault does not automatically mean the vehicle is of unsatisfactory quality.