Hi.

[Jayeffkew]

Brand new member who is having a problem a trader from whom I bought a car on 25/10 and on 16/11 it packed in. He refuses refund
ill check he different areas in this forum and post the full details for advice

[ostell]

So you tell him that you are rejecting it under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and require your refund within 14 days. If you reported within 30 days you do not have to let him repair. After 30 days you have to allow him one attempt to repair.

Keep everything in writing

[Jayeffkew]

That’s great. I wasn’t expecting a reply so fast
if I can give some more background it would help me enormously
i live in Liverpool and bought the Saab 9.3t from Bury after seeing it in autotrader
After 23 days I got a message on dash Engine overheating - stop safely
Called the AA he said possibly thermostat if I’m lucky or if not could be head gasket or water pump
Due to cars condition and distance to bury I had no way of getting it back so they told me o get a diagnosis and price from local garage
The two I rang said verbally they wouldn’t touch it L got one garage to change thermostat but he said it wasn’t the problem
i wrote to Bury for a refund yesterday and he wrote back with a load of waffle dismissing my rights
But I’m of the opinion that if it develops a fault within thirty days I can have refund
From your reply I think you agree with me

[Jayeffkew]

This is the waffle reply I received from him
03.12.sorry if I'm in wrong part of group your quick reply caught me before I could look around

03.12.2021
Dear John,
RE: DN57 EAY
Thank you for your email dated 02.12.2021. You took delivery of the Saab 93 registration plate DN57 EAY for £2999 on 25th October 2021. The mileage at sale of the vehicle was 74826 and as per your invoice we do not provide a warranty but this doesn’t affect your statutory rights. On the 17th November 2021 you contacted us to explain you were concerned regarding if the car was overheating.
Within the initial call we did ask you to get the fault diagnosed and get a written quotation on letter headed paper from a VAT registered garage for an estimated cost to repair and explained that if we find that this was a fault present at sale we would have covered the cost of repair. You have called xxxxxxxx Car Services and they have diagnosed verbally over the phone on the 18th of November at 9.11am.
You have called xxxxx Saab Kirkham and again you have been given a verbal diagnostic on the 18th of November at 9.15am. As both of these times the car has not been physically inspected we are unable to take these into account.
You then had the car taken to Merseyxxxxx and on the 30.11.2021 and you claim they replaced the thermostat, but you also claim that the issue of overheating has continued. We have not seen neither any diagnostics report nor any repair work quotes and the repair work was carried out without any authorisation from us. We are not obliged to reimburse any third-party costs incurred without our prior knowledge of or consent. It is not the case that you can incur costs as you wish and then present a bill to us as a ‘fait accompli.’ Had the vehicle been sold with an overheating issue then you would have been unable to have driven the vehicle for 23 days and the issue would have been reported far sooner.
Under the short term right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to be entitled to the right to reject, you must prove that the goods are not satisfactory quality and that the fault in question was present at the time of delivery. Based on our communications we see that we are not liable to cover any third party costs and no reason under the consumer rights act 2015 to carry out a vehicle refund. I trust this makes our position clear.
Many thanks xxxxxxx.

[des8]

Quote "But I’m of the opinion that if it develops a fault within thirty days I can have refund
From your reply I think you agree with me"

Not quite true.
As you are rejecting within the first 30 days you need to show that the vehicle was unsatisfactory at the time of delivery to you.
To be satisfactory it must meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory
This refers to its fitness for purpose, appearance, safety & durability,

Now your vehicle demonstrated a fault within that 30 day period, but what is it & what caused it?
Did the change of thermostat solve the problem?

Wrote the above before seeing post 4.
Suggest you discover more about the fault before proceeding

[Jayeffkew]

I drove it locally for 23 days before I got a Hot Engine Stop Safely message on dash. So on the day i bought it It was satisfactory The garages I spoke to suspect it is a big problem and both unprepared to take time to diagnose fully. I took it to a local saab specialist garage and hechanged the thermostat tested the car and found the overheating issue remains. He reckons to diagnose and repair a head gasket and replace water pump (which is what he suspects) would cost close to £1000 the car was £2999
I am confused now because I thought if the car develop ed a problem within 30 days of ownership I could ask for a refund That is what the Which? appears to be saying Thanks

[des8]

So you purchased a 14 year old car with c75000 recorded miles for £2999

You drove it for 3 weeks without problem, and then have a suspected head gasket fail.
If that is the problem you will need to show that the vehicle was unsatisfactory when you took delivery.
So why did it fail?
Perhaps if you have the fault diagnosed properly you will be able to show the gasket was unsatisfactory when you purchased the vehicle in that it failed to last as long as it should have. (durability) or that there was some other problem which caused the failure and that problem was pre existing.

This dealer seems to know what the legal position is.
The Which article is "could" & "might"
Your rights are as per Consumer Rights act 2015 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ntents/enacted

[Jayeffkew]

Thanks I'll give the link a read

I read the following in a suzuki thread in which you gave a guy a load of advice (it wasn't you who wrote this) and I thought it covered me It seems I was wrong

If you discover the fault within the first six months after buying the car, it is presumed to have been there since the time of purchase - unless the retailer can prove otherwise. During this time, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there when you bought it - it's not up to you to prove that it was.

Thanks again for your help

[des8]

If you discover the fault within the first 30 days, you have to prove it was present when you purchased the vehicle if you rely on your short term right to reject.
If you discover the fault within the next five months it is deemed to have been present when purchased .if you are relying on your final right to reject



This is detailed in the Act under "Right to reject"