Tweet
Rejecting user car bought from delearship - woes and advice on settlement offered
Hi all, I'm new here - and I'll be as brief as I can
I'm looking for advice (or rather confirmation) that I'm taking the correct/sensible course of action
Back in October, my partner bought a used Astra from a dealer. During the test drive we asked if the car had previously been accident damaged, and were told that it had not.
In December, whilst driving on the motorway, the entire rear bumper fell off of the car and into the outside lane. Luckily, nobody was hurt.
When we retrieved the bumper, we could see the registration of the vehicle marked on the inside of the part - clearly indicating that it had previously been removed from the vehicle (likely due to repair).
We reported the issue to the dealer the following day - it was 2 months to the day since the car had been bought. The dealer refused to acknowledge their responsibility to repair, and was actually very hostile when I pointed out that the vehicle was certainly not "of satisfactory quality" or "fit for purpose" as per CRA (and likely not "as described" either)
By this time we'd only driven 1,300 miles in the car and due to it's damage was no longer usable or roadworthy
I consulted with legal service from RAC that's provided through my membership, and the solicitor I spoke to confirmed that there could be little doubt that the vehicle was neither of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose if it's bumper had fallen off less than 3 months after purchasing, and in normal usage
Getting nowhere on the phone, I sent the dealership a letter before action stating that we were rejecting the vehicle for the above reasons and wanted a full refund. I also mentioned some other issues that we'd noticed (a noise coming from the gearbox, which would be covered under the warranty)
This letter was delivered mid-December, so within the 3 months allowable for rejection of the vehicle.
The dealer did not respond to the letter before action, so I sent an email (attaching the letter before action) to remind them - but again, no response to this
In January we really needed to have use of the car, so decided that as the dealership had decided to ignore our offer of rejection and also to ignore our reports of issues that clearly fell under their warranty, the best (and cheapest) course of action for all involved would be if we were to get the repairs done ourselves, and then claim costs via Small Claims.
We therefore had the rear bumper replaced and sprayed by a local garage at a cost of £510. We chose to use pattern parts rather than genuine Vauxhall parts, to keep the costs as low as possible.
When collecting the car from the body shop, they told us that they'd noticed that there were various fixings and fasteners missing from the rear of the car, which had likely caused the bumper to fall off in the first place. They had replaced these, but also noticed other issues with the car - orange peeling due to poor accident repair work (at both front and rear of the car), misaligned panels etc - they recommended that we get the car inspected to determine the full extent of the issues
We therefore booked an AA Inspection (at £202). The AA inspector discovered that the car had suffered significant impact in the past to both the front and rear of the car (so much so that the air conditioning radiator had been punctured by the impact at the front, and most of the rear drivers side quarter replaced). Panel gaps at front and rear were not consistent, and it was also evident that the car had several other poorly performed repairs
We received the AA Inspection report via email which concluded "vehicle not suitable for purchase". That was the final straw - the car most certainly wasn't as described
Armed with this information, we then contacted the AA Cars Alternative Dispute Resolution service (the dealership we bought from is an AA Cars Dealership). They have liaised with the dealership and have offered us a full refund (£5600) - this is the same offer I made to the dealership in my letter before action back in December, which they chose to ignore
Since then, an additional £770 has ben spent of the vehicle - only because the dealership did not engage with us. I see this as wasted costs, to which the dealership is fully responsible for.
The ADR has told us that the dealership is unwilling to compensate for these costs
ADR told us that dealership has the right to deduct a "reasonable" fee for mileage and usage, so we're waiting to see what that may be.
ADR has also advised that if we accept this offer that we'd be able to pursue claim of our other costs via Small Claims - is this correct?
So having waffled on for a long while, should I accept the refund being offered, and pursue other costs separately? or is that not possible if I've already accepted the refund?
Is there a better way to proceed?
