Reasonable Ron has made some valid points that need to be added to this sticky, this thread does seem to have been born from a debate on another thread a week or so ago and it's worth pointing out a few things. The short term right to reject can only be exercised if there is a fault that is defined so by the CRA, meaning it is not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality or not as described. Age and mileage plus price paid would be considered here. For example, an electrical gremlin causing an erroneous, intermittent dash light on a 5 year old car with 30,000 miles with a sale price of £8,000 would not be considered a fault worthy of rejection. A shagged fuel pump on a 20 year old £500 banger with 180,000 miles on wouldn't fly either. A misfire caused by a head gasket failure on a 7 year old £4,000 car with 70,000 miles would definitely be grounds for rejection. It's not black and white and ultimately decided by a judge. In addition to this to exercise the 30 day right to reject a reverse burden of proof exists, meaning the consumer has to prove the fault existed on the day of the sale. This would be easy enough to prove if the circumstances were say a 5 year old car with 50,000 miles on and a £6,000 sale price and the gearbox vomited all over your drive. Gearboxes don't just give up so quickly. This reverse burden of proof exists to protect the dealer from "buyers remorse" consumers, who could in theory return the car for any minor reason in order to get a refund if they decided they didn't like the colour of the car anymore. Between day 30 and the end of 6 months period the burden of proof rests with the dealer to prove the fault was not present at the point of sale as per the provision Reasonable Ron has highlighted above and what I highlighted on the other thread last week. As Surfer pointed out, this can be difficult to do, a car has a million components which are more or less all gradually failing so it's hard for the dealer to prove the fault wasn't present at the point of sale. Again however, age, mileage and price paid will be factored in to any court decision. If you have bought a vehicle for £1,500, with 120,000 miles on and 4 months and 4,000 miles later the fuel injectors fail, you'd expect a dealer to be able to demonstrate to a judge that the car did not have any issues with the injectors at the point of sale, indeed 4,000 miles have been travelled and in any case, 120,000 miles had been travelled prior to that! In another thread, a fellow forumite had been in possession of his car for 5 months and the windscreen washers had stopped working. Again it would be easy for a dealer to demonstrate that for 5 months the windscreen wash was working perfectly well so it would be highly improbable that the fault was present at the point of sale. After 6 months, the reverse burden of proof returns where the liability falls on the consumer to prove that the fault existed at the point of sale. The act is there to protect the consumer against unscrupulous dealers selling faulty cars and getting away with it. It's not there to protect the consumer from all repair bills or expected maintenance on their cars, when considering the age, mileage and price paid. People should make sure they exercise their rights and take unscrupulous dealers to task but they should also be aware of the nuances of the CRA and not be given a false sense of security that a court will favour them under any circumstance. Good thread, Surfer.

The consumer is entitled to the trade in value of the vehicle if it is not possible to rewind the deal and put everyone back to where they started.

Actually, you would be responsible for the costs in bringing the car to the supplying dealer for a repair. The dealer would have to bear reasonable costs to retrieve the vehicle in the event of them accepting your rejection and right to refund. That all seems rather academic now, anyway. You started out by doing the right thing by just rejecting the car and sending the LBA and you should have just pursued them through the courts for your refund which as said above, you would have had a very high chance of receiving.

A risky proposition, there could be nothing wrong with it that allows the OP to reject it!

I mean, I could probably pull out some extracts of the written law but there seems to be little point round here. They just get overlooked and conveniently ignored anyway.

There isn’t any legislation that allows you to break a contract. Had OP paid in full the dealer wouldn’t have had to give him his money back either.

No. OP has entered a contract, of which it states the deposit is non refundable and OP has broken the contract.

I don't think so? Just a debate. Ok, some of it may be a bit cutting (i'm on the receiving end of some of it) but we're all grown ups surely.

