Thank you for your candid post and it just shows that we all learn, every day. The bottom line is exactly as you have stated, it's down to the judge, on the day because "a reasonable person" can only be the person that makes the decision and that, ultimately, is the judge. However, I think most people could come to the conclusion that it's unreasonable to expect certain faults to render a car of unsatisfactory quality, logic and common sense would tell most people to not take a supplier to court over something so trivial as a blown light bulb on a used car. You have also hit the nail on the head that a new car, or expensive used car, with expensive components (£200k 1 year old Ferrari's for example) would be of unsatisfactory quality on some faults that a 10 year old, £2000 car would not. Hence the statement in the statue under "goods of satisfactory quality" that refers to price paid. The price paid (and as such, age and mileage of vehicle) will reflect a judges decision on whether a fault, is actually really a fault, or just something to be expected of the nature of the goods. With regards to the burden of proof, Reasonable Ron posted somewhere recently that the burden of proof always existed, it was present in the outgoing SOGA. If a customer wanted to return something, they had to prove the goods were faulty. This obviously protected the retailer from people buying something, making use of it, then returning it for no good reason. It also protected the consumer from goods being defective and the retailer washing his hands of the situation. The reverse burden of proof exists in the CRA that the retailer has to prove the goods did conform to the contract, on the day of purchase. As cited in section 19, subsection 14 and 15 which states; For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. (15)Subsection (14) does not apply if— (a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or (b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract. There is a nuance to the 30 day short term right to reject. As it is such a powerful ally to the consumer, the reverse burden of proof does not exist under the short term right to reject. Should a consumer wish to reject the goods for a full refund they must prove the fault existed at the point the contract was made. This is to ensure fair play for the retailer so that the consumer could not just reject say a car, for a full refund, just because a light bulb blew. However if a gearbox went pop within 30 days it would be safe to say the fault existed at the time the contract was made, gearboxes rarely just let go. So to summarise, the burden of proof rests with the consumer, it always has I believe. There is a reverse burden of proof in the event of a repair/price reduction where the onus is on the retailer, which exists for 6 months, as clarified in the statute above. The burden of proof then again rests with the consumer thereafter the 6 months, up to 6 years I believe. Again, all of this is subject to ascertaining if the fault is actually a fault. Consumers cannot reject a vehicle for any old reason, or, more specifically, they can try but if it goes before a judge, it seems unlikely that the judge would consider a trivial matter such as a lightbulb popping (or indeed a tyre puncturing, a wiper blade smearing, a small thimble full of oil leaking every month) on a car of a certain age, mileage and price point, as grounds for rejection.

I think the point that you are overlooking is that irrespective of whether it's a clerical error or a genuine case of clocking, the car has been sold as HPI clear and it is not. The car is not as described and the contract has been broken. The simplest thing would be for the dealer/finance company to sort out the error (which in all probability is just that, an error) to correct the mileage discrepancy and the OP can get on with selling the vehicle.

Erm, I don't think I'm inventing words into the statute, in the CRA 2015 under chapter 2, section 9,10 and 11 it specifically mentions the terms "fit for purpose, as described and satisfactory quality" albeit I am shortening the exact wording for the purpose of writing a post in here. I think what you are saying is correct and I haven't conveyed myself properly. You are correct that there is no severity when it comes to a defect, it's either a defect or it isn't. What I was trying to point out, for the good of people coming here and seeking advice, is that it isn't as simple as demanding a repair or refund under the CRA for any old thing. A defect has to first be confirmed as a defect, the only person who can do this with authority is of course a judge but I think people need to be aware when reading these kind of threads is that in all probability, a blown light bulb on a used vehicle isn't going to be classed as a defect in the first place. A faulty windscreen wash motor on a 15 year old car, with 100,000 miles on, 4 months into ownership, isn't going to be a defect. A failed gearbox on a 4 year old vehicle with 50,000 miles on, will be. Unless of course you consider that a 15 year old vehicle with 100,000 miles on, bought for £1000 has the same consideration under the CRA as a 2 year old vehicle with 20,000 miles on, bought for £15,000. If you do believe that, well, I'll wrap up and leave it there. I will just say though that the terms "fit for purpose, of satisfactory quality and as described" are written into the CRA for (among other things) the purposes of defining the difference between an old banger and nearly new car. The only person who can decide what constitutes a defect is the judge, on the day.

