The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 18-plate vehicle in February 2021 under a distance sales agreement signed by myself, as I was advised on the phone that I could return the car if needed, which is what ultimately enticed me into the sale. This is my first major investment, and I would never normally spend that much money on a vehicle before having the opportunity to drive it.
However, when the car was delivered close to my house for ease of offloading it from the truck, it arrived with a small (yet substantial) crack in the windscreen, which I noticed when driving the vehicle back to my house. I informed the business immediately and they said it probably happened when I was taking it back home from where the car had been offloaded, despite it travelling over 100 miles on the back of a truck to get to me in the first place. In fact, the crack would count as an MOT failure due to it being over 10mm in the area in front of the driver’s eyeline.
I sent an email to the sales manager to let them know about the issue, and they told me on the phone that they would pass it to their legal team, and that a response to my enquiry would “take as long as it takes”. However, after eight weeks and several follow-up calls, I have had no response from the business.
I had tried to return the vehicle to the business, but my rejection was refused on the basis that it had not been purchased as part of a distance selling agreement because I had viewed the vehicle. However, I had looked at the car before any offer or purchase was made.
As a resolution to my complaint, I would like to reject the vehicle and receive a full refund, but I would also be open to a complete windscreen replacement or for a “reasonable” amount to be deducted for the use of the car to date.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The sale of the vehicle was conducted on our premises, rather than being a distance sale.
- The customer viewed the car on our premises, and there were no known defects at the point of sale, as shown by the signed vehicle handover form.
- Therefore, we are unable to provide any award to the customer on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- In the case that a business has sold a vehicle at a distance, they have an added obligation to ensure the consumer is made aware that they are able to cancel the sale within a 14-day period. In this scenario, the consumer does not need to provide a reason for this, and all monies, including deposits, need to be refunded.
- The consumer had the responsibility to provide evidence to show that the business had failed to uphold their aforementioned obligations by refusing to honour the terms of a product sold at a distance.
- The adjudicator noted that the consumer had communicated with the business and organised the transaction, as well as the signing of relevant documents, via e-mail.
- In addition, an e-mail from the business in January 2021 stated that all the necessary documents, such as that relating to the vehicle handover, and the invoice, were sent to the customer electronically, and that the retailer had provided a distance sales agreement.
- This provided proof that the business had fulfilled their obligation to inform the consumer of their rights in regard to a distance sale, and that the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, would be applicable, as would the consumer’s right to reject the vehicle.
- The customer had indeed exercised their right to cancel the sale of the vehicle in February 2021 and, as the business had refused to take back the vehicle or provide a refund, they were in violation of the legislation.
- Therefore, the business was found to be in breach of the Vehicle Sales Code, and the consumer was entitled to reject the vehicle and to receive a full refund.
Conclusion:
- Both the business and consumer accepted the adjudication outcome, and the consumer then requested that, instead of rejecting the purchase, the business replaced the windscreen instead, but this was not agreed to by the seller.
- In light of this, the consumer decided to keep the vehicle in its current state and no further action was required, meaning the case was closed.
