Car reject after 3 months. SWS Car Sales refuse to repair. Court or Mediation?

[cool4ny]

I bought a car from SWS Car Sales, https://www.swscarsales.co.uk/  Cheam road. Epsom. Surrey on 9th February 2019. On 5th of April, the car brakes disc and pad went off.  I had a bad feeling about the car from the onset but been a novice to used cars, i thought nothing of it. I called them to explain the situation but i was told that i have no warranty and i am not entitled to repair or refund because he gave £95 discount. I sent a rejection letter and after two weeks i sent letter before action. He called to offer for me to pay £95(the discount) and he will repair the car, i refused since i am still within the 6 months. 

 

I took the company to small claim and they have replied to reject my claim saying i need to pay the £95 and they will repair the car, i have two quotes from two repair garage at a cost of £400 including labour.  To be honest, i dont want the car anymore because i believe they wont repair it to a good standard. Should i go to mediation or ask for full refund?

 

Defendant’s response
 

Quote

In the County Court Business Centre Online Civil Money Claims
Claim number:  Issued on: 4 June 2019 Response received on: 21 June 2019 at 2:11PM

1. Defendant’s details
Name SWS car sales 

Address:  ETWELLE HOUSE CHEAM ROAD EPSOM KT17 1QR Telephone 07548238192 Email swscarsales@gmail.com

2. Defendant’s response to the claim
Defendant’s response I dispute all the claim Why they dispute the claim

 

2.1. On 9th of February 2019, Mr XXXX  purchased from us (South west surrey cars limited) a mini cooper Registration number: GV08, asking price was £1995 and sold for £1900 as customer asked for discount of £95 instead of a 6 months warranty. Mileage of car was 134000 on the day of purchase.

 

2.2. On 5th April  phoned to report a problem with the brake discs and pads (which in general is wear and tear and customer had the car for 2 months already, however we was still happy to repair these issues with the car, but we asked him to pay back only the discount of £95 that we gave him and we would take care of all the repairs on our expense and to bring the  car back to us to carry out these repairs, but he refused that option and did not want to pay us back the discount we already gave him even though brake issues is to do with wear and tear and its part of service.

 

2.3. We are still happy to fix the car for him providing he will give us the £95 that we gave him for discount and put an end to this matter. But refund is not an option as it has been 4 months since purchase of car and not in the 28 days refund law.

Defendant’s evidence Letters, emails and other correspondence
We sent a letter to the customer on 18th may explaining the above to them and we spoke on the phone also.
3. Statement of truth

 

[BankFodder]

Follow the link to mediation and read what has been said there. Also there has been a very recent further discussion about mediation here:

 

You want to reject the vehicle and I don't see any way compromise so I would reject mediation  in any event, the defence they have supplied is rubbish and it amounts to an admission.

I hope you realise that after 30 days but within six months you are obliged to accept the offer of the repair. They may point this out in court because you rejected the repair. You will have to say that your position is that they offered the repair but only on condition that you contributed £95 to it. It was on this basis that you rejected the repair and then rejected the vehicle.

You will have to explain in court – if it gets to court – that they vitiated their right to attempt a repair in the first six months by attempting to impose pecuniary conditions upon it.

This would be a winning argument.

On the basis of what you have said, the chances of success are better than 95%. Also, it seems to me that they have supplied you with a dangerous vehicle within the meaning of the Road traffic act and you should play this up as well. When you have to supply your court bundle make sure you print out the relevant part of the Road traffic act which identifies the duty to supply vehicles in roadworthy condition and the fact that it is an offence not to do so.

In fact if you want to put pressure on the dealer, you may as well write to them straight away with a copy of the relevant section from the act and tell them that you will be bringing this to the notice of the court as well and that once you receive your judgement against them – as you surely will – you will be forwarding a copy to Trading Standards and also to the police.

 

Quote

75Vehicles not to be sold in unroadworthy condition or altered so as to be unroadworthy.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall supply a motor vehicle or trailer in an unroadworthy condition.

(2)In this section references to supply include—

(a)sell,

(b)offer to sell or supply, and

(c)expose for sale.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

F1(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[F2(b)it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person]

(4)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use of it on a road in that condition

[F3(a)]would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made as respects the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations under section 41 [F4or

(b)would involve a danger of injury to any person.]

(5)A person who supplies or alters a motor vehicle or trailer in contravention of this section, or causes or permits it to be so supplied or altered, is guilty of an offence.

(6)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the supply or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if he proves—

(a)that it was supplied or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or

(b)that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used, F5. . .

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/75

That might concentrate their thinking a little.

[cool4ny]

Thanks. Am really annoyed, i dont understand why he keep playing me when he knows am right. Thank you for the advice.

[BankFodder]

Keep us updated

[AndyOrch]

The discounted purchase price is irrelevant and unconnected to your rights under the CRA

[king12345]

What's wrong with disc and pads?

If they're just worn i don't think you'll win.

They're consumables and you had the car for 2 months.

Using the car in traffic would wear the discs and pads quickly and if they were just about legal at point of sale, they could be illegal now, no fault from seller.

They can sell cars with discs and pads near the legal limit, they're still legal.

[Manxman in exile]

21 hours ago, king12345 said:

What's wrong with disc and pads?

If they're just worn i don't think you'll win.

They're consumables and you had the car for 2 months.

Using the car in traffic would wear the discs and pads quickly and if they were just about legal at point of sale, they could be illegal now, no fault from seller.

They can sell cars with discs and pads near the legal limit, they're still legal.

 

I think that's a valid point of view.  What does "...the car brakes disc and pad went off" actually mean?  Could well be fair wear and tear.