Tweet
HI Everyone,
I’m looking for some advice on a CRA 2015 issue with a second hand car please.
I purchased a car on 1st August. Paid £4000.00 by bank transfer plus an extra £99.00 for an extended warranty.
I reported the aircon as not working on 5th August by email. In this email I also queried what was done in the last service the car had as the copy invoice showed the only parts as oil and filter change and a vague line saying service. I wanted to know if the filters etc had been done as well.
I emailed again on the 10th in the evening to report that as well as the aircon the brakes were grinding. I received an email the following morning to say to take the car to their repair garage.
I booked the car in for the following Wednesday the 13th. While on the phone I asked about the service they had done previously and was advised that “we don’t do a full service for them, its just a oil and filer change and a quick check over”. They advised they don’t do aircon but they could “pop it round the corner to get it done”. I emailed the dealer to ask if they would have the service completed. The car had been advertised as having “a fantastic FSH” and the ad also said that all vehicles supplied by them will be serviced if due. The car was well over due a service at the time the service was carried out, 3 months before I bought it. They called me back and refused that request, saying we don’t do that you’ll have to pay for that yourself.
The brakes were inspected and I was advised they had just been dirty and the grinding would stop after a short while. They are still doing it. They then advised to get the aircon sopped up it would need to be left for the rest of the day which wasn’t possible.
I contacted the dealer by email to say I can get it done locally to me for £60.00+vat (subject to it not having a leak when they test it) can they agree to pay. They called me and claimed they could get it done for £30.00. Whilst I must admit I doubted that given the cost of the materials I agreed that I would pay half, in order to avoid the significant inconvenience of having to arrange a day care for my child, take the car to a place that would need me to take a 2 hour bus home and 2 hour bus back to them to collect the car.
The ac regas was carried out and I submitted the invoice and bank details for payment on the 22nd of August via email. This email has never been responded to, nor has the invoice been paid.
I emailed your client again on the 27th if August to say the aircon wasn’t working at all, it must have a slow leak. They replied “We dont cover Air Conditioning. However, your extended warranty with Handler protect that we paid for does cover AC. Take the vehicle to a garage of your choice after the 01/09/2025 and get a quote for repair compiled, send it in to the warranty company and they will cover the repair bill. You can only use the warranty after day 30.”
My response was to say that I wasn’t prepared to that, and if they wouldn’t repair it then I would rather return the car. In this particular email I also mentioned other issues I’ve had with the car which I will go on to detail.
The email I sent was ignored, and I subsequently sent a further email on 30th August to request the car be rejected. This email was ignored and a follow up was sent on the 3rd September to which I received a response to say the matter was with the legal department, which Ive since found out is Legal Solutions 4U, who have a terrible rep.
LS4U said:
“Our Client is fully aware of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “CRA”). The Vehicle must be of satisfactory quality s9 CRA, fit for purpose s10 CRA and as described at point of sale – s11 CRA 2015. It is accepted that if a fault occurs within the first 6 months of purchase, then that fault is deemed to have been present at point of sale. The burden is upon our Client to show that the fault was not present at the point of sale. Our Client believes that the predelivery inspection document and the MOT may go towards discharging this burden – s19(14) CRA 2015.”
I responded with “While I can’t comment on your clients predelivery inspection document, as I wasn’t provided a copy, I can say that it can’t be entirely comprehensive giving the aircon wasn’t working when it was delivered, nor did it pick up on other issues. Unless it did and your client ignored the issues.”
They also said:
“We respectfully refer you to s22 CRA which deals with a consumer’s short-term right to reject. In order for a consumer to seek to enforce their short-term right to reject, the Vehicle must have a fault that renders the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality at point of sale. Please
note that it is not any fault that then allows the right to reject. We would respectfully refer you to the provisions of s19(14) CRA 2015 and can advise that they do not apply to the short-term right to reject and the burden is upon you as the consumer to show nonconformity with the CRA 2015. As such please provide us a copy of your evidence in support of your allegations.”
“We further respectfully point out that you have purchased a Vehicle that is some 15 years old and driven more than 100,000 miles. As such it is reasonable to expect that the Vehicle will have items of minor imperfection, and we suggest the air conditioning not blowing sufficient cold air would not render your Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality.”
“In any event our Client is a professional car dealership and takes customer satisfaction very seriously. We are instructed that in order to reach a resolution our Client will arrange to have your Vehicle inspected and repaired Please could you provide a convenient date as to when the Vehicle can be dropped off.”
