Car return to dealer for refund rta en route

[Twsiv]

Could anybody clarify whether the credit card is allowed to enforce judgement from any future vehicle report to overrule the preexisting agreement to refund from the dealer?
Sure the dealer agreed to refund and that is all that matters?

The damage and personal injury are completely different issue vs the refund?

[des8]

It seems to me that you rejected the vehicle and that rejection was accepted by the dealer.
At his request and acting as his agent you were returning the vehicle when it was damaged in an RTA by a third party.
The dealer is now reneging on his acceptance of the rejection.
To avoid the cost and stress of a court claim to enforce the agreed rejection you made a section 75 claim against the credit card issuer.
Who knows whether or not they will accept your claim? you might need to complain to FOS (and who knows how they will decide!)

One other problem with Sec 75 claims is that there is no time limit on how long the CC take to decide.
If they take too long you can complain to the CC provider, but you then have to wait a further 8 weeks before complaining to FOS (who themselves can take several weeks before making a decision)

You could risk losing your court fees if CC come up with the cash first.

[Twsiv]

It seems to me that you rejected the vehicle and that rejection was accepted by the dealer.
At his request and acting as his agent you were returning the vehicle when it was damaged in an RTA by a third party.
The dealer is now reneging on his acceptance of the rejection.
To avoid the cost and stress of a court claim to enforce the agreed rejection you made a section 75 claim against the credit card issuer.
Who knows whether or not they will accept your claim? you might need to complain to FOS (and who knows how they will decide!)

One other problem with Sec 75 claims is that there is no time limit on how long the CC take to decide.
If they take too long you can complain to the CC provider, but you then have to wait a further 8 weeks before complaining to FOS (who themselves can take several weeks before making a decision)

You could risk losing your court fees if CC come up with the cash first.

I agree.

However, if I start proceedings and name the CC as well as the dealer I can't imagine that having a positive impact on their S75 investigation?

It seems sensible to get the ball rolling asap if the fast track has a year waiting time.

Thanks

[des8]

If you press ahead with court action now, IMO there is no need to name the CC.
If the dealer fails to pay up when he loses and it turns out he has no assets, it is unlikely the CC would refuse your claim as they would not wish to incur the court costs of a virtually unwinnable (for them) court action.

Earlier you mentioned a PI claim.
Was this the result of the RTA? If so that is a separate claim to be made against the driver who caused the incident.

[Twsiv]

If you press ahead with court action now, IMO there is no need to name the CC.
If the dealer fails to pay up when he loses and it turns out he has no assets, it is unlikely the CC would refuse your claim as they would not wish to incur the court costs of a virtually unwinnable (for them) court action.

Earlier you mentioned a PI claim.
Was this the result of the RTA? If so that is a separate claim to be made against the driver who caused the incident.

Yes, PI being sorted separately with a law firm against third party.

So do not name the CC now, however, if I win the court case and the dealer doesn't pay, the CC are liable to pay back the vehicle cost with a winning decision?

The CC currently hold the view that as the goods were returned damaged no refund is due. What's your take on this?
I asked them to quote where this is mentioned in CRA2015, but they dodged that question. Mentioned acting as agent only as dealer didn't collect etc. It smells like they are the merchant bank for the dealer.

I will get the ball rolling now then if CC isn't to be named for court.

[des8]

If you name the CC on the claim form it may complicate matters having two defendants.
If you win against the dealer, but need to recover from the CC, IMO it is most unlikely the CC would dispute the matter.
The court would have ruled in your favour once, so would the CC risk the costs involved in another court case?

I think CC are wrong. They don't want to have to shell out, and then try and recover from dealer.

[Twsiv]

Ok, understood thanks.

So my next question is if my case hinges on a pre-existing agreement to refund with the dealer, is it possible to repair the car, mechanically and accident damage and either:

a. sell on and claim damages, losses and expenses from dealer refusing to refund when required under CRA15
b. use in the interim until court, then return for refund minus use (with proof mechanical defect was present on delivery)
c. Any other permutation that avoids having £24k rust away, unable to use for the next 12 months?

If I were to buy a temporary car my insurance premium would be much hire etc as NCB already in use. I can't continue to rely on others for transport.

The dealer seems to be getting away scott free and I'm left in the highly disadvantage position for which I'll probably never be fully compensated for / have a bad day in court and lose the best part of £10k...