I'm comfortable arguing my case in Small Claims - I can demonstrate where dealership has broken CRA, where I've attempted to get them to comply with CRA (and they have refused), where they have broken their contract by refusing to even acknowledge warranty issues, and where we have sought to minimise costs to all parties by taking the least cost option as all points that have led to this conclusion
Thanks in advance for any help
I'm looking for advice (or rather confirmation) that I'm taking the correct/sensible course of action
Back in October, my partner bought a used Astra from a dealer. During the test drive we asked if the car had previously been accident damaged, and were told that it had not.
In December, whilst driving on the motorway, the entire rear bumper fell off of the car and into the outside lane. Luckily, nobody was hurt.
When we retrieved the bumper, we could see the registration of the vehicle marked on the inside of the part - clearly indicating that it had previously been removed from the vehicle (likely due to repair).
We reported the issue to the dealer the following day - it was 2 months to the day since the car had been bought. The dealer refused to acknowledge their responsibility to repair, and was actually very hostile when I pointed out that the vehicle was certainly not "of satisfactory quality" or "fit for purpose" as per CRA (and likely not "as described" either)
By this time we'd only driven 1,300 miles in the car and due to it's damage was no longer usable or roadworthy
I consulted with legal service from RAC that's provided through my membership, and the solicitor I spoke to confirmed that there could be little doubt that the vehicle was neither of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose if it's bumper had fallen off less than 3 months after purchasing, and in normal usage
Getting nowhere on the phone, I sent the dealership a letter before action stating that we were rejecting the vehicle for the above reasons and wanted a full refund. I also mentioned some other issues that we'd noticed (a noise coming from the gearbox, which would be covered under the warranty)
This letter was delivered mid-December, so within the 3 months allowable for rejection of the vehicle.
The dealer did not respond to the letter before action, so I sent an email (attaching the letter before action) to remind them - but again, no response to this
In January we really needed to have use of the car, so decided that as the dealership had decided to ignore our offer of rejection and also to ignore our reports of issues that clearly fell under their warranty, the best (and cheapest) course of action for all involved would be if we were to get the repairs done ourselves, and then claim costs via Small Claims.
We therefore had the rear bumper replaced and sprayed by a local garage at a cost of £510. We chose to use pattern parts rather than genuine Vauxhall parts, to keep the costs as low as possible.
When collecting the car from the body shop, they told us that they'd noticed that there were various fixings and fasteners missing from the rear of the car, which had likely caused the bumper to fall off in the first place. They had replaced these, but also noticed other issues with the car - orange peeling due to poor accident repair work (at both front and rear of the car), misaligned panels etc - they recommended that we get the car inspected to determine the full extent of the issues
We therefore booked an AA Inspection (at £202). The AA inspector discovered that the car had suffered significant impact in the past to both the front and rear of the car (so much so that the air conditioning radiator had been punctured by the impact at the front, and most of the rear drivers side quarter replaced). Panel gaps at front and rear were not consistent, and it was also evident that the car had several other poorly performed repairs
We received the AA Inspection report via email which concluded "vehicle not suitable for purchase". That was the final straw - the car most certainly wasn't as described
Armed with this information, we then contacted the AA Cars Alternative Dispute Resolution service (the dealership we bought from is an AA Cars Dealership). They have liaised with the dealership and have offered us a full refund (£5600) - this is the same offer I made to the dealership in my letter before action back in December, which they chose to ignore
Since then, an additional £770 has ben spent of the vehicle - only because the dealership did not engage with us. I see this as wasted costs, to which the dealership is fully responsible for.
The ADR has told us that the dealership is unwilling to compensate for these costs
ADR told us that dealership has the right to deduct a "reasonable" fee for mileage and usage, so we're waiting to see what that may be.
ADR has also advised that if we accept this offer that we'd be able to pursue claim of our other costs via Small Claims - is this correct?
So having waffled on for a long while, should I accept the refund being offered, and pursue other costs separately? or is that not possible if I've already accepted the refund?
Is there a better way to proceed?
I'm comfortable arguing my case in Small Claims - I can demonstrate where dealership has broken CRA, where I've attempted to get them to comply with CRA (and they have refused), where they have broken their contract by refusing to even acknowledge warranty issues, and where we have sought to minimise costs to all parties by taking the least cost option as all points that have led to this conclusion
Thanks in advance for any help
Comment