rejecting used car

[des8]

Re: rejecting used car

Forget about the warranty... that doesn't give the dealership any rights. It is supposed to give you rights over and above your statutory rights.
As you paid for it, what you have is a service contract. The finance company are talking b*******t as always!

If the dealership are claiming you agreed to the repair (and if you did) it does not mean you have revoked your right to reject the car.
What you have done is to give them the chance to repair the car.
If they fail to do so, or if the repair fails, or if the car exhibits another fault which demonstrates the car is unsatisfactory, you can then reject the vehicle.

You left the car with the dealers on or about 22 November for repair.
On or about 3 December they 'phoned to say they could not find any fault, (basically saying there was no fault?)
On 5 December you phoned finance company and rejected car as unsatisfactory, as the dealer had not been able to locate and correct the fault.
On 11 December you confirmed your rejection in writing
on 13 December the dealer confirmed they had located the fault and had repaired the car

I feel the acceptance of a courtesy car would be taken as an indication that you had requested or agreed to a repair.
If you had rejected the car, why would the dealers supply a courtesy car?
presumably the courtesy car was returned when you collected on 13 January

IMO the ombudsman service is a waste of time unless you have an unassailable case.

You have the car back.... how is it?
If now functioning properly it might be worth considering keeping the car.

To take this to court would IMO be a bit of a lottery.
The dealer has to repair the car "within a reasonable time" and with minimum inconvenience to yourself.
It will be argued that there was little inconvenience (you had a courtesy car) and there is no definition of what is "reasonable time"
You have already been signed off work due to stress.
Court is stressful, extremely so for most people at their first hearing, to say nothing of the preparation work for the hearing.

[gilbert81]

Re: rejecting used car

The courtesy car was left back on 16th December. They insisted my car was fixed and ready for collection but I refused to accept it back. They insisted I return their car.

The car is driving ok but that has never been the problem, it's not knowing if it's going to start. I have zero faith in it.

[des8]

Re: rejecting used car

Lack of faith is unlikely to win in court.

I suggest you write out all that has happened while it is still fresh in your memory.
Then if the car fails again within the time limits (taking into account the time the vehicle has spent in the dealer's premises, you could possibly consider rejection within the terms of CRA 2016

[gilbert81]

Re: rejecting used car

Would I not be as well going to the ombudsman now? Surely I've nothing to lose?

[des8]

Re: rejecting used car

You are correct, there is nothing to lose, but don't hold your breath expecting them to find in your favour.
My own experience of the service is very poor, but I'm not at all biased lol

[gilbert81]

* UPDATE - 17/04/2018 *

An investigator from the Financial ombudsman office has said we can reject the car - I've included the reply they sent to GMAC today - it's quite a read but it's the first time I feel someone has looked into it properly!

Below was sent to GMAC today from ombudsman:

As I mentioned in my email on 12 April 2018, I wanted to discuss a way forward for Mr G in relation to the car he has on finance with GMAC UK Plc (GMAC).

I’ve looked at the information you’ve sent in, along with that provided by Mr G, and I think he should be allowed to reject the car. I’ll explain why.

what’s happened

Mr G has complained that the car he has on finance with GMAC is not of satisfactory quality. GMAC have had the car back on three occasions to fix the problem. They were only able to repair the problem on the last occasion. Mr G had already asked to reject the car by then, but GMAC have said because he’s accepted the repair, he can’t.

Mr G has also noted a smell of fumes in the cabin.

To put things right, Mr G wants to be allowed to reject the car, to have the agreement cancelled and any repayments made to date refunded. He also wants reimbursing for the new car he’s had to buy to replace this one.

my investigation

A conditional sale agreement was made between Mr G and GMAC on 5 July 2017 for a second hand Citroen C4 Picasso with 17,173 miles recorded.

On 18 October 2017 Mr G had trouble starting the car. The car was recovered and taken for testing, but the fault he’d experienced couldn’t be replicated. There was no repair in relation to this. There’s a note on the job sheet stating “P2291 rail pressure insufficient when starting”.

On 26 October 2017, Mr G had the same problem, and the car was recovered again. The fault couldn’t be replicated, but the battery was replaced as a precaution. The job sheet records “P2291 engine starting rail pressure insufficient when starting”. The car was booked in for inspection on 22 November 2017, as that was the first point a courtesy car would be available for Mr G.

Having had a look at what this means, practically, I’ve found that the common symptoms of a bad or failing fuel rail sensor are problems starting the car and the car not feeling right when it is running. This is what was reported by Mr G. I’ve researched and had a discussion about what’s most likely to cause this kind of fault, and it’s predominantly down to fuel not getting through, for a variety of reasons.

