Tweet
Hello all, hope you are well!
I am just about to initiate court action against a car dealer who unfortunately is hesitant to refund the purchase price on my vehicle. The car started developing an extremely juddery transmission shortly after purchase. Here is a brief timeline of events (well, actually my drafted particulars of claim!)
When initially complaining to the dealer, I claimed under CRA 2015 but the AA Car's ADR team got back to me and said that this did not apply as the vehicle was being used as a taxi. I subsequently amended my dispute to include the SOGA 1979 as per Citizen Advice Bureau's advice - not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality. However, the dealer was still reluctant to refund the purchase price without having a look at the vehicle first.
Since the vehicle was taken in for repair already for the same gearbox issue and came out worse (new seat folding issue), I was reluctant to allow them to take it to the dealership where it could drag on and potentially be fixed against my will and develop further faults. I offered to split the cost of an independent engineer's report but they declined, so I paid for it myself. The report confirms that the transmission is experiencing issues as per my initial description to the dealership.
At this stage I've sent an LBA to them (11th April) but received no reply.
My questions currently are:
1) As it stands, I have followed the Citizen Advice Bureau's advice at every stage - I am just wanting to confirm I've jumped through the proper hoops so far?
2) Does my claim have merit?
3) Is it worth seeking legal representation before submitting my claim form for whatever reason? (I believe since I am claiming >£10,000, my case will get allocated to the fast track)
Thanks in advance for your time!
I am just about to initiate court action against a car dealer who unfortunately is hesitant to refund the purchase price on my vehicle. The car started developing an extremely juddery transmission shortly after purchase. Here is a brief timeline of events (well, actually my drafted particulars of claim!)
1. 6th December 2021: The Claimant purchased a Vehicle, make: Ford, model: Galaxy, Vehicle registration XXXX XXX from the Defendant.
2. 7th December 2021: The Vehicle was delivered by the Defendant to the Claimant's address.
3. 12th December 2021: Gearbox/transmission issue in the Vehicle was first noticed by the Claimant. The Defendant was informed of the issue on the same day. The Vehicle subsequently was taken in for a repair by the Defendant.
4. 24th December 2021: The Vehicle then was then received back from repair from the Defendant. The Claimaint noticed an extra issue with the Vehicle of the middle-row left and right passenger seats being unable to fold properly. This issue was not present at purchase - the seats were tested by the Claimant at the time of purchase and verbally confirmed with the Defendant.
5. 26th December 2021: Claimant noticed that the same gearbox/transmission issue re-occurred as well as a new engine management warning light on the Vehicle's dashboard.
6. 27th December 2021: Letter of complaint and refund request sent via e-mail to the Defendant regarding above issues with the gearbox/transmission and faulty seats. The Defendant was also informed by telephone of the issues as well. Received telephone response from the Defendant that since the Vehicle was purchased and subsequently taken in for repair (by the Defendant), this deemed the Vehicle not eligible for a refund from the Defendant. Vehicle has not been driven from this point onwards.
7. 27th December 2021: Claimant started Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) complaint with the Defendant's ADR mediator (AA Cars).
8. 11th January 2022: Reply received via e-mail from ADR mediator for more details regarding the complaint - these were subsequently provided via a telephone conversation.
9. 26th January 2022: Reply received via e-mail and telephone conversation from ADR mediator that they were in contact with the Defendant but the Defendant was unwilling to issue a refund due to their belief that the Vehicle's issues were due to wear and tear and being used as a taxi.
10. 26th January 2022: Claimant sent a letter via e-mail to the Defendant reiterating issues with the Vehicle and reasons for requesting refund.
11. 1th February 2022: E-mail reply received from the Defendant advising that they would like to see the Vehicle and inspect the faults before making any decisions. Claimant advised Defendant via telephone that the Claimant would instead prefer to instruct a third party independent engineer to examine the vehicle. The Defendant declined to share costs for this indedepent inspection.
12. 25th February 2022: Claimant instructed an independent Dekra engineer to carry out an independent vehicle inspection and produce an engineer's report. The reference number for this engineer's report is REF: XXXXXXX. This report identifies several faults with the Vehicle including the original gearbox/transmission issue previously presented by the Claimant to the Defendant.
13. 15th March 2022: Independent engineer's report forwarded to the Defendant via e-mail along with another request for a refund.
14. 15th March 2022: E-mail reply received from the Defendant stating again that they want to inspect the car before providing a refund despite the independent engineer's report. Telephone conversation with the Defendant yielded the same results of the Defendant wishing to see the car before issuing a refund.
15. 11th April 2022: Letter before court action sent to the Defendant providing a 7 day period in which to respond. This letter also requested the Defendant to provide a detailed response as to why they do not agree with the refund request.