Actually, the crucial point is the proof that the fault either existed or did not, when the car was sold. As ReasonableRon has stated, whether certain people like it or not, the fact of the matter remains that if it can be proved that on the day the goods were sold that they conformed to the contract (that mainly meaning, fit for purpose, of satisfactory quality) then the retailer has no liability whatsoever. It's an uncomfortable truth that some people seem to try and gloss over. Of course, the good news for us the consumer is that in most cases it's very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fault wasn't there at the point of sale. In Surfers case on the AC condenser leaking, unless the retailer had it written and signed by Surfer that the condenser wasn't leaking, he can't otherwise prove it wasn't, so he has clearly realised he'd be on the wrong side of the fence and has paid up. But in the case of the OP, the dealer wouldn't necessarily need to have anything written and signed, it could easily be argued the windscreen washer worked on the day of the sale (as it has been working for several months) and thus the contract requirements would be satisfied. A lot of this all comes down to interpretation, there's a load of grey areas in cars especially and you can rarely apply black and white law to grey circumstances. Age, mileage, price paid, various components wearing quicker than others etc. If you feel like you can win at a small claims court, you pays yer money and takers yer chances. But I think people on this forum and others need to be given the truth of the matter not just something they want to hear. Advice like "you're entitled to a repair within the first 6 months" doesn't tell the accurate truth.

Great news OP. The garage clearly values you as a customer, you have brought work to them and in exchange they have helped out on a separate issues they didn’t need to. Good customer service i’d say and no need for any swords to be unsheathed!

I’ve pointed out where I think you’re wrong, care to do the same for me?

Surfer, you are again slightly off with your comments here. Wear and tear doesn't begin from when a consumer buys a used car! It begins from when the car is first purchased and driven from new! The windscreen washer motor in this instance was worn by 8 years of use not the last 6 months, hot summers have nothing to do with this. You still haven't commented on my post above regarding the actual provisions within the CRA that clearly state the retailer isn't liable for repairs within the 6 month period if it can be confirmed the goods conformed to the contract on the day of the sale. The windscreen washer motor was working, as confirmed by the OP, worked for several months and now it doesn't. Under the CRA provisions I have highlighted above it would be easy for the retailer to convince a judge of the fact the windscreen washers have worked for several months without complaint and the goods conformed to the contract on the day of their sale, thus meeting the criteria set out in the law and no liability is owed. Perhaps it is best that you don't contribute to this thread anymore as stating that a retailer HAS to fix ANY fault within the first 6 months "it's the law" and failure to do so may be a criminal offence, is wrong advice and it gives people a sense of empowerment they may not actually have. Dodgy dealers should be taken to task but there's no point in advising people of something that simply isn't correct.

You're seemingly taking this personally Surfer, I think we're all here to help each other where we can. I have no idea on your personal circumstances of course and I'm glad you managed to get your rewards for standing up for yourself, good for you but the simple fact is that to say that a retailer has to provide a repair, ANY repair at ANY point during the first 6 months and if they don't you can reject the vehicle is just plain old wrong. It's written in black and white in the CRA 2015, as I have highlighted above. You can't just ignore parts of the law. If the OP went down the route of demanding a repair and taking the garage to court if they refused then there is a significant chance the OP would lose. It's not as simple as you make out.

I don't dispute the 6 month period at all mate, are we saying though that we are ignoring sections of the CRA though? What do you think of the sections I have posted above?

