We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

[juju020]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Time for a letter before action to this solicitor a copy to dealer as he is using his solicitor email and hard copy recorded delivery interesting to read the reply from them.

Hi Wales01man..trouble is I've never had a letter from his solicitor, only an email so I don't even know who it is, or even if he even really has one.

[R0b]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

The letter before action goes to the garage not their solicitor, the garage's solicitor will be in touch no doubt if they have been instructed to act.

To write a letter before action you will need to set out clearly your reasons. You should look to include the following:

1. Bold heading saying "Letter Before Action"
2. Introduction along lines of "Further to my previous correspondence, the purpose of this letter concerns a vehicle bought from you on XX XX XX, which turned out to be not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose as well as misleading."
3. Brief summary of facts
4. Breaches of the CRA and also CPUT 2008 in relation to misleading omission about the status of the car
5. Actions required e.g. you have written to reject the car exercising your rights under the CRA and would like a refund in the next 14 days, otherwise you will commence proceedings without further notice.

If you want to have a go at that and post up a draft we can take a look at it for you.

[juju020]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

The letter before action goes to the garage not their solicitor, the garage's solicitor will be in touch no doubt if they have been instructed to act.

To write a letter before action you will need to set out clearly your reasons. You should look to include the following:

1. Bold heading saying "Letter Before Action"
2. Introduction along lines of "Further to my previous correspondence, the purpose of this letter concerns a vehicle bought from you on XX XX XX, which turned out to be not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose as well as misleading."
3. Brief summary of facts
4. Breaches of the CRA and also CPUT 2008 in relation to misleading omission about the status of the car
5. Actions required e.g. you have written to reject the car exercising your rights under the CRA and would like a refund in the next 14 days, otherwise you will commence proceedings without further notice.

If you want to have a go at that and post up a draft we can take a look at it for you.

Ah THANK YOU so so much, all of you! I shall do just that. It may take me a while as I'm at work but as soon as it's done I will copy it to you.

X

[des8]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

[MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] just back from son's wedding hence not been on earlier.
Wait to see juju's letter before commenting as can't see that I could add anything meaningful
Des

[juju020]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

21 September 2016

Re: Vauxhall Meriva xxxxx
Purchased: 21 August 2016
Cash Price: £1400.00
Purchaser: xxxxxxx

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Dear xxxxxx

Further to my previous correspondence, the purpose of this letter concerns a vehicle bought from you on 21 August, which turned out to be not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose as well as misleading.
On 5 September 2016 the car caught fire under the bonnet whilst parked in a residential area and unoccupied. The fire was substantial and the police and fire brigade were called for assistance.

The insurance company sent an engineer to inspect the damage on the same day. The engineer has stated that the fire started near the battery.fuse box relay, hence a probable electrical fault. The engineer also pointed out that the car was a previously categorised as a total loss Category C.

This information was not provided when the car was purchased. This is a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

We hereby reject the car exercising our rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and would like a refund within the next 14 days, otherwise we will commence Court proceedings without further notice.

Sincerely

xxxxxxx

[juju020]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

I've added this bit after 3rd paragraph

Misleading omissions

6.—(1) Acommercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, takingaccount of the matters in paragraph (2)— (a)the commercial practiceomits material information,
(3) In paragraph (1) “material information” means— (a)the information which theaverage consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informedtransactional decision;

What do you think? Is it enough information do you think?
Thanks

[R0b]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Hi juju,

It's a good start and perhaps maybe needs some more woridng to be expanded on such as dates of when you purchased the car, took it to the garage, got an engineer report, what they advised etc.

You might want to split up your letter into subsections:

Factual background
On or about XX XX XXXX I attended your garage with my mother and a view to purchasing a car from you ... [On or about XX XX XXXX / after initial discussions] I [decided/returned to your garage and] [to purchase/purchased] a [description of vehicle, colour, model, reg number]. After taking possession of the car, I noticed several problems and decided to take it to a local garage on XX XX XXXX ....

The law
Reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, fitness for purpose, satisfactory quality, not as described.

Basis of the claim
The basis of the claim will be that the garage failed to mention that the car had been in an accident, which gives rise to a misleading action because it is material information that would have altered a consumers decision when deciding whether or not to purchase the car, it could also be argued that it was not as described depending on what was said. The car catching fire means it was not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality.

