|
recently bought a used car from a trader. pointed out a problem during test drive, a known common fault with engine (sticky thermostat). requested the problem was looked into in addition to new tyres and replacement of damaged trim. i leave deposit and leave to await delivery of vehicle at later date. later, trader claims car has been sorted and is ready to pick up so i go and pay and collect. temperature problem still evident on way home so i request a repair either under SoGA or warranty.trader claims they replaced temp sensor b4 delivery and now uneconomical to repair. car not looked at after sale. instead trader offer full refund. i want the car as it is v good for its age and price and i do not want to find another so i decline and demand repair. have threatened court action to claim cost of repair at 3rd party if trader unwilling, which they are.
|
|
If the trader is offering a full refund you be best advised to accept it - I doubt that there's any legal justification to expect a trader to do more - it certainly sounds reasonable to me.
|
I quite agree. Except since I traded my old car in and do not wish it returned to me and since I, the purchaser, do not want a refund then I am legally entitled to request repair instead. Besides how can the trader claim it is uneconomic to repair under warranty without having looked at the car under warranty? Unless they were aware of a fault at point of sale, which would leave them liable.
It is my belief that the car I traded in was practically worthless and I have negotiated a good deal on the SEAT so the trader has already lost money on the vehicle and is unwilling to undertake further work. So they are offering a refund in order to recoup lost monies and avoid undertaking work required under SoGA or the warranty. I wonder how a court would view this.
Perhaps I am misguided and maybe technically the trader is well within their rights to refuse to repair after offering a full refund. But my understanding of the law is that as it is my purchase and it would cause excessive time and monies to find a replacement vehicle of similarity, then I can request repair. Besides this I am sure the trader should have at least looked at the car under warranty first!
|
Hi,
Given that the dealer has offered to refund your money in full , you are likely to find that the SCC will find against you ,if you pursue him for the cost of repairs .
The SCC is based on the test of what's reasonable .Ie what would a reasonable person expect or be entitled to in certain circumstances .Its unreasonable to refuse a refund .
In addition you mention that that dealer gave you a good price for a worthless part exchange .Does the dealer want to give you your old car back plus the cash back ,or has he disposed of your old car . If he's sold your part ex on ,and he's willing to refund the retail price take his money .
You also say its a pain to start the search for a new car ,it takes time and effort .
The process of going through the SCC also takes time and effort .The cost is about £250 ,which you pay if you lose ,plus direct expenses incurred by the other party ,bus fares taxis etc .
Again take the refund
|
The process of going through the SCC also takes time and effort .The cost is about £250 ,which you pay if you lose ,plus direct expenses incurred by the other party ,bus fares taxis etc . Again take the refund
If you are the claimant and you win your case, you will get the court fees back as well as the claim, and you can ask for certain expenses also. If you lose, you will not get the court fees back. But it is unlikely that you will have to pay any other costs.
|
|
|
Hi,
Given that the dealer has offered to refund your money in full , you are likely to find that the SCC will find against you ,if you pursue him for the cost of repairs .
The SCC is based on the test of what's reasonable .Ie what would a reasonable person expect or be entitled to in certain circumstances .Its unreasonable to refuse a refund .
I thought that the SCC was based upon law. It is my legal right to request a repair as long as it is not unreasonably costly to the seller.
Would it not be reasonable to expect the seller to at least look at what needs repairing before claiming it is uneconomical? Else they could claim this for every and any warranty claim? Also, I am yet to receive proof of their first repair which was supposedly undertaken before sale.
Whilst I appreciate they have offered a full refund. For me to find the same product in the same condition, age etc at the same price would also be difficult so this too could be construed as unreasonable, this adds weight to my request for repair.
|
|
oh and another issue to consider. the seller has stated that they will not give permission for me to have the vehicle looked at elsewhere. only leaving one option in their eyes, refund. does it sound like the dealer wants to go back on their original deal? we are talking about NORFOLK MOTOR GROUP in case anyone has had similar issue with them
|
|
If the repair will cost the retailer more than giving you a full refund - then it is unreasonable.
|
If the repair will cost the retailer more than giving you a full refund - then it is unreasonable.
Surely this would be the case in all warranty claims!? Since the refund costs nothing to the seller because in this case in particular the deal was very good for the purchaser. Making any warranty worthless. And falsely sold. Illegal.
|
(I thought that the SCC was based upon law. )
Hi chizet
The above is a common misunderstanding of the SCC .
Although the SCC is broadly based on common law in England and Wales ,judgments are given, based on a judges opinion and interpretation of the issue on the day the case is heard .
The SCC decisions don't have to be made on precedent and are not subject to appeal ,once a judge makes his decision ,the matters closed you've won or lost .
Those are the two major differences between common law and the SCC .
If the judge thinks you've been unreasonable in refusing a full refund ,you're likely to lose.
|
|
Chiset might find this link useful: tinyurl.com/a5pzwur
Nothing to do with motor cases but it explains the procedure (including appeal which though rare is possible on points of law and procedure) quite well I think.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer.
|
Hi nt
A really good link ,it explains in layman s terms how the SCC works .
I've been involved with the SCC 4 times ,the descriptions and advice given are pretty much my experiences .
|
|
Nothing like experience is there! It would take quite a lot at stake to make me start proceedings so the key is to try to agree beforehand, I believe.
|
|
|
