Vehicle not as described, refunded, kind of...

[jubec]

Hi,

 

Looking for some advice/input/opinions on this little brain twister of a problem.

 

Looked at a vehicle on autotrader that was quite a distance from us, at the time transport that far was an issue. When i spoke to the dealer over the phone i waa told that the vehicle was 'mechanically perfect'. It was this statement that convinced me to buy the car. I paid a deposit by debit card, a large amount by credit card and the remainder by bank transfer. I then paid for the vehicle to be taxed with the credit card. I arranged transport and paid for it to be delivered by a third party.

 

The vehcile arrived the next day and it was dropped off. Upon inspection it was far from perfect, several mechanical problems with the worst being the brakes, the discs were so thin they were almost not there, the vehicle was unfit for safe use.

 

I contacte dthe dealer and started to tell him the problems hoping to have it repaired under the warranty locally. He stopped me, told me to send it back and he would refund as soon as it was in his possession.

 

I phoned the transport and arranged the return of the vehicle.

 

He arrived the next day to take it back and said that the dealer phoned him too and told him he would pay for the return costs. However i had a bad feeling this guy would get messed around so i paid him cash.

 

The vehicle was delivered back by 10am. No refund or contact for the day, or the next. I contacted the dealer and he promised a refund first thing, his associate phoned me late in the afternoon and the various refunds were returned to the cards. However he refused point blank to refund the tax and the return transport costs at £225 because the vehicle was 'mechanically perfect', he put the phone down on me. After failed contact and three letters no joy. ontacted consumer direct who said i have a case and that he owes me the tax without doubt, they have also said i can claim consequential losses under section 75 of the sale of goods act. After reading, i see this refers to credit card payments only, does this mean i cannot claim the transport cost as a 'consequential loss'? Also as a direct result of him taking 3 days to refund us we had to hire a car at cost, this is by nature must surely be a 'consequential loss'?

 

Couls someone please clarify if a consequential loss claim can only be made against the actual item purchased, or can it be claimed from the associated costs arising from the purchase of that item?

 

Thank you.

[raydetinu]

If you paid for an item in part or full by credit card and you have problems you can claim any loss back including consequential losses.

Notify your card company asap and give them all the details.

see section 75 of consumer credit act.

[jubec]

So you're saying that even though i have received the cost of the actual vehicle back, because the credit card was 'involved' in the purchase they the credit card company are liable to pay my consequential losses even though i paid for them in cash, paypal and debit card?

[raydetinu]

Yes if you can show and have receipts, that they are directly attributable to the original purchase.

You will need a paper trial to confirm purchase and what you got back and any discussions you have had with the dealer.

Any cash payments you made, will have to have receipts.

[Surfer01]

I think that the Distance Selling Regulations would kick in if the vehicle was rejected within 7 days due to it being not fit for purpose therefore they are obliged to refund "postage" which in essence is the return of the vehicle.

[jubec]

Yes if you can show and have receipts, that they are directly attributable to the original purchase.

You will need a paper trial to confirm purchase and what you got back and any discussions you have had with the dealer.

Any cash payments you made, will have to have receipts.

Ok thanks for the help. If the credit card company refuse to cover these costs or say they are not liable I presume I can still take the dealer to a small claims court and still refer to these costs as 'consequential losses? Because that's what they are, losses as a consequence of purchasing the vehicle.

 

Sorry another question. Do I have to do it the credit card company route or can I skip that and do the small claims thing. to be honest I don't see why they should pay money on his behalf, I want it to come out of his pocket...

[jubec]

I think that the Distance Selling Regulations would kick in if the vehicle was rejected within 7 days due to it being not fit for purpose therefore they are obliged to refund "postage" which in essence is the return of the vehicle.

You're right, I never thought of that, I guess the whole thing actually falls into the distance selling regulations.

 

Thanks.

[raydetinu]

That in itself will not necessarily make him pay up, however it can add strength to your claim when you take him to court.

you would have to write to him outlining your claim with the amount you want and give him 14 days to respond before taking him to court.

[jubec]

Have sent him two letters and texts, he has ignored them all. He has no intention of paying.

 

If I take him to court, can I still claim for consequential losses? If so would I refer to section 75 or would I not?

 

Thanks

[raydetinu]

No, only if bank has refused claim. ( section 75 is a claim against bank as being jointly liable )

[jubec]

Ok thanks, but I can still cite the term 'consequential losses' though yes? Even though I would not refer it to section 75, the losses are still a consequence of the purchase?