The part that I have highlighted in bold, I think it's not quite right. I don't believe that if a consumer took a dealer to court, with the defect being a blown bulb, 25 days after taking ownership, they would win. Or else, people could just decide they didn't like the car anymore, put a knackered bulb in the car and reject it. The severity of the defect does matter. It needs to render the car not fit for purpose, not as described, or not of satisfactory quality. That's what defines whether a defect is really a defect or not. Small but subtle point that needs to be clear to people reading the forum I think. Otherwise, people may think they can take a car back for any old reason.

A good point well made. I expect a number of people have pre purchase inspections carried out on vehicles (I know I have in the past) when doing so, would actually compromise our rights under the CRA it seems! Better to live in ignorance it seems

All I was querying was your statement that the severity of the defect isn’t relevant and any defect is grounds for a rejection. I think a lot of people coming to the forum would read that statement and, as people generally do, they would read what they want to read and may indeed consider a brake light bulb or split wiper blade a reason for rejection. You will no doubt agree, as you have already suggested, should such a ridiculous case get before a judge he would be quite embarrassed that a case for rejecting a used motor vehicle on account of a blown bulb has been brought before him. People do look up to you on this forum for advice and from what I have seen you have given plenty of good advice. The notion of rejecting a used motor vehicle under the short term right to reject for “any defect” is not correct and taking a literal view of that piece of law isn’t wise for anyone. Whilst there is no differentiating between a major or minor fault in the CRA, the CRA defines what a “fault” is and that is not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality or not as described. It’s clear that a blown bulb, split wiper blade, worn (but roadworthy) brake pads, worn (but roadworthy) tyres etc do not make the vehicle unfit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality therefore under the CRA do not constitute a fault in the first place.

You believe that if a brake light bulb fails after say 3 weeks of ownership (meaning an MOT fail) that would be grounds for rejection?

Thanks for your opinion but I was asking BF, as he speaks as though he has actually been near a court room in his experiences.

BF, i’m interested in the part of your post where you say that’s any defect is grounds for a rejection within 30 days, no matter the seriousness of the defect. Does this imply that something as simple as split windscreen wiper blade or a brake light bulb can be grounds for rejection?

The only thing I would add to what has been said is that you bought a car knowing the 2.0 engine had an oil consumption issue. You say it’s known that the 1.8 engine has this same issue albeit not as well known. I don’t wish to sound harsh but you’ve seemingly done a little research into this, learned that the engine has a common fault yet decided to press on with the purchase and then subsequently found that the car you bought has the same issue you sought to avoid in the first place? I suppose you’ll have to wait to see what Audi say and as to whether the consumption is within their tolerances. As said above there’s plenty of info out there on this subject. How old is the car and how many miles and how many main dealer services has it had if you don’t mind me asking? It’s a shame about these engines, I really like the look of the Audi A3’s! Out of curiosity, did the thicker oil slow down (no pun intended) the issue? How much oil is the car using?

Right. So you have been with the AA for ten years, broken down with them twice in the last 5 years, both times were difficult to get the money out of the AA but it's only NOW that you advise people (by dragging up a nigh on 4 year old thread) to stay away from the AA. I see.

I expect like BF says, you would have to take them to court and sue them for the difference between £12,500 and £15,000. I dont imagine proving the vehicle is/was worth £15,000 will be easy. Cars are worth what someone is willing to pay for them. I imagine what you may be better off doing is suggesting as a compensation for your inconvenience, that Lookers put you in a like for like vehicle at their cost.

Go into the garage with a friend filming you, not any of the staff involved faces, just you. Capture on film the garage refusing your payment and referring you to this FCE mob. Re-iterate on camera that you are here to pay for the fuel you used and you do not believe you have any contract with anyone else. I’d keep this video as evidence they are refusing to accept payment for the fuel and get on with your life.