16. 28th June 2022: No reply nor communication has been received from the Defendant in response to the letter of court action.
Mileage of Vehicle XXXX XXX at purchase: XXXXX miles
Current (28/6/22) mileage of Vehicle XXXX XXX: XXXXX miles
The Claimant is seeking a full refund of the purchase price of £13800 of Vehicle XXXX XXX under the Sales of Goods Act as the goods supplied (Vehicle XXXX XXX) by the Defendant were not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale.
2. 7th December 2021: The Vehicle was delivered by the Defendant to the Claimant's address.
3. 12th December 2021: Gearbox/transmission issue in the Vehicle was first noticed by the Claimant. The Defendant was informed of the issue on the same day. The Vehicle subsequently was taken in for a repair by the Defendant.
4. 24th December 2021: The Vehicle then was then received back from repair from the Defendant. The Claimaint noticed an extra issue with the Vehicle of the middle-row left and right passenger seats being unable to fold properly. This issue was not present at purchase - the seats were tested by the Claimant at the time of purchase and verbally confirmed with the Defendant.
5. 26th December 2021: Claimant noticed that the same gearbox/transmission issue re-occurred as well as a new engine management warning light on the Vehicle's dashboard.
6. 27th December 2021: Letter of complaint and refund request sent via e-mail to the Defendant regarding above issues with the gearbox/transmission and faulty seats. The Defendant was also informed by telephone of the issues as well. Received telephone response from the Defendant that since the Vehicle was purchased and subsequently taken in for repair (by the Defendant), this deemed the Vehicle not eligible for a refund from the Defendant. Vehicle has not been driven from this point onwards.
7. 27th December 2021: Claimant started Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) complaint with the Defendant's ADR mediator (AA Cars).
8. 11th January 2022: Reply received via e-mail from ADR mediator for more details regarding the complaint - these were subsequently provided via a telephone conversation.
9. 26th January 2022: Reply received via e-mail and telephone conversation from ADR mediator that they were in contact with the Defendant but the Defendant was unwilling to issue a refund due to their belief that the Vehicle's issues were due to wear and tear and being used as a taxi.
10. 26th January 2022: Claimant sent a letter via e-mail to the Defendant reiterating issues with the Vehicle and reasons for requesting refund.
11. 1th February 2022: E-mail reply received from the Defendant advising that they would like to see the Vehicle and inspect the faults before making any decisions. Claimant advised Defendant via telephone that the Claimant would instead prefer to instruct a third party independent engineer to examine the vehicle. The Defendant declined to share costs for this indedepent inspection.
12. 25th February 2022: Claimant instructed an independent Dekra engineer to carry out an independent vehicle inspection and produce an engineer's report. The reference number for this engineer's report is REF: XXXXXXX. This report identifies several faults with the Vehicle including the original gearbox/transmission issue previously presented by the Claimant to the Defendant.
13. 15th March 2022: Independent engineer's report forwarded to the Defendant via e-mail along with another request for a refund.
14. 15th March 2022: E-mail reply received from the Defendant stating again that they want to inspect the car before providing a refund despite the independent engineer's report. Telephone conversation with the Defendant yielded the same results of the Defendant wishing to see the car before issuing a refund.
15. 11th April 2022: Letter before court action sent to the Defendant providing a 7 day period in which to respond. This letter also requested the Defendant to provide a detailed response as to why they do not agree with the refund request.
16. 28th June 2022: No reply nor communication has been received from the Defendant in response to the letter of court action.
Mileage of Vehicle XXXX XXX at purchase: XXXXX miles
Current (28/6/22) mileage of Vehicle XXXX XXX: XXXXX miles
The Claimant is seeking a full refund of the purchase price of £13800 of Vehicle XXXX XXX under the Sales of Goods Act as the goods supplied (Vehicle XXXX XXX) by the Defendant were not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale.
Since the vehicle was taken in for repair already for the same gearbox issue and came out worse (new seat folding issue), I was reluctant to allow them to take it to the dealership where it could drag on and potentially be fixed against my will and develop further faults. I offered to split the cost of an independent engineer's report but they declined, so I paid for it myself. The report confirms that the transmission is experiencing issues as per my initial description to the dealership.
At this stage I've sent an LBA to them (11th April) but received no reply.
My questions currently are:
1) As it stands, I have followed the Citizen Advice Bureau's advice at every stage - I am just wanting to confirm I've jumped through the proper hoops so far?
2) Does my claim have merit?
3) Is it worth seeking legal representation before submitting my claim form for whatever reason? (I believe since I am claiming >£10,000, my case will get allocated to the fast track)
Thanks in advance for your time!