You could counter some of their initial arugments such as an MOT was passed so the car was roadworthy but you could point to the MOT certificate which says the car passed on the day but does not mean it will be fit for purpose for the whole 12 months. Even still, an MOT does not inspect the whole of the car but only what is required to be expected under the law. Therefore if there is an engine issue they will not be digging around looking at the whole of the engine to see if there is any problems.


Try and use that as a guidance, the bits ni brackets at the top will need to be corrected by you but its a starting point. If you are stuck on the law part you can leave that and I can help fill in the gaps later today when I have some more time.

[juju020]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Thanks alot R0b, that is great guidance. I shall do some tweaking, actually a fair bit of tweaking. I'm in no hurry, I want this to be right so please don't feel rushed by me. I will wait until you are ready, in the meantime I will work on my letter and post it back.

Thank you!

[juju020]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Quick question (sorry), do my previous letters suggest we have rejected the car already as I have to do it within 30 days, that would be today.

Here is my new letter when you have a minute.

21 September 2016

Re: Vauxhall Meriva xxx
Purchased: 21 August 2016
Cash Price: £1400.00
Purchaser: xxxxx

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

Dear xxxxx

Further to my previous correspondence, the purpose of this letter concerns a vehicle recently bought from your premises at xxxxx. On or about 21 August 2016 xxxxxxxxx attended your garage with his mother with a view to purchasing a car from you .On or about 21 August and after initial discussions xxxxxxxx decided to purchase a Blue Vauxhall Meriva, registration xxxxxxx, along with one month’s warranty. After taking possession of the car, he noticed an engine light fault and decided to take it to a local garage on 25 August 2016.The car had two minor faults and it was declared that the faults would not cause any driving restrictions. Upon notifying you and updating you of events you advised him not to have the car fixed by the garage as you could do this cheaper but that you were going abroad. You advised him to return the car in three weeks upon your return and that you would repair the minor faults.

On 5 September 2016 the car caught fire under the bonnet whilst parked in a residential area and unoccupied. The fire was substantial and the police and fire brigade were called for assistance. The car is subsequently a Category B write off.

The insurance company sent an engineer to inspect the damage on the same day. The engineer has stated that the fire started near the battery.fuse box relay, hence a probable electrical fault. The engineer also pointed out that the car was a previously categorised as a total loss Category C.

This information was not provided when the car was purchased. You failed to mention that the car had been in an accident, which gives rise to a misleading action because it is material information that would have altered a consumers (xxxxxxxxxxx) decision when deciding whether or not to purchase the car, it could also be argued that it was not as described
This is a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Misleading omissions

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(3) In paragraph (1) “material information” means—
(a)the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision;

It is also a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as the car catching fire means it was not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality. The engine light is of no consequence as it was deemed safe to drive by a professional body and you accepted this information and provided a date to correct the minor issues three weeks hence whilst encouraging xxx xxxxxx to continue using the car.

Goods to be of satisfactory quality
(1) Every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.
(2) 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)).

(3) The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods— (a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied; (c) freedom from minor defects; (d) safety; (e) durability

11 Goods to be as described
(1) Every contract to supply goods by description is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the description

In a previous statement you claim the MOT was passed so the car was roadworthy but an MOT certificate which says the car passed on the day does not mean it will be fit for purpose for the whole 12 months. Even still, an MOT does not inspect the whole of the car but only what is required to be expected under the law.

We hereby reject the car exercising our rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and would like a refund within the next 14 days, otherwise we will commence Court proceedings without further notice.

Sincerely

xxxx

[Kati]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

[MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] xx

[R0b]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Hello,

Suggested revisions below, worthwhile keeping the subheadings in place for ease. @des8, any comments?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Further to my previous correspondence, the purpose of this letter concerns a vehicle recently bought from your premises at xxxxx. On or about 21 August 2016 xxxxxxxxx attended your garage with his mother with a view to purchasing a car from you .On or about 21 August and after initial discussions xxxxxxxx decided to purchase a Blue Vauxhall Meriva, registration xxxxxxx, along with one month’s warranty. After taking possession of the car, he noticed an engine light fault and decided to take it to a local garage, [NAME OF GARAGE] on 25 August 2016. The Garage confirmed that the car had two minor faults and it was declared that the faults would not cause any hazardous driving restrictions. Following this, I contacted [NAME OF GARAGE] and spoke to [NAME] advising of the events that occured. I was explicitly advised not to have the car repaired by [NAME OF GARAGE], because the car would be repaired by yourselves upon [NAME'S] return from holiday in three weeks.