Hi Surfer01 I'm pretty au fait with the CRA, I certainly don't claim to know everything but under Chapter 2, provision 19 of the act, section 14 and 15 state; (14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and © 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. I believe this is where the burden of proof arises from. What the act is saying here is if there is a fault with the goods within 6 months it is assumed the fault was there all along, unless it's established the fault wasn't, i.e. the dealer can prove the fault wasn't there. You're suggesting that a retailer has to fix ANY fault, no matter what the circumstances. I don't believe this is correct because of provision 19. For clarity, the above refers to 3 (b) and © and 4 which state; 3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are— (a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22); (b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and ©the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24). (4)If the goods do not conform to the contract under section 15 or because of a breach of requirements that are stated in the contract, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are— (a)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and (b)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24). Sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 refer to what is described as a breach of the contract (i.e. Not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality etc) I don't believe I have interpreted this incorrectly, I believe that all of the above is where the advice repeatedly offered across the internet that "it's up to the dealer to prove the fault wasn't there at the point of sale" is drawn from. It isn't as simple as just saying that a retailer (the car dealer) has to fix ANY fault within the first 6 months, carte blanche and if they refuse, you can reject the car. I'm interested in your opinion on all of this of course, as I think a lot of the CRA can be down to interpretation!

Ok, well then I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you are asking when you say "What about my old car as part-exchange??? ...as it was part of the deal as well....." There is no longer a deal, as you are cancelling the contract, so your part exchange vehicle is neither here nor there? Sorry I might be misunderstanding you..

Perhaps just an email from them then, confirming that they will destroy the personal data they hold on you in line with their GDP policy (which all businesses should have) Regarding the part exchange vehicle, did you leave that with the garage then?

GDPR demands that organisations hold only the data that is relevant to their dealings with you, more or less. In other words the data they currently hold for you is relevant as you were buying a car from them. If that is no longer the case, they will have to destroy any data that isn't relevant to their dealings with you, which they probably will do. But writing a letter to them demanding they do is a little academic, as you won't actually know if they have or they haven't destroyed the data. I don't know what you're expecting to achieve with such a letter, it will more than likely just end up thrown straight in their bin.

DSR then, basically.

Well quite. But I suppose what we are trying to do here is be realistic and the reality is that the dealership "could" return the deposit but don't "have" to. Well worth being a pest for a while though I'd say, they may give in if OP refuses to go away! The fact they have mentioned solicitors already suggests they are not going to give in

Probably a bit harsh on the dealer, he thought he had a sale and now he doesn't. OP can change his mind of course but people shouldn't be allowed to break contracts with no reprisals whatsoever, imo.

I think judging by what the OP has said, he has signed a contract stating that the deposit is non refundable? That's how I read it anyways.. "No it does not say that has been signed on the premises.........but on the bottom of the paper signed it says a £300 deposit is non-refundable"

This is muddied a little because you have been dealing with the garage, not the finance company. Technically the first fault was fixed, there was a few months where the van was fine and now you have a "new problem" which is new unless you can prove it is directly related to the first issue. So because this latest problem is "new" or at least it "could" be new, the garage technically have the right to a repair. I know you just want to get rid of this van and garage, pay your finance off and move on but this is messy and not black and white. I think you do need to put in a complaint with the finance company and just deal with them from now on. it must be doing your head in having to deal with the garage.

Are you sure this is correct? The OP has entered into a contract to buy something, he has subsequently changed his mind and cancelled the contract, the dealer has decided to keep his money. Where does the 14 day cooling off period come from? I know that with finance companies you have 14 days to cancel the finance however you are still liable to pay the finance company the full balance if you do so. So where does the 14 day cooling off period with regards to the sale of the vehicle come from? Thanks.

This isn't entirely correct. If the fault was present at the point of sale, the consumer has the right to a repair within that time period. It's up to the dealer to prove it wasn't there as it's otherwise assumed to be present at the point of sale. However, in this instance I would say it would be fairly easy to convince a judge that this was not a fault present at the point of sale, as it's something that does not break down gradually. It's either working, or it's not. It was, now it's not. Of course, depending on the judge, he may be convinced that the washer motor is something complicated, full of moving parts and liable to break down gradually and it was failing at the point of sale and beyond but that seems unlikely. I think it's best to follow Eric's advice and try and get some goodwill. If you're suggesting the OP takes the garage to task and tries to go down the rejection route, there's a significant chance the OP will be very disappointed.