[Dazmac13]

I have, sadly, noticed that there has been a fair bit of talk about rejecting of cars upon delivery or shortly after taking delivery because of faults. So i thought it might be useful to all those who are experiencing problems or due to take delivery of an R56 to know exactly when we are within our rights to reject a car, particularly if they have already taken delivery of the car. I myself do not know the exact answer to this so anyone out there that does, please enlighten us ........

[SimonSJR]

Well any item that doesn't do what it was advertised to do is rejectable. I don't know how it relates to cars though would love to know.

[Dazmac13]

the reason i put this thread up is because i have noticed 2 people this week who are thinking of rejecting their cars on the basis that they had the car for about 1-2weeks and has been sat in the mini work shop riddled with problems for the last 3-4weeks!!! which i think is totally unacceptable for any car let alone one designed by bmw. i sincerely hope i don't end up in this situation next month

[nephilin]

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (the 'Act)'

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR)

PS: I'm amazed how much of this crap I actually remember from law school!

[Dazmac13]

some detailed stuff there...but i thought there was an act that went something along the lines of 'if an item is not fit for the purpose it was designed then the buyer is entitled to a full refund or replacement' I sued a high street jeweler over a ring that deteriorated out of shape without wear after 3 months of purchasing it and they settled out of court accpeting they were in the wrong to ONLY offer to fix the item and not offer me my money back or a replacement

[nephilin]

Edited my earlier post to deal with the issue more coherently.

[Scrogg]

The Law is far too detailed to post here, so these links should prove useful to anyone interested.

(All links are to the website of the Department of Trade & Industry)

Sale of Goods Act 1979. (There is a useful Fact Sheet about this Act.)

Although it should be noted that this Act has now been amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

There are also some information specific to the Sale and Repair of Motor Vehicles.

Hopefully this should stop any speculation or building up of anyone's hopes by posting incorrect information?

[CC07ERS]

i really think you will have a fight on your hands trying to reject it once they start that the flood gates will open

[Martin F]

Here is some useful practical guidance on how to reject a car

Honestjohn: Frequently Asked Questions

[Paul]

I rejected (and had replaced) my first Cooper S in 2003. With that it was a fault that was there from new, and I gave the dealer three times to fix it, with the premise that if it wasn't fixed the third time I'd be rejecting the car. The dealer handled it brilliantly.

[KenL]

I wrote this in another thread but thought it worth copying to here.

Rejection has nothing to do with MINI. Your sale contract is with the supplying dealer, not MINI.

Have a look at this: http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact...page24700.html
Quoting this " Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale)" in any letter is worthwhile.

If a car is supplied with a serious fault, they (the dealer) does not have a leg to stand on and should not be able to refuse a rejection.

Also note this statement "• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty) " This means that any serious fault within six months are basically considered to have been there since new.

I successfully rejected a VW that was delivered to me with a gearbox issue. Dealer was excellent, agreed straight away, ordered me a new car and provided a car for me to use until it arrived.

[Paul]

Quote: Originally Posted by KenL (original)

I wrote this in another thread but thought it worth copying to here.

Rejection has nothing to do with MINI. Your sale contract is with the supplying dealer, not MINI.

Have a look at this: http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact...page24700.html
Quoting this " Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale)" in any letter is worthwhile.

If a car is supplied with a serious fault, they (the dealer) does not have a leg to stand on and should not be able to refuse a rejection.

Also note this statement "• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty) " This means that any serious fault within six months are basically considered to have been there since new.

I successfully rejected a VW that was delivered to me with a gearbox issue. Dealer was excellent, agreed straight away, ordered me a new car and provided a car for me to use until it arrived.

Very good information, I used this before. If you know your rights, then you're well armed. I always think the best way is be polite with the dealer. They didn't mean to sell you a duff car, they dont want to lose you as a (potential) long term customer, they don't want a bad reputation. It seems that, when push comes to shove, most MINI dealers are pretty decent. It's supposed to be a premium brand (go to any international MINI press event and that's well rammed down your throat), so below par cars is not acceptable.

[KenL]

I agree Paul, being polite but firm is the way to go.