[des8]

You have rejected the car, so it is no longer yours so
a) you cannot sell it
b) you should not use it
C) take it off road and SORN it. Tell insurers you only require laid up insurance
d)buy cheapo car and use that
e)add up all your extra expense and losses caused by this and add to claim as damages as allowed by CRA 2015

[Twsiv]

Hello again

I'm still dealing with the Section 75 claim.

Is there any kind of weighting applied to which laws take precedence?

E.G Consumer Credit Act VS Consumer Rights Act?

The credit card are under the view the goods were not delivered back in the same condition (surely impossible for a car, but the RTA did add damage) VS CRA2015 having no explicit clause regarding condition of items on return?

Credit Act:

(6)If the possessor—

(a)delivers the goods (whether at his own premises or elsewhere) to any person on whom, under section 69, a notice of cancellation could have been served (other than a person referred to in section 69(6)(b)), or

(b)sends the goods at his own expense to such a person,

he shall be discharged from any duty to retain the goods or deliver them to any person.

(7)Where the possessor delivers the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(a), his obligation to take care of the goods shall cease; and if he sends the goods as mentioned in subsection (6)(b), he shall be under a duty to take reasonable care to see that they are received by the other party and not damaged in transit, but in other respects his duty to take care of the goods shall cease.

However, given the garage never fulfilled their requirement of collection does that assist me? I technically didn't send them and there is no negligence on my part.

[des8]

You had rejected the goods and were acting as agent of the dealer when the RTA happened.
The possessor was therefore the dealer as you were only the agent.

Furthermore if you were the possessor the finance house need to show you failed in your duty of taking reasonable care.
As you were not responsible for the RTA that will cause them problems.

Tell them to cough up or court action will be initiated.
This has been going on for nearly three months, stop playing letter tennis with them.

[Twsiv]

You had rejected the goods and were acting as agent of the dealer when the RTA happened.
The possessor was therefore the dealer as you were only the agent.

Furthermore if you were the possessor the finance house need to show you failed in your duty of taking reasonable care.
As you were not responsible for the RTA that will cause them problems.

Tell them to cough up or court action will be initiated.
This has been going on for nearly three months, stop playing letter tennis with them.

That's what my final statement was so thanks for the clarification. Their only argument requires proof of negligence which will not be possible.

I was attempting to attain an "easy win" with S75 rather than the court. Given the lack of progress it's time to bite the bullet as no other method has worked.

Thanks for the help. I'll keep this updated and will probably be back for more advise prior to the court date.

[Twsiv]

Update.

The FOS (case handler) has agreed I am due a refund on the car totaling the purchase price.

However, they do not agree compensation is owed.

Their reasoning is no third party mechanical inspection was carried out during the S.75 dispute with the institution originally. The inspection was cancelled by the bank the day before it was due and they made their decision with no third party evidence going against CRA2015 etc etc.

During my FOS complaint an independent inspection was carried out finding significant issues concluding the vehicle was not FFP/ satisfactory quality.

So am I right in thinking as they cocked up in their original S.75 decision and made a mistake that I should in fact be awarded compensation as this has now dragged on an additional 10 months?

[des8]

FOS work on the basis of what they consider fair, and not necessarily what is possibly due if there was a successful court claim.

You won't get compensation for the delay, although you may be due damages for any extra costs you incurred as a direct result of the unsatisfactory goods.
Generally peeps are just glad to get their purchase price back, and don't want any more hassle!

[Twsiv]

FOS work on the basis of what they consider fair, and not necessarily what is possibly due if there was a successful court claim.

You won't get compensation for the delay, although you may be due damages for any extra costs you incurred as a direct result of the unsatisfactory goods.
Generally peeps are just glad to get their purchase price back, and don't want any more hassle!

Thanks for that.

Reading previous decisions for vehicles that were not FFP/satisfactory most are awarded moderate compensation (£100-250) and simple interest at 8% on amount owed. Given how stressful this has been I think it's fair given the institutions attitude and lack of interest in helping and the blatant disregard for the law until a regulator steps in! I have had to run a second car, maintain the liability despite not driving it etc, which I've mentioned, but the FOS haven't shown any interest.


I chose FOS over court so I knew that may factor in the result. Given the pandemic it was probably the right decision overall.

Do you think escalating to an Ombudsman review will yield any result?

[des8]

my opinion of FOS is poor, but probably not worth the effort