Refund Issue

[Wessex878]

Hi,
Looking for some out of the box advice on the following grievances. Have already taken some legal advice but just been informed of “grey areas”, which I’m hoping to eventually dispel.

The case facts, from my perspective, are as follows;

I car purchased a car that was described as, amongst other things;
1. “1 owner from new”
2. “With fully documented service history”

In the salesroom, at the point of sale, I checked these items and it was confirmed that the car had one owner from new and that it did have fully documented service history, but this was being waited upon and would be sent on via post on receipt by the garage.
Upon receipt of the V5, the car in fact had 2 owners, making me the third. When the garage was contacted on this, they claimed they could advertise the car as such due to the information on the V5 they held.
I completely disagree with this, on the basis that when the garage had the car to sell, they were the legal owners and therefore ownership had been passed on from owner number 2. They did not sell the car on behalf of the second owner, so the description they listed was a clear misleading statement, designed to encourage the sale of the car. I accept that if the second owner had sold it personally, this term would be acceptable because the obvious presumption is the car is currently owned & registered by the seller. But not by a garage.

Regarding the “fully documented service history”. I have had none sent through, and contacted the company several times. On the fourth phone call, they finally admitted the car never had any service history in their possession at any point. The respond via letter stating this also, yet the advert stated it had fully documented service history and this was confirmed in the salesroom. Is this a clear case of a false advertisement, seeing as the garage has now admitted to never having any, and knowing they never had any?

There are also a few other issues but they are fairly clean cut

After numerous letters, I have managed to been offered a full refund for the car. However, this is where my real issue is.
I part exchanged a car during this transaction, on the presumed assumption that what I was purchasing and part ex’ing for was as described. I will not be receiving this car back. As far as I can tell, reading through all relevant legislation, I am not ‘entitled’ to a refund as to me a legally defining refund would be what I “transferred during the contract” and what I paid in cash to settle the balance.
Personally, I never felt like a refund was an option, and have reiterated this at every point. I asked for a like for like replacement to match what was described, or damages, both of which have been rejected. (For clarification, the full refund is the cash paid and the cash value of the part ex)

After reading this, could anyone direct me to some case law, or offer rough guidance moving forward through court (they have been adamant that’s the only option if I refuse the refund)?

Thanks

Referencing Consumer protection from unfair trading regulations 2008 & Consumer rights act 2015 during this.

[efpom]

You have 90 days to "unwind" the contract - unfair trading regulations 2008 4A. So send them a letter to that effect. & 7 days later a letter before claim, and if they don't cough up, then sue for that specified in 4A

[Wessex878]

I agree with that, the issue I had is the part exchange. As per 4A of the unfair trading regs (amd 2014), section 27F, subsection 5, if a product transferred by the consumer cannot be returned in its original state, I am entitled to be paid its market price at the time of the product being rejected.

However, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, it stipulates that if a product transferred by the consumer cannot be returned in its original state, I have no entitlement to a refund, but can seek damages and/or other remedies (ie price reduction, right to replacement).

So this is the grey area. I would assume the most recent law would take priority in regards to the letter of the law (CRA 2015). In respect of this, three questions,

1) If the CPUTR 2008 is the legislation to follow, what is market price? The CAP of the product, or it’s forecourt value?

2) A replacement has been rejected by the company on the grounds that they have offered a refund to the value of the transaction. Does this constitute a reason to believe that the only course left is damages/price reduction?

3) Do I have legal justification to reject their offer of a refund on these grounds?