Tweet
Good morning
I'd really appreciate some advice/help and I apologise for the long post.
On the 25th October I purchased a 2005 Campervan from a reputable dealership. Before I took delivery of the vehicle the dealership agreed to make right the advisories on the MOT and confirmed that everything would be corrected and I would have "nothing" to worry about.
The van underwent some work and a fresh MOT was produced.
I took delivery and everything seemed in order. Apart from a few cosmetic issues but that wasn't a big deal for me. Anyway, a couple of weeks later I had a rear camera installed by a professional company. Whilst the technician was completing his work he made me aware of a fluid leak coming from the engine.
I immediately messaged the dealer and asked for their advice on what to do. I didn't get a reply, although later on they said they did reply (I will give them the benefit of the doubt). A few days later I called the dealer and they suggested I take it to an RAC approved dealer. As it's a large vehicle I was struggling to find a garage that would take the van. Eventually I did find one and asked the Dealer if they were happy for me to use them. I didn't receive a reply and at this point I was beginning to be concerned as my 30 day short term right to reject the vehicle was nearly up. So, on the 27th day I formally rejected the vehicle. At which point the dealership agreed to get the van inspected at the RAC Garage.
The garage found the below faults with the van:
I immediately followed up with an email to the dealership confirming that I wanted a refund as per my rejection letter.
They have now got their legal team involved and have stated that:
From my understanding the short term right to reject is active at the point the consumer makes the company aware of their intention to reject the goods and the 30 days is paused while a fault is investigated and repaired. This is to stop a dealer taking 31 days to investigate a fault and then decline to refund or repair because it’s outside the legal window. I submitted the rejection letter well within the 30 day period and I am within my rights to reject the vehicle based on the independent assessment from the RAC approved garage and the garage that the dealer instructed.
The dealer took back the van and had their own inspection on the van, although not using an RAC approved garage. It was the same garage that put the MOT on the van just before I purchased it.
The dealers assessment confirmed that there were three faults at point of inspection. This is in line with some of the faults found by the garage I used.
They claim that the above corrosion was not present at the time of sale and in fact the corrosion was caused by a hammer. They are also saying that the MOT is proof that the above issues were not present at the point of sale.
I know this is a long post and I do apologise but I am totally lost at what to do next. I'm guessing I will have to use the money claim online service but at £410 this is very expensive.
Any advice or guidance would be great appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
Regards
Iain
I'd really appreciate some advice/help and I apologise for the long post.
On the 25th October I purchased a 2005 Campervan from a reputable dealership. Before I took delivery of the vehicle the dealership agreed to make right the advisories on the MOT and confirmed that everything would be corrected and I would have "nothing" to worry about.
The van underwent some work and a fresh MOT was produced.
I took delivery and everything seemed in order. Apart from a few cosmetic issues but that wasn't a big deal for me. Anyway, a couple of weeks later I had a rear camera installed by a professional company. Whilst the technician was completing his work he made me aware of a fluid leak coming from the engine.
I immediately messaged the dealer and asked for their advice on what to do. I didn't get a reply, although later on they said they did reply (I will give them the benefit of the doubt). A few days later I called the dealer and they suggested I take it to an RAC approved dealer. As it's a large vehicle I was struggling to find a garage that would take the van. Eventually I did find one and asked the Dealer if they were happy for me to use them. I didn't receive a reply and at this point I was beginning to be concerned as my 30 day short term right to reject the vehicle was nearly up. So, on the 27th day I formally rejected the vehicle. At which point the dealership agreed to get the van inspected at the RAC Garage.
The garage found the below faults with the van:
Please see below a list of faults or possible faults with the vehicle that will need attention or further investigation.
Obviously some of these faults are more important than others, some of the faults would be deemed as an MOT failure.
- Ashtray broken.
- N/S/F arm rest missing.
- N/S/F door check strap split on A-post.
- Top induction boost pipe damaged, (rubbing on rad panel).
- PAS fluid dirty.
- Gearbox oil leak (diff seals and sump plug).
- N/S CV gaiter has hole.
- N/S/F tyre tread perished.
- O/S/F strut leaking.
- O/S/F chassis, subframe and wing area heavily corroded.
- Spare tyre worn low.
- Brake compensator valve lever seized.
- O/S/R spring mount/chassis corroded through.
- Spare wheel carrier rusted through cross member.
- O/S/R outrigger/inner sill rusted through.
- O/S/F inner wing /brake pipe mount insecure and corroded.
- Engine oil leak from front crank area.
- Possible fuel pump leak (wet).
- Fuel tank seams corroded (wet), but could be the gear oil blowing down the vehicle.
- Wiring loose and insecure rad fan area.
- Wiring running through the chassis and cross member through bare holes.
- Wiper arms worn.
- Heavy fumes from the exhaust.
- Rear brake pads shims corroded away.
Obviously some of these faults are more important than others, some of the faults would be deemed as an MOT failure.
They have now got their legal team involved and have stated that:
We understand that you allege there are a number of faults with the Vehicle. You believe that you are entitled to reject the Vehicle under the CRA. We can advise that you have no grounds upon which to reject the Vehicle at this stage. We note that you did not comply with the short term right to reject in that you failed to provide any evidence to our Client as per s19(14) CRA 2015. The short term right to reject ceases at the end of 30 days.
The dealer took back the van and had their own inspection on the van, although not using an RAC approved garage. It was the same garage that put the MOT on the van just before I purchased it.
The dealers assessment confirmed that there were three faults at point of inspection. This is in line with some of the faults found by the garage I used.
- Corrosion of the O/S/R spring mount/chassis
- Spare Wheel Carrier rusted
- O/S/R outrigger/inner sill rusted.
They claim that the above corrosion was not present at the time of sale and in fact the corrosion was caused by a hammer. They are also saying that the MOT is proof that the above issues were not present at the point of sale.
I know this is a long post and I do apologise but I am totally lost at what to do next. I'm guessing I will have to use the money claim online service but at £410 this is very expensive.
Any advice or guidance would be great appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
Regards
Iain
to LB [MENTION=110620]IainJames[/MENTION] :wave
Comment