I informed my insurance company who in turn arranged an engineer to inspect the damage on the same day. His conclusion was that the cause of the fire started from the battery and/or fusebox relay, resulting in an electrical fault. The engineer also noted that the car had previously been in an accident and was categorised as a category C write off. Subsequently, I gave notice to you on XX XX XXXX to reject the car and obtain a refund.

THE LAW

CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008 (the "CPRs")
Regulation 6 provides that a commercial practice is a misleading omission if, inter alia, the commercial practice omits material information or hides material information. As a result of the omission, it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. For the purposes of Regulation 6, material information means the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision.

CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 (the "CRA")
It is an implied term of the contract that the goods are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. In particular, goods must be fit for the purpose of which the goods of that kind are usually supplied as well as safe and durable. Furthermore, goods ought to be usable but also the for purpose for which the goods are intended to be used. Where a trader is in breach of the implied terms, the consumer has a short term right to reject the goods within 30 days of receipt and obtain a refund.

BASIS OF THE CLAIM
[NAME OF GARAGE] failed to notify me that the car was previously in an accident which sustaining substantial damage. Had I become aware of this information, I would not have agreed to purchase the car. By omitting and/or hiding such material information, you are therefore in breach of Regulation 6 of the CPRs. Further or alternatively, as a result of the car sustaining damage from a prior accident, [NAME OF GARAGE] sold the car which was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose. You have suggested that because the car has passed an MOT it is roadworthy however, the MOT certificate clearly states that it does not confirm the car will be roadworthy for the duration of a valid MOT certificate. In addition, an MOT carries out certain checks but does not undertake a full inspection of the vehicle. In light of the engineer's report, the car was not in a safe condition nor was it of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

ACTION REQUIRED
Payment of the full amount due, namely £XXXX.XX should be paid to the following bank account within the next 14 days:

Account Number:
Sort Code:

In the absence of a full response by XX XX XXXX, I shall commence legal proceedings without further notice. In the event that proceedings are commenced, I shall also seek any costs incidental to the application and interest as determined by the court.

I look forward to receiving the full amount in due course.

[des8]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Only modification I would make is to keep first para in first person thus:
Further to my previous correspondence, the purpose of this letter concerns a vehicle recently bought from your premises at xxxxx. On or about 21 August 2016 I attended your garage with my mother with a view to purchasing a car from you .On or about 21 August and after initial discussions I decided to purchase a Blue Vauxhall Meriva, registration xxxxxxx, along with one month’s warranty. After taking possession of the car, I noticed an engine light fault and decided to take it to a local garage, [NAME OF GARAGE] on 25 August 2016. The Garage confirmed that the car had two minor faults and it was declared that the faults would not cause any hazardous driving restrictions. Following this, I contacted [NAME OF GARAGE] and spoke to [NAME] advising of the events that occured. I was explicitly advised not to have the car repaired by [NAME OF GARAGE], because the car would be repaired by yourselves upon [NAME'S] return from holiday in three weeks.


I also think you are right in concentrating on the Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.
From previous discussions elsewhere we know that if you exercise your short term right to reject you might have to show the fault was present when you purchased the car.
It could prove difficult to prove an electrical fault that caused a fire was present when you purchased the car. The obvious query being, why didn't it cause a fire earlier?

[R0b]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Thanks, must have missed those parts, was interchanging when writing!

Yes the CPRs will be the first argument however, given the engineer's report and the fact that it has been in an accident, I think there is still a decent backup argument on the car not being satisfactory quality. The trader has carried out a number of repairs so it sounds like he has purchased it then repaired and sold it. So ther ecould be a real possibility that the battery/fusebox issue could have resulted from the accident and/or during the course of the repairs carried out to bring it to a certain standard. I think on balance, that would be sufficient to shift the burden of proof back to the trader to show he carried out the repairs with reasonable skill and care.

[des8]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Only playing devil's advocate, because that is the sort of argument that will be thrown up, even tho' I think like you!

[juju020]

Re: We just bought a car and it blew up within 3 weeks! Won't give me my money back!!

Good morning to you all...thanks for all the wonderful advice. I've read everything, the only thing I'm not sure about is doing it in 'first person' as my son has not written any previous letters, they all came from me I paid for the car and it will be me taking him to court. The letters are sort of written on my son's behalf though he will attend court with me if we have to go. Will that be a problem do you think?