Dealership refusing refund for faulty used car after 28 days

[Hesma]

I bought a used car from a dealership and after 28 days it developed a fault. They are refusing to refund me as per the consumer rights act of 2015. Does anybody have any suggestions of what I should do next?

Have they offered to fix it?

What is the fault and why are they refusing?

Small Claims Court - it seems intimidating but it isn’t. You are covered by the CRA and the Regulations. Write them a letter before action (you’ll find a template online) setting out your rights. If a fault develops within 30
days you’re entitled to a refund. If they don’t pay up issue a claim.

After 30 days they have one opportunity to repair or replace it.

Send them an LBI letter before action explaining that if you’re not refunded then you will be putting a in a claim form and taking them to county court. Ensure you have a mechanics report regarding the fault.

What is the fault? How old is the car?

Your rights depend on those answers.

You don’t even need a solicitor for this OP. You can go as a litigant in person if they try and draw it out. County court judges are very understanding and will assist you when in court. The whole thing is very simple. You bought a car and it developed a fault with the requisite period and therefore entitled to a refund.

It depends on the fault though, OP isn’t helping themselves by not giving enough detail for an accurate response.

I think you have to give them an opportunity to repair the fault first. If they can't then at that point they can offer a replacement or a refund. You have to 'follow the correct process' (sorry but in this case it applies) or you'll not be able to win.

We bought a car - it died on the way home from the dealership. They took it away and 7 weeks later it was returned to us having been repaired (main dealer). We went out for the day and had to be recovered to home as it broke down again. We said we wanted a refund as the car had spent longer in the garage than on our drive. We returned it to them on the back of a recovery vehicle. We were refunded and they also paid for the recovery vehicle. We followed the guidelines and walked away with a refund without having to threaten legal action.

No, OP does not have to give them an opportunity to repair the fault first. As she has had the car less than 30 days she is entitled to reject it and receive a full refund if it is not of satisfactory quality given its age and mileage.

That is true but it very much depends on the nature of the fault and the age of the car.

https://www.gov.uk/consumer-advice

The best place to get free advice on this is the Citizens Advice Consumer Line link above

I think that's covered by the words 'not of satisfactory quality given its age and mileage' in @prh47bridge 's post.

If the defect is significant, then rejecting the vehicle is fairly straightforward and you'll win if it goes to court.

We've just rejected a brand new car that had alarm faults and two missing features. We reported the alarm faults within 30 days, although we didn't get it booked into the garage until over a month after collection. We were told there would be a software update for the missing features, so we waited almost 6 months for those. When we had the software update and it didn't include the features, they admitted that the hardware probably hadn't been fitted on that batch of the production line. At that point I said we wanted to reject the vehicle. It took a while of pinging between the dealership, the brand, the parent company and the lease company, but we got there.

Exh lost at court. Can't remember what the reason was now. I think to do with buyer beware basically. It was actually dangerous and rust so bad that it was unroadworthy. The garage we got it independently checked at didn't want us to drive it the quarter mile back home. I think exh said the wrong thing in court and indicated he'd seen some rust when he inspected it before buying.

Made me feel sick that I had been driving that car with our baby. I was furious with exh and the dealer.

Good luck @Hesma …!

Without more detail it is impossible to be sure, but the most likely reason for losing in these circumstances is that the court decided your husband should have spotted the problem when he inspected the car. It isn't completely buyer beware but if, for example, you inspect a car and fail to notice an obvious dent, you cannot subsequently reject the car or make a claim based on the presence of that dent. In your case, it seems the court decided your husband was aware of the rust when he bought the car and therefore cannot claim based on that. I'm not saying the court got it right, however. It seems an odd decision if the court accepted that the car was unroadworthy.

@prh47bridge I think that sounds about right.

The thing that got me was that there was a fairly fresh MOT on it. They are obviously in kahoots with dealers and can't be trusted.