I cannot underestimate how shocked we were at how Dealer X refused to refund us our money when we rejected a faulty car.

We bought a car for over £12,000 and the first time it rained it was clear that the roof was leaking. We returned the car to reject it as is our right under the Sales of Goods Act 1979 as it was not fit for purpose and they refused to refund us our money.

They then drove and fixed the car without our permission and attempted to force us to pick the car up by charging us £30 a day storage. The police were contacted who notified them they were acting outside the law but they continued on with the same threat.

They refused to tell us what work had been done on the car or who did the work. We even offered to sell it back at a loss but their counter offer was for us to lose over £1,000.

When told we were going to inform other consumers about them they threatened to sue us for libel if we posted bad feedback unless it was done after we won a court case against them.

We are shocked and appalled that Dealer X could act in this way and it is experiences like these that we feel make people wary of buying from dodgy car dealers.

We only dealt with our complaint in writing so that have evidence to back up our claim but we are now being forced to take them to court. They most likely know that we will only be able to claim 70%-80% of our fees back so will still lose money, but that's better than a leaking car. They even then said in an email they dont understand why we dont take the car back, sell it and take them to court for the difference.

We even laid out our court case against them to show them we would win (thanks to a previous post on this website) so if any dealer fixes your car without permission they have legally accepted the rejection.

1. Bowes v J Richardson & Son Rugby County Court, 28 January 2004.

The Sale of Goods Act was applied in reverse, when considering whether a seller has accepted a buyer's rejection of goods. The Defendant had carried out repairs without Mr Bowes’ authority. In doing this, they had acted in a manner inconsistent with Mr Bowes' ownership, thereby accepting that the car had been rejected. They were bound by their acceptance of Mr Bowes’ rejection, even if he had not in fact been entitled to reject the car.

2. Clegg v Olle Andersson, 2003

This is relevant as they admitted, in writing, that they sold us a car with a fault and was therefore of unsatisfactory quality. We retain the right to reject it as the sale of the car in this state constituted a breach of the original purchase contract.

(Dealer's name deleted. If they're as litigious as you say, they could easily sue us for defamation. I competely agree with Skidpan below - a public forum is NOT the place to air individual grievances like this.)

Edited by Avant on 26/09/2015 at 17:29