CRA's short-time right to reject

[Fishinthepan]

Hi all,

Bought at car in Dec 2021 from a dealer. Unfortunately within 7 days of sale I found a fault and agreed to a repair due to a fault which I had advised dealer of. Came back after 2 weeks with the same fault. Rejected immediately in writing but dealer did not want to refund as it was 'wear and tear' and did not mention any inspections.

Enter ADR scheme - the ADR also states the dealer wants to reject refund due to wear and tear and again does not refer to wanting the car back to be inspected.

After 2 months post sale (Feb 2022), they make first mention of wanting the car back for inspection. I instructed a independent DEKRA engineer who found the same fault I had claimed in Dec 2021. However, dealer still wants the car back for inspection despite this.


Question is:
I understand that as I had rejected the vehicle in 30 days, the onus is on me to prove the fault was present within the 30 days under the CRA.

I rejected the vehicle but was not afforded the option of returning the vehicle for inspection by themselves and was told I would not be getting a refund. I was only able to instruct an independent engineer to produce a report in Feb 2022 (outside 30 days but within 6 months).

What would my options be in this case
a) repair/replacement
b) refund
c) both

[des8]

On the basis of the content of your post IMO you rejected the vehicle within the first thirty days, having already allowed the dealer to attempt a repair which failed
At that point the onus is on the dealer to collect the vehicle and for the consumer to make it available.

You can't have a repair and a full refund.
What do you want?

Options are set out in Consumer Rights Act 2015

[Fishinthepan]

Thanks for your reply.

As rejecting within the short-term right to reject period, it states in CRA that the onus is on the buyer to prove fault was present at point of sale. I believe that the fact that the car was diagnosed and (insufficiently) repaired by the dealer's appointed garage within 30 days of ownership proves this.

My confusion was arising from whether I still had the burden of proof of showing that there was a failed repair within the first 30 days? Or since the car was repaired would this burden then switch to the seller (still within 30 days)?

Either way, I had stated my reasons for rejecting the vehicle and request for a full refund within the STRRP but the seller said it was wear and tear, rejected a refund outright and did not express any intent to collect.

For purposes of a full refund, would I have had to proven the failed repair within the STRRP or am I still allowed to have provided the independent evidence later on (within 6 months)? The dealer did not express any intent to collect the vehicle initially during STRRP and in no way did we hinder the collection of the vehicle during STRRP.

[Fishinthepan]

I ask the above as the dealer is stating that I did not prove a failed repair within the STRRP as the independent inspection (at my cost) was not carried out until 2 months post sale.

Which is interesting as they did not express any desire to collect the car for inspection and subsequent refund. They just outright rejected the issues as wear and tear without seeing the car.

[des8]

You don't necessarily need "independent" evidence to prove the vehicle was unsatisfactory.
In court it will be the judge who decides is most believable.

The dealer is on to a loser if he claims the car proved to be unsatisfactory within a week of delivery if it was down to wear and tear, unless the price and age reflect the fact the vehicle was clapped out (technical term )

Perhaps some additional information may help us.

[Fishinthepan]

Hope this information helps in regards to the ?wear and tear:

Vehicle: Ford Galaxy (2.0L ZETEC TDCI 5d 148 BHP)
Year: 67 plate (Sept 2017)
Purchase price: £13800
Purchase date: Dec 2021
Mileage at point of sale:77300
Mileage at point of rejection: 77950
Mileage when inspected by DEKRA: 77993 (still the same mileage now)
No issues regarding any vehicle faults were stated to me on purchase.
Vehicle was used as a minicab in the past which was stated to me.

Fault as stated to dealer in rejection notice:
"Gearbox - while driving the car, the gears jam intermittently and more frequently
when driving uphill or starting from stationary. When this issue occurs, the car revs unnecessarily high at around 6,000 RPM before changing gears. On changing gears, the car often 'jumps forward' - and this has already put me in significant danger already. In addition, the gears sometimes erroneously decrease while driving, putting me at a lower gear. This has caused the vehicle to be far slower than surrounding traffic, putting myself at further risk."

[des8]

One further question: how did you pay for the vehicle? cash/credit card/PCP hirepurchase?

[Fishinthepan]

Cash and Bank transfer

[des8]

So you need to decide whether you want a full refund or a price reduction to enable you have the car repaired.
Full refund will take your claim outside the small claims track parameters, and that could have costs implications.


But whatever your decision , if i was in your position I would be sending a Letter before Claim, prior to initiating court action