Section 75 Vehicle

[Notinmylife]

Bank have agreed Vehicle is not Fit for Purpose. After Report and MoT
there only and Final offer was full refund with no Additional costs. - what we can sell the Vehicle for. (Why should we have to sell it ourselves)


They rejected our Counter offer Partial Refund. and keeping it. (All costs would go into Fixing Vehicle) with No Additional Costs. the Difference being a lot more than we would get for the Vehicle if we where to sell it.

(Additional Costs Report, Transport on Flatbed, No use of Vehicle we needed. Collection of Vehicle)

Submitted Money Claim amount For Partial Refund + Transport Costs on FlatBed and Loss of Use and report).

after this next Offer unofficial "as it is already been offered" was repair Costs with no Additional Costs or Claim fee. (Repair costs in report state that costs are only estimates and most likely go up due to the amount of Faults). (Bank said they had already offered us Repair costs before Small Claim was Submitted when in Fact they had not.)

or Now Full Refund no Additional Costs and Scrapping the Vehicle with proof of doing so. Which would cost them more money than our offer of a Partial Refund.

So Waiting for them to Submit a Defence or Settle. Will they really go further to pay more ? will take it as far as it needs to go.

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

Just a question, why did you issue a claim for a partial refund and not a full refund, unless I'm missing something? You could have gone through the ombudsman which wouldn't have cost you a penny as well but you are where you are!

The bank will do what they want to do, whether that's settle or make an offer. If you have the evidence that they admit the vehicle is not fit for purpose then that's your evidence.

You just seem to be on a loser from the start for making a claim for a partial refund though instead of the full refund.

[Notinmylife]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

The bank already agreed the Vehicle is not fit for Purpose we not arguing over this fact. there only offer was a Full Refund with no additional costs and being forced to sell it on or as of Now scrapping it and providing proof.

We asked for Partial Refund. As we wish to fix up to the standard it should been sold in or we led to believe it was in.

We payed over £8000 for the Vehicle. in its present condition the Vehicle would sell for few Hundred / Scrap Value. We can provide evidence of this. But also have it writing from the Bank They want us to scrap it if we accept a Full refund with no Additional costs being offered.

We offered £2000 as we want to Keep it. Partial refund of £5000. costing the Bank less money if they accepted our offer.

Ombudsman is a much slower and longer process and I know the Court System better. Bank has to pay something it is just matter of what they are going to pay.

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

Yes he ombudsman is a slower process but the courts expect litigation as a last resort.

In a breach of contract the purpose is to put the parties in the position that they were in previously. So it you want a partial refund and the cost of the repairs, that doesn't put you in the position intended but in a better position than you would have been if the vehicle was fit for purpose.

If you wish to keep the car the court may award just the cost of the repairs or alternatively award the money back for the car and then you sell or scrap it as the car would belong to the bank.

Courts do have the power to award non-compensatory damages but its their discretion.

[Notinmylife]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

Every penny of the Partial refund will go into fixing the Vehicle and more. we did not ask for Costs at first.

We should not be forced to sell or scrap the Car ourselves. It will cost money to scrap it anyway due it not being drivable and its size. We won't profit from this or be better position if we keep it even if we got it for nothing.

Why would a Bank pay more money out of principle. it is ludicrous to Scrap a Vehicle or be forced to scrap it for a Vehicle that we are willing to pay £2000 for. It is backwards in my view.

What would a Dealer prefer ? between the two Options.

[des8]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

As R0b has pointed out the finance house will do what they want to do.
Your calculations regarding their profit and loss won't match their own!

Did you formally reject this vehicle within the first thirty days following purchase.
If you rejected after this period the bank have the right to make one attempt at repair.

The CRA 2015 gives you the right to reject a vehicle, I do not see where it gives you the right to a partial rejection (s21 does not seem to apply to motor vehicles)
I just don't understand why you think the bank should enter negotiations .... you reject: they refund. End of.

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

Every penny of the Partial refund will go into fixing the Vehicle and more. we did not ask for Costs at first.

We should not be forced to sell or scrap the Car ourselves. It will cost money to scrap it anyway due it not being drivable and its size. We won't profit from this or be better position if we keep it even if we got it for nothing.

Why would a Bank pay more money out of principle. it is ludicrous to Scrap a Vehicle or be forced to scrap it for a Vehicle that we are willing to pay £2000 for. It is backwards in my view.

What would a Dealer prefer ? between the two Options.

Under the Consumer Rights Act (assuming purchase after 1 October 2015), the bank can refuse to offer a replacement if it is disproportionate to the other remedies such as a refund. They will of course have to prove this, but alternatively you have the option to keep the goods and obtain a reduction in the purchase price, up to the full contract price in some cases and the deduction in price could be the cost of repairing the vehicle.

The point I tried to make before was that calling it a partial refund and claiming cost of repairs might give the judge the impression you are claiming something more than you are entitled to. If you argue the amount claimed for is for the cost of repairs, which under the CRA you have decided to keep the car and wish to have a reduction in the purchase price to the tune of £2,000. This is providing the purchase price is more than £2,000 otherwise it could be deemed as disproportionate and a full refund may be given instead.