I stood by my rejection of the car and Ive not had a reply since, I emailed them two weeks ago.
Other issues which I also advise LS4U on are:
The car was advertised on Car Gurus and I based my buying decision on the advert and subsequent emails with your client. I didn’t inspect the car myself before I paid for it and had it delivered.
The car was advertised as having a full 12 months MOT, this was reiterated in the first email communications with the dealer. It was 9 months and 6 days, not 12 months. The car hadn’t done many miles since. I have subsequently had my own MOT carried out, which advised of a leak of the differential.
The car was advertised as having “a fantastic FSH”. It just didn’t have that, an oil change and check over does not constitute a service, in my opinion, please feel free to tell me I’m wrong. The advert also stated that all vehicles supplied by them will be serviced if due, as detailed above it was well overdue a full service and didn’t get one. I’ve since had the work carried out at my expense to avoid issues with the car. Additionally, for the warranty to be valid the car has to have been regularly serviced properly.
The car was advertised as being “a stunning example in excellent condition throughout”. That is just not true. The car is 15 years old and some marks on the body work and wearing on the internal materials is to be expected. However, when a car is described as stunning and excellent that’s about all one might expect. In fact there are several rust spots, including one on the door that has been attempted to cover over, three of the alloy wheels need to be refurbed they are in such bad condition, one of which is so bad the tyre fitted to it had a slow puncture (I cant prove it but suspect that it had that from delivery) and had to be replaced and the rear bumper isn’t sitting properly.
The car had a manfacturer safety recall on it, that your client should have had carried out or advised of in the advert and emails, this was not the case and I only found this out once I had bought the car. This is bad practice by anyone’s standards.
The glove box is broken and needs to be replaced, it just drops to the floor when you open it rather than being caught and held in position. The rear window screen washer spurts water into the boot, not outside. These are two minor issues that could be fixed for not a lot of money, but have been left undone, and certainly missed off any predelivery inspection.
Im sorry this has been really long but wanted to give full details.
My questions are
Do I have a case for court action under the CRA?
Am I correct in my stance that the car isn’t as described given the shorter MOT and lack of full service history in particular.
Did the dealer break the law in telling me to make a false claim on the warranty?
Thanks for reading :-)
I’m looking for some advice on a CRA 2015 issue with a second hand car please.
I purchased a car on 1st August. Paid £4000.00 by bank transfer plus an extra £99.00 for an extended warranty.
I reported the aircon as not working on 5th August by email. In this email I also queried what was done in the last service the car had as the copy invoice showed the only parts as oil and filter change and a vague line saying service. I wanted to know if the filters etc had been done as well.
I emailed again on the 10th in the evening to report that as well as the aircon the brakes were grinding. I received an email the following morning to say to take the car to their repair garage.
I booked the car in for the following Wednesday the 13th. While on the phone I asked about the service they had done previously and was advised that “we don’t do a full service for them, its just a oil and filer change and a quick check over”. They advised they don’t do aircon but they could “pop it round the corner to get it done”. I emailed the dealer to ask if they would have the service completed. The car had been advertised as having “a fantastic FSH” and the ad also said that all vehicles supplied by them will be serviced if due. The car was well over due a service at the time the service was carried out, 3 months before I bought it. They called me back and refused that request, saying we don’t do that you’ll have to pay for that yourself.
The brakes were inspected and I was advised they had just been dirty and the grinding would stop after a short while. They are still doing it. They then advised to get the aircon sopped up it would need to be left for the rest of the day which wasn’t possible.
I contacted the dealer by email to say I can get it done locally to me for £60.00+vat (subject to it not having a leak when they test it) can they agree to pay. They called me and claimed they could get it done for £30.00. Whilst I must admit I doubted that given the cost of the materials I agreed that I would pay half, in order to avoid the significant inconvenience of having to arrange a day care for my child, take the car to a place that would need me to take a 2 hour bus home and 2 hour bus back to them to collect the car.
The ac regas was carried out and I submitted the invoice and bank details for payment on the 22nd of August via email. This email has never been responded to, nor has the invoice been paid.
I emailed your client again on the 27th if August to say the aircon wasn’t working at all, it must have a slow leak. They replied “We dont cover Air Conditioning. However, your extended warranty with Handler protect that we paid for does cover AC. Take the vehicle to a garage of your choice after the 01/09/2025 and get a quote for repair compiled, send it in to the warranty company and they will cover the repair bill. You can only use the warranty after day 30.”