I find it bewildering that Hillside haven’t insisted you get the van back to them for inspection, in the first place! It would probably take a good auto electrician a few hours to diagnose and either bypass some sensors or, deactivate then incumbent alarm and fit a new one to the doors and engine bay only. I suspect they think that you are suffering from “buyers remorse” and that’s why they are digging their heels in but they’re clearly wrong and this is abysmal behaviour from them.

And you haven’t answered my simple question. I don’t think this is an argument I think it’s a debate and would help anyone looking for advice, balanced advice rather than cherry picking the parts they want to hear. I’ll say nothing else on this subject and the mods will of course delete anything i’ve said that isn’t factually correct.

There isn't legislation that expressly states that the age and mileage of a vehicle will be taken into consideration. There is a difference between how law is written and how it is used. I've answered your question, please answer mine. How do you think a judge interprets whether to rule if a car is of satisfactory quality or not? Consumers coming to this forum should receive well balanced advice. Simply stating "Briefly as per Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 22 if you purchase for instance a new or second hand motor vehicle from a trader and within the first 30 days, a fault occurs, you have the right to reject it without giving the dealer an opportunity to do a repair." is not balanced, it gives people a sense of entitlement they are not necessarily entitled to. A lot of the time people don't want to hear the other side of the coin because it doesn't suit them to listen. They just want to hear "don't worry, you're covered, any fault take it back to the dealer and get your money back" Consumers should be encouraged to exercise their rights. They should also be made aware of the rights of the retailers as well. The CRA protects both sides of the coin. In the context of the 30 day short term right to reject it protects the consumer from dodgy dealers selling unfit or poor quality cars. It protects the dealer against those customers who have "buyers remorse" and think they can reject a car and get their money back for any reason. That's all I'm saying. At the end of all the debate, people should be given a balanced view. Not be told what they want to hear.

I’ve no problem admitting when i’m wrong!

It has everything to do with it. I quoted you some legislation the other day and you ignored it so i’m not sure why you seem so keen now. Let me put it another way. Part of the contract that goods must conform to, states the goods or services must be of satisfactory quality, yes? How do you think that term “satisfactory quality” is determined? It’s not written in any legislation so how would a judge rule on what amounts to satisfactory quality? What criteria would he/she use? On a used vehicle? It would be easy to see if the goods matched the contract in terms of “as described” for example a description of “great specification including sat nav” would be broken if the consumer discovered three days later, actually it doesn’t have sat nav! Fit for purpose? Well, does it get me from A to B? Allows me to get to work? That’s easy enough for a judge to interpret. Satisfactory quality. On a used car. How do you think a judge interprets whether to rule a car of satisfactory quality or not? Answer, he/she uses age, mileage and price paid. The only reasonable criteria he can use. And the basis of whether a car can be rejected under the 30 day short term right to reject is if it does not conform to the contract.

Would you consider a light bulb failing after 5 days to be grounds for a short term right to reject? This isn’t a loaded question, just foundations for answering your question.

I’ve just googled “Reverse burden of proof cra 2015” and this is one of the first results; https://www.geldards.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015---whats-in-store-for-traders-1.aspx They appear to be a law firm so one would assume they are correct.

If you read my post I said the burden of proof rests with the dealer from the end of the 30 day period to the end of 6 months. There is a reverse burden of proof within the first 30 days and after the initial 6 months. Age and mileage would be a consideration when determining what would constitute a fault under the cra. A fault is defined under the cra generally as “not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality, not as described” If you think that the quality of a 3 year old car is the same as a 15 year old car then good luck to you. It clearly isn’t.

Surfer is right. You have to deal with the finance company. They will make your life difficult because if they agree to take the van back (they will have to, given the circumstances) then they have to give you your money back and fight with the dealer. It will be their problem. Go through the short term pain with the finance company I think you will be better off in the long run.

Of course you’re right, a TV or iPhone could be handled and brought to the store. You can’t put a car in your pocket! Apologies it was a long day yesterday and I clearly wasn’t thinking, errr, clearly

What have the finance company said about this new development?

I’m happy to be corrected of course. I would have thought that as a consumer you’re responsible for returning your TV to Curry’s for a repair, or your iPhone to Apple for a repair, returning your car for a repair would have been the same?