beerman said:

Anyone have any advice on how to successfully reject a defective car?

My Fiat 500c developed a fault within seven days. It has been back to the dealer twice to investigate the fault and once to repair it. I'm told by them that the roof now works but makes a creaking noise. They now want to replace the complete convertible roof to eliminate the noise.

I have been on to consumer direct and the financial ombudsman for advice, but their investigation could take six months.

I have written to the dealer and the finance company on more than one occassion telling them I want to reject the car as it is not of satisfactory quality. Their stance is I should allow them the opportunity to repair the car.

They have already had one opportunity to repair, I'm worried if I allow them a second opportunity I am weakening my chance of rejecting the car.

Anyone successfully rejected a car or have any advice, hints or tips on how I can escalate this issue and get the result I want?

Cheers

Beerman

Click to expand...

jrkitching said:

The nature of the fault is also relevant; in particular a Court would consider whether the fault rendered the vehicle unfit for purpose.

As an extreme example, if a conrod snapped and punched a hole in the side of the engine on the way home from the showroom, you'd be within your rights to reject the car outright without offering the selling dealership the option of repair.

At the other end of the scale, a loose wire rattling behind the dashboard might be annoying, but it wouldn't likely be considered reasonable grounds to reject the car.

Click to expand...

RobinPJ said:

You also MUST not do anything that suggests you own the car - for example adding accessories. That would lose you the right to reject, as the theory is that you would accept you own it if you put a new stereo in (for example.)

Click to expand...

Venters said:

Not strictly relevant since he doesn't own the car anyway.

Click to expand...

RobinPJ said:

OK I am a lawyer so i do know a little about this. It's not quite so clear cut as giving them any particular number of chances - it all depends on the facts of each case.

Consumers can reject goods and require their money back as long as they complain within a reasonable time. "Reasonable time" is not defined in any statute, but a consumer will need time to examine goods to check that they are satisfactory (section 35(2) of the Sale of Goods Act). A court will decide what is a reasonable time, taking into account all the circumstances.

Section 35(6) of the Act makes it clear that consumers do not lose their right to reject the goods or require a refund because they agree to a repair. Consequently, if the goods are repaired and the repair is not to the buyer's satisfaction, the buyer may still reject the goods (see the case of J&H Ritchie v Lloyd ([2007] UKHL 9)).

You also MUST not do anything that suggests you own the car - for example adding accessories. That would lose you the right to reject, as the theory is that you would accept you own it if you put a new stereo in (for example.)

So I would advise you to put in writing (email is fine) that you are reserving your right to reject whilst allowing them an opportunity to repair. And make clear you are only giving them limited time. You don't say when you got the car, but I would get very nervous if it was more than a month ago.

hope that helps - my bill is in the post...

Click to expand...

beerman said:

They now want to replace the complete convertible roof to eliminate the noise.

Click to expand...

beerman said:

Cheque, cash or card for the bill?!!!

Thanks again

Beerman

Click to expand...

RobinPJ said:

Huh? The OP states "My Fiat 500C developed a fault...." And it is completely relevant because once you are taken to have accepted that it is your property, you are stuck with claiming damages, and that means a load of hassle getting it fixed and suing for the costs you incure.

See section 35(1)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act which states that the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods "when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller".

Click to expand...

RobinPJ said:

OK I am a lawyer so i do know a little about this. It's not quite so clear cut as giving them any particular number of chances - it all depends on the facts of each case.

Consumers can reject goods and require their money back as long as they complain within a reasonable time. "Reasonable time" is not defined in any statute, but a consumer will need time to examine goods to check that they are satisfactory (section 35(2) of the Sale of Goods Act). A court will decide what is a reasonable time, taking into account all the circumstances.

Section 35(6) of the Act makes it clear that consumers do not lose their right to reject the goods or require a refund because they agree to a repair. Consequently, if the goods are repaired and the repair is not to the buyer's satisfaction, the buyer may still reject the goods (see the case of J&H Ritchie v Lloyd ([2007] UKHL 9)).

You also MUST not do anything that suggests you own the car - for example adding accessories. That would lose you the right to reject, as the theory is that you would accept you own it if you put a new stereo in (for example.)

So I would advise you to put in writing (email is fine) that you are reserving your right to reject whilst allowing them an opportunity to repair. And make clear you are only giving them limited time. You don't say when you got the car, but I would get very nervous if it was more than a month ago.

hope that helps - my bill is in the post...

Click to expand...

Zakt said:

It makes a nice change to see proper advice being given on this site.

In the past certain individuals (who usually turn out to be Fiat employees or Fiat franchise employees) have attempted to criticise me when I've suggested people seek proper legal advice, yet they seem rather quiet now. How odd...

Click to expand...

zanes said:

The difference is;

1. Robin suggests that there are numerous options here, not just storm in getting CAB/TS/SOCA/FBI involved at the off.

2. Robin is (or at least has the sense to claim to be) a real lawyer, whereas Zakt apparently did some voluntary work at the local CAB.


*Goes back to working for FIAT*

Click to expand...

Venters said:

No people criticise you for giving poor advise. Suggesting everyone makes a mountain out of a molehill.

That and your rather childish attempts at pointscoring, take your previous post for instance. It has no help what so ever to the op and we can only assume the reason you posted it was merely to have a dig at people who have previously given information which contradicted yours.

Leave your personal baggage at the login screen. If your not here for help, or to help. Then maybe you should just be quiet.

Click to expand...

Zakt said:

rather than just foolishly criticising others

Click to expand...

Venters said:

He doesn't own a car that is on finance. until he has finished paying it.

The car is owned by the finance company.

Click to expand...

Zakt said:

I refer to my previous comment.
To make it simple for the hard-of-thinking, my previous advice was to obtain professional advice. Clearly certain people have trouble understanding that very simple point. Fortunatley, I cannot be held responsibe for other people's failings

Click to expand...

Zakt said:

It makes a nice change to see proper advice being given on this site.

In the past certain individuals (who usually turn out to be Fiat employees or Fiat franchise employees) have attempted to criticise me when I've suggested people seek proper legal advice, yet they seem rather quiet now. How odd...

Click to expand...