Something else to be aware of is when you are claiming unspecified damages e.g. damages that are not exact, don't expect to get the full amount you are claiming for as statistics show that you generally get around 70-80% of your claim. Not to say people never get 100% of their claim but alot of the time that is what you should expect.

[des8]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

but alternatively you have the option to keep the goods and obtain a reduction in the purchase price, t.

but isn't this right limited in scope by s24 (5)?

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

but isn't this right limited in scope by s24 (5)?

Yes it is one or the other e.g. a final rejection or a partial refund and you can't have both but what I think the OP might be getting at is that even though he has called it a partial refund, he actually wants a price reduction and that price reduction will be the cost of repairs which is estimated at £2,000.

So acceptance of the car but due to it not being fit for purpose, it can be rendered fit for purpose by the repairs made to it and so a price reduction could be appropriate providing that it does not cost more than the purchase price. Otherwise it will be a case of accepting the purchase price and making up the difference, or rejecting the goods fully and getting on what was paid.

s24(1) and s24(2) allow a reduction in price where the goods are accepted.

Just to point out, I have heard trade bodies call the price reduction a partial refund so in saying a partial refund this is what could be meant by a price reduction.

[des8]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

What the OP wants isn't what he has a right to!
Reject within 30 days = refund
Reject within next 5 months= 1 repair or refund.
If repair fails = refund or price reduction

As there has been no request nor attempt at repair etc does OP have right to request a price reduction?

"s24(1) and s24(2) allow a reduction in price where the goods are accepted" but subject to s24(5) limitation on right to exercise.

Although it seems reasonable to negotiate a price reduction /refund or whatever to "save" bank money and keep purchaser happy, if the bank won't play I just don't see where the purchaser can force the issue.
Not arguing ... only seeking knowledge!!

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

I see where you are coming from and in most scenarios yes you would be right, the exercise of a price reduction only applies once repair or replacement has been attempted. I am trying to look at it from a different angle and understand how the OP has come to his claim or how he could claim.

You could say that, because the bank rejected to pay the cost of fixing the vehicle (in a roundabout way you could say this is a request to repair/replace and request the cost instead of the bank having it taken away and then returned) but instead offered the full refund. So you could argue that 24(5) (b) and (c) applies here, either the bank thought it was disproportionate or they are in breach of the requirement to fix the vehicle.

Regardless of how the OP has put it, his request for money to fix the vehicle could be seen as an attempt under the CRA for the right to repair or replacement, which as above could entitle him to keep the goods and then accept the reduction in price. It could make more commercial sense for the bank to pay the £2,000 instead of offering to collect, repair and return the vehicle. Obviously from their point of view they are looking at potentially the cheapest option available which is the full refund.

Its unlikely though the court will award cost of repairs if the purchase price was less than £2,000 because that would be seen to be disproportionate. However if the purchase price is £5,000 and the value due to the fit for purpose issue puts the vehicle at a lower value then they could award the cost of repairs under the price reduction rule to bring it up to the estimated value based on the purchase price.

In all honesty though, I think the court is more likely to award a full refund than it is for the cost of repairs or possibly a proportion of those costs awarded with the rest being met by the OP.

[Notinmylife]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

I don't it get a full refund will cost them More money out of all the options.

We payed £8000 for the Vehicle
(We asked for repair costs at first but they never offered us this.)

If I had accepted the banks offer of a Full refund which is £8000. we would of been forced to Scrap Vehicle
(Nothing about report costs or transport fees being refunded. Also it is going to cost us to Scrap the Vehicle)

We then asked for a Refund (Deduction) of £6000 and we get to Keep Vehicle. Price reduction/Partial Refund.
As they had not offered us any additional Costs.


So a £6000 deduction as the Bank believes the Vehicle is worth Scrap and this is in Writing.
The Vehicle sell price may only be few hundred if lucky.

The £6000 and (and more) will then go into Fixing the Vehicle. Needs new Engine Rust issues etc.

As soon as we got the Vehicle home we started Asking for repair or refund from the Dealer. Dealer refused hence section 75.

[R0b]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

Well on that basis then, you should be able to claim the £6,000 - equally you could even accept the full refund and offer to pay for the vehicles worth at scrap or accept the amount less the scrap worth and then keep the car.

Either way, banks are banks and they are always busy and will probably outsource this to a firm of solicitors to either defend or offer you an amount. If you really want to keep the car then you could offer the options above and everyone is happy but even I would be a bit cautious with repairs to an engine, I'd happily take the £8k and buy a new car without any engine problems as you could have more trouble in the future and then thats another potential problem.

[Notinmylife]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

Bank refused any offer to pay anything for the Vehicle. If we accepted a Full refund. It had to be sold on and now later on now has to be scrapped.

We want to keep it because we know what is wrong with it and how it much we need to spend on it to fix it up. There good parts about it inside which don't necessary add value.

[Notinmylife]

Re: Section 75 Vehicle

if bank chooses to ignore the CCJ claim, and I get CCJ against them I guess by this point I can do what I want with the Vehicle ?. Obviously due to the amount it will be High Court for enforcement, then against my local Branch. Hopefully it won't go that Far but there is 2 days left.
Can't believe a bank can get a CCJ they should not be allowed to get a CCJ and should be forced to either defend it or Settle it.