Rejecting a used car

Hello there dear forum users. I hope I can explain this well.

* I bought a used car recently, 2.5 year old with a fair few miles on it.
* Bought it on the basis that one of the major parts of the car would be fixed and I'd noticed it on the test drive.
* Garage fix the car and I pick it up
* On the drive home I lose control of the car and have to pull over. I put this down to getting used to the feel
* Put it in to my garage the next day and it is found to have excessively worn brake discs, front shocks are gone, illegal tyre with a nail in it and a puncture and a track rod end with excessive play

* I immediately stop using the car and let the company know I want to reject it the next day as it has been deemed dangerous to drive
* The company tell me they do not do refunds and refuse to do anything until they have it back at their workshop. They tell me I do not have any statutory rights in this case.
* They say they will be fixing the car then maybe, possibly, if it was extreme they MIGHT give me a refund. But that would be up to the director. That was the director I was talking to.
* I say I cannot get the car to them because it is not roadworthy.
* They tell me they would assess it but only if it came to them
* I offer for them to come to my garage and inspect it but they refuse stating that it needed to be with them so they could fix it.
* I ask again for a refund on the grounds the car is dangerous to drive and thus unsatisfactory.
* They refuse and say they will do nothing until they have it. They tell me I will have to go to court and if I do I will be without a car for 6 months so I should take it and get it fixed.
* I offer for them to send the RAC to the inspect the car. If it is found to be roadworthy I would pay for the inspection. They refuse on the grounds that they are not RAC members.

* I formally reject the car and then get an independent MOT which fails on the nail in the tyre and the track rod end. The advisory notes say it is dangerous.
* I ask the garage for a response and they say that advisories are advisories and that he'd asked 2 other mechanics who said it could not fail on the track rod end.
* I ask for the name of the garage that said that. He says it's not relevant.
* I ask what the consequence would be for them if they were found to be selling an unroadworthy car.
* They say they haven't got time for all these questions and a track rod end is £20. If I'd have just let them have it I could have had it back by now.
* I point out that they have breached one of the points on their own contract which states that the car is sold in a roadworthy condition.
* He replies by saying he wouldn't know about that as he is not a legal man.

Looks like I may have to go to court on this one on the grounds that they have supplied a car that is unroadworthy and could have caused a serious accident.

Any opinions on this?

Witch consumer said:

Court seems the best option, a simple a cheap process and I do know that sellinng an unroadworthy car is illegal. Who did the MOT and when? It is another option if you have a report saying it would have failed an MOT you can get them looked into?

Click to expand...

OK thanks. I've talked about this on other forums and have been told I am being difficult. I think I painted the garage in a far more reasonable light at that point. I know I'm within my rights to reject the car. I just have to put a strong case together for the courts now.

We had the MOT done two days ago, a week after I bought the car. This was to confirm what the mechanic had said about the dangerous nature of the car.

He would not answer any of my questions about entitlements to refunds. He tried to deflect me toward the shocks asking why they hadn't failed the MOT if they were so dangerous. According to my expert it's because it's virtually impossible to fail an MOT on shocks. Obviously that doesn't mean they're not dangerous. My mechanic informs me that shocks combined with steering play is extremely dangerous.

As I said he tried to tell me that the track rod was an advisory note. I told him that I'm not stupid and knew the difference between a failure and an advisory note. The failure is clear on the inspection sheet. The warning note about the dangerous nature of the car is in the advisories. He tried to tell me that that meant it hadn't failed. Obviously i realise that as long as he says it he knows he will put doubt in my mind.

I'm pretty certain I have a strong case here but there's always that element of doubt. Even though I have a mechanic on one side saying it's black and white and a solicitor on the other side saying there's no way he can't see me winning.

Just interested of course in others' opinions.