Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Arfur Dealy

CRA. A very intresting read.....

36 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Arfur Dealy said:

Ok. Mine was pre CRA.

I'll explain it very quickly, sold a A6 3.0 TDI S Line Avant for 6k. Billy a (snotty nurse) travelled 60 miles to buy, after about 5/6 weeks she complained about a leak in the boot, explained to her ok no problem return it and I'll look at it. She refused and insisted she take it Audi and I pay, I refused and repeatedly asked her to return it to me (all by RD). Few months later I get a LBA which I respond to again asking her to return, she never returned it. Summonds comes through a few months later claiming a full refund saying I sold her a unsafe faulty car, full MMI system had now failed, blah, blah, blah.  

The big day came and the Magistrate found out all the facts from both of us and dismissed her case (and refused her the option to appeal). The crux was basically I had been more than reasonable and she hadn't, she had also continued to drive th said "dangerous" car for 6k+ until she had killed the MMI in the boot.

I wasn't expecting to win and the Magistrate even asked me for my costs ! I was so flabergasted I didn't even consider my costs. Anyway, I bounced out of court like Tigger with my head in the air..... It still makes me smile now and gives me the confidence to continue to be firm but fair...... Give an inch.....

Interesting AD thank you.If the claim on the summons differed from the letter before action was it not a futile claim anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw a case about CRA 30-day rejection of a car that was reported in this month's Which Magazine.

Punter buys car from dealer, but rapidly finds a "major electrical issue". He gets hold of previous owner who confirms it had same issues when he sold it to the dealer. I'm guessing the dealer didn't do a proper PDI, etc., so gives the punter a full refund. However punter then claims for his out-of-pocket 'consequential' expenses (garage repair attempts, car hire, insurance-related costs) but the dealer refuses. This goes to small claims court, dealer loses and has to stump up £1180.

What makes this case a bit different is the judge found that because he felt the car was a "luxury model" the punter was entitled to expect "a higher standard than from other second-hand cars". So what kind of "luxury model" are we talking about? It was a Merc C180 estate, on a 52 plate, costing £2569..!!

Now it seems the courts (and readers of Which Magazine) are going to expect 16 year old Mercs to be "of a higher standard than other second hand cars". Good luck with that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pete CWC said:

Just saw a case about CRA 30-day rejection of a car that was reported in this month's Which Magazine.

Punter buys car from dealer, but rapidly finds a "major electrical issue". He gets hold of previous owner who confirms it had same issues when he sold it to the dealer. I'm guessing the dealer didn't do a proper PDI, etc., so gives the punter a full refund. However punter then claims for his out-of-pocket 'consequential' expenses (garage repair attempts, car hire, insurance-related costs) but the dealer refuses. This goes to small claims court, dealer loses and has to stump up £1180.

What makes this case a bit different is the judge found that because he felt the car was a "luxury model" the punter was entitled to expect "a higher standard than from other second-hand cars". So what kind of "luxury model" are we talking about? It was a Merc C180 estate, on a 52 plate, costing £2569..!!

Now it seems the courts (and readers of Which Magazine) are going to expect 16 year old Mercs to be "of a higher standard than other second hand cars". Good luck with that....

The dealer should have counter sued the previous owners for knowingly selling him a faulty car 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Pete CWC said:

Just saw a case about CRA 30-day rejection of a car that was reported in this month's Which Magazine.

Punter buys car from dealer, but rapidly finds a "major electrical issue". He gets hold of previous owner who confirms it had same issues when he sold it to the dealer. I'm guessing the dealer didn't do a proper PDI, etc., so gives the punter a full refund. However punter then claims for his out-of-pocket 'consequential' expenses (garage repair attempts, car hire, insurance-related costs) but the dealer refuses. This goes to small claims court, dealer loses and has to stump up £1180.

What makes this case a bit different is the judge found that because he felt the car was a "luxury model" the punter was entitled to expect "a higher standard than from other second-hand cars". So what kind of "luxury model" are we talking about? It was a Merc C180 estate, on a 52 plate, costing £2569..!!

Now it seems the courts (and readers of Which Magazine) are going to expect 16 year old Mercs to be "of a higher standard than other second hand cars". Good luck with that....

Luxury model etc  !That is the sort of thing I have been on about with these part time judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s nuts. 

They should look at how much value it’s lost - is £20k car brand new now being sold for £2k

you are buying the last 10% of the car. Expect 90% of it to be gone. 

 

Luxury model ffs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SC Derby said:

That’s nuts. 

They should look at how much value it’s lost - is £20k car brand new now being sold for £2k

you are buying the last 10% of the car. Expect 90% of it to be gone. 

 

Luxury model ffs 

Just now, Arfur Dealy said:

 

I agree, you need to justify your position, the car is a 15th of its original cost,  its 10 years past any period the manufacturer would guarantee its reliability. Mr Magistrate, I understand the CRA is there to protect responsible retailers equally. We freshly MOT'd, frshly serviced and had it PDI's confirming a 192 point check and the purchaser agreed the car was as descibed...

 

 

 

Ownership for repairs and maintanence is the consumers. Unless of course they can prove enfactically the fault was there at the point of sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s the point with this example - the fault was there, the dealer didn’t do his job well enough and got taught a pretty harsh lesson! I doubt he’ll do it again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0