My response was to say that I wasn’t prepared to that, and if they wouldn’t repair it then I would rather return the car. In this particular email I also mentioned other issues I’ve had with the car which I will go on to detail.
The email I sent was ignored, and I subsequently sent a further email on 30th August to request the car be rejected. This email was ignored and a follow up was sent on the 3rd September to which I received a response to say the matter was with the legal department, which Ive since found out is Legal Solutions 4U, who have a terrible rep.
LS4U said:
“Our Client is fully aware of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “CRA”). The Vehicle must be of satisfactory quality s9 CRA, fit for purpose s10 CRA and as described at point of sale – s11 CRA 2015. It is accepted that if a fault occurs within the first 6 months of purchase, then that fault is deemed to have been present at point of sale. The burden is upon our Client to show that the fault was not present at the point of sale. Our Client believes that the predelivery inspection document and the MOT may go towards discharging this burden – s19(14) CRA 2015.”
I responded with “While I can’t comment on your clients predelivery inspection document, as I wasn’t provided a copy, I can say that it can’t be entirely comprehensive giving the aircon wasn’t working when it was delivered, nor did it pick up on other issues. Unless it did and your client ignored the issues.”
They also said:
“We respectfully refer you to s22 CRA which deals with a consumer’s short-term right to reject. In order for a consumer to seek to enforce their short-term right to reject, the Vehicle must have a fault that renders the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality at point of sale. Please
note that it is not any fault that then allows the right to reject. We would respectfully refer you to the provisions of s19(14) CRA 2015 and can advise that they do not apply to the short-term right to reject and the burden is upon you as the consumer to show nonconformity with the CRA 2015. As such please provide us a copy of your evidence in support of your allegations.”
“We further respectfully point out that you have purchased a Vehicle that is some 15 years old and driven more than 100,000 miles. As such it is reasonable to expect that the Vehicle will have items of minor imperfection, and we suggest the air conditioning not blowing sufficient cold air would not render your Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality.”
“In any event our Client is a professional car dealership and takes customer satisfaction very seriously. We are instructed that in order to reach a resolution our Client will arrange to have your Vehicle inspected and repaired Please could you provide a convenient date as to when the Vehicle can be dropped off.”
I stood by my rejection of the car and Ive not had a reply since, I emailed them two weeks ago.
Other issues which I also advise LS4U on are:
The car was advertised on Car Gurus and I based my buying decision on the advert and subsequent emails with your client. I didn’t inspect the car myself before I paid for it and had it delivered.
The car was advertised as having a full 12 months MOT, this was reiterated in the first email communications with the dealer. It was 9 months and 6 days, not 12 months. The car hadn’t done many miles since. I have subsequently had my own MOT carried out, which advised of a leak of the differential.
The car was advertised as having “a fantastic FSH”. It just didn’t have that, an oil change and check over does not constitute a service, in my opinion, please feel free to tell me I’m wrong. The advert also stated that all vehicles supplied by them will be serviced if due, as detailed above it was well overdue a full service and didn’t get one. I’ve since had the work carried out at my expense to avoid issues with the car. Additionally, for the warranty to be valid the car has to have been regularly serviced properly.
The car was advertised as being “a stunning example in excellent condition throughout”. That is just not true. The car is 15 years old and some marks on the body work and wearing on the internal materials is to be expected. However, when a car is described as stunning and excellent that’s about all one might expect. In fact there are several rust spots, including one on the door that has been attempted to cover over, three of the alloy wheels need to be refurbed they are in such bad condition, one of which is so bad the tyre fitted to it had a slow puncture (I cant prove it but suspect that it had that from delivery) and had to be replaced and the rear bumper isn’t sitting properly.
The car had a manfacturer safety recall on it, that your client should have had carried out or advised of in the advert and emails, this was not the case and I only found this out once I had bought the car. This is bad practice by anyone’s standards.
The glove box is broken and needs to be replaced, it just drops to the floor when you open it rather than being caught and held in position. The rear window screen washer spurts water into the boot, not outside. These are two minor issues that could be fixed for not a lot of money, but have been left undone, and certainly missed off any predelivery inspection.
Im sorry this has been really long but wanted to give full details.
My questions are
Do I have a case for court action under the CRA?
Am I correct in my stance that the car isn’t as described given the shorter MOT and lack of full service history in particular.
Did the dealer break the law in telling me to make a false claim on the warranty?
Thanks for reading :-)
Comment