This is the letter I wrote when rejecting my Golf. I offered them a chance to fix the fault but they actually offered me a replacement vehicle straight away.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you with regard to my new VW Golf (reg no SO 04 ***) which was delivered to me on 16 June 2004.

Immediately after taking delivery I noticed several faults which are detailed on the attached letter. The car was in the service department for two days beginning 23 June 2004 to attend to these matters.

Two faults remain which are of great concern to me on a brand new vehicle which should be perfect.

Firstly, there is vibration felt through the gear lever on selecting 4th gear. The gear lever vibrates visibly at low revs. Your service team leader John *** is aware of the fault and examined the system but could not find any obvious cause.

I’m sure you will agree that this situation is unacceptable on a new vehicle. It is of great concern to me that this could be the beginning of a fault that can only get worse over time. A fault in the drive train of the vehicle is obviously very serious matter and should certainly not be present on a new vehicle.

The second unresolved fault is that the passenger door is not of acceptable fit and is visibly proud at the top by the B-pillar. On the drivers side the door is more flush which is how both should be. John *** replaced the door seal which was not fitted correctly but this has not cured the fault.

I am willing to give your company one more chance to resolve these problems in full and permanently such that they do not re-occur. I am sure that you will agree that such problems are unacceptable and disappointing in a new car.

The Supply of Goods Act 1994 requires that a vehicle 'be of satisfactory quality, having regard to its age and price paid.' My car being new clearly should have no faults at all.

If another attempt to fully and finally correct the faults detailed above is not successful I will reject the vehicle and demand either a replacement car to the same specification or a full refund of the recommended retail value of the car.

I look forward to your early reply in writing, within a maximum of seven days.

Yours Faithfully,



KenL

[Martin F]

Quote: Originally Posted by KenL (original)

If a car is supplied with a serious fault, they (the dealer) does not have a leg to stand on and should not be able to refuse a rejection.

This is misleading. Case law says that you must give the dealer a reasonable opportunity to effect a repair and this means allowing 3 attempts. A dealer may be prepared to accept rejection more readily than that, but a buyer can only insist on rejection after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to rectify the fault.

[KenL]

Quote: Originally Posted by Martin F (original)

This is misleading. Case law says that you must give the dealer a reasonable opportunity to effect a repair and this means allowing 3 attempts. A dealer may be prepared to accept rejection more readily than that, but a buyer can only insist on rejection after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to rectify the fault.

Is that the case on a brand new car with a fault present at delivery?

If you buy any goods that are faulty when you buy them (e.g. a TV) you are entitled to a replacement straight away, you are within your rights to receive your money back or a replacement.

[KenL]

From DTI factsheet:

" If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances) "

No mention of having to allow them the opportunity to fix.

[KenL]

This fact sheet, specifically for cars, is also worth reading

The BERR web page or document you are looking for has not been found. - DTI

[Martin F]

The law is enacted by Parliament and interpreted by the Courts. There is an Appeal Court Case (Bernstein v/s Palmerston Motors 1987) specifically relating to the supply of a motor vehicle where it was held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so.

The DTI can write what it likes in its fact sheets, they are helpful guidance and not law. In a dispute about rejection, if it comes to Court the buyer would need to persuade the Court not to be bound by the decision in Bernstein.

I think I would rather give the dealer 3 tries to fix the problem before going down that route.

[South Shore Lad]

Apologies if this is considered off topic a bit.


In the mid nineties a few brands (Ford and Rover for two if I recall) were doing those 30 day no quibble refund jobs. The Rover one was TV advertised as well. The deal was you could even reject/swap the car if you found out it didn't fit in your garage, or you really wanted the estate instead of the saloon...and so on.

A pal in the trade told me it was usually no skin off the dealers nose, as they were still 'shifting metal' if the customer chose another car, and they'd one more car to sell through their approved second hand routes. He said it also kept sales targets up as often they could shift two new cars instead of one.

So why aren't deals like that around anymore?

Having said that, the mid 90s was in the days of acres and acres of fields piled high with unsold new cars. Today's JIT methods usually spell the end of unsold new stock.

SSL

[Scrogg]

You answered your own question there SSL!