On 21 November 2017, Mr G experienced the same issues and the car wouldn’t start. The AA were called and were able to get the car started around 80 minutes later.

The car was taken to the dealership the next day as agreed. The fault wasn’t replicated until 15 December 2017, when the fuel filter was replaced.

I’ve recorded mileage readings from the time the finance was agreed and the job sheets to get an understanding of the use Mr G has had of the car:

·5 July 2017: 17,173

·18 October 2017: 21,750

·26 October 2017: 22,042

I have asked for a copy of the most recent job sheet showing the repair around 15 December 2017. I wanted this to see what had been looked at and also to get the mileage at that time. I’ve not been sent a copy of the sheet.

GMAC have noted in their final response that where the customer “ chooses the option of repair, the dealership must be provided the opportunity to inspect and rectify any faults”.

Under the Consumer Rights Act, after 30 days from the point of a credit agreement, where there’s a fault with the goods, the consumer has to allow the business one opportunity to repair the fault. If there’s still a problem after that, the customer can reject the goods if there’s still a problem.

my view

The fault code recorded when the car was first inspected indicates a problem with fuel feed. According to the job sheet, there was no inspection around this, and no repair was completed. This happened the second time the same problem occurred, although in this instance, the battery was replaced.

I think the replacement of the battery indicates an awareness that there was a fault, even if it wasn’t established what it was.

I’m aware GMAC have taken the stance that Mr G had agreed to the car going in for a third time, when it was ultimately repaired. However, he’s said that he had asked to reject the car previously, and that he’d done this after there’d already been two attempts to inspect the car and find out what was wrong. And I don’t think it necessarily follows that having agreed for further inspection, a customer has waived their right to request rejection.

Given the clear indication of the fault code, it would have been reasonable for more to have been done at that time to establish what was wrong. I don’t think it’s enough to say that the fault couldn’t be replicated in this situation. So I consider that the car being seen on 18 October 2017 was an opportunity to “inspect and rectify any faults”. And Mr G allowed a second opportunity for the same to happen on 26 October 2017. The fault wasn’t rectified then, either. So Mr G asked to reject the car.

I think GMAC had two opportunities to inspect and fix the car. This wasn’t done. And even though the fault now appears to have been found and repaired, Mr G should be allowed to reject the car.

I’m not going to request Mr G be reimbursed for the purchase of a new car. Although I think he should be allowed to reject the car, any steps taken beyond that in relation to obtaining a new one was his choice to make. And I’m not going to suggest a full refund of all monthly payments made under the agreement, as despite the problems experienced, Mr G has had use of this car, covering 4,869 miles in just over 16 weeks.

So GMAC should allow the following to happen to put things right:

·arrange collection of the car at no cost to Mr G

·refund any deposit paid for the car

·refund 30% of any monthly repayments made

·pay 8% simple interest on any refund from date of initial payment until the repayment date

·refund any excess or call out fee paid to recover the car after 18 October 2017

·remove details of the finance agreement from Mr G’s credit file

·pay £100 to recognise the upset caused to Mr G by not doing more in the first instance to establish the cause of the problem

I think this is a fair outcome in the circumstances, for the reasons I’ve explained. But if you decide that you don’t accept what I’ve said, then please let me know by 20 April 2018. If I can’t resolve things then an ombudsman here can look at everything again and make a final decision.

[des8]

Well done, but I would be appealing that 30% refund of monthly repayments made.

CRA 2015 only allows for a deduction for usage, and that figure seems excessively high to me.
If one VT on a finance deal, finance companies often try and charge for excess mileage, ie the extra usage made by the registered keeper.
That charge I believe is generally around 5p per mile.
5000 miles @ 5p per mile is £250, which i would think is somewhat less than 30% of the payments you have made.

Of course if you don't agree with the ombudsman's award you can continue to court if you think it worth the hassle

[gilbert81]

Just a quick update. Car has been collected and our refund issued. 30% was a bit lower than I would have liked but their argument was that we'd put more than 5k miles on the clock. I was just glad to be shot of it. It's going to a local car auction this week so I'm going along to see what it makes.

What does this mean for the dealer? Are they off the hook? Does the finance company just take whatever it gets at auction and cut it's losses?

Des, thanks for your advice throughout. The ombudsman came through for me except for the 30%!!

I now need to keep an eye on my credit file to make sure it is completely removed.

[des8]

As the finance house purchased the car from the dealer in a business to business transaction I doubt that there is much the bank can do except swallow any losses.
Even if they could pursue the dealer, it probably wouldn't be cost effective either.