Advice on returning a van to a dealer

Does it fit in your garage?

It fits on the drive just fine!

It's a dealer, so you should be OK. Small place or big supermarket ? - The distance is the issue though.

How's it running now ?

My son had a couple of Caddy's with work, mostly OK although the Ad-blue failed big style on one and a cam belt issue on a hired 'replacement' went bang.

Have you spoken to the dealer yet to raise the list of issues?

I would be doing that rather than asking an internet forum

Oh and its a shame the you cant use the old 'it doesnt fit in my garage' routine 😉

Cheers, I'll speak with the dealer once I have the RAC inspection, I am expecting them to fob me off, so I want some evidence.
I might be overhtinking it and the problems are just minor.

If you've bought a vehicle from a dealer, you have the same rights as if bought from new. You have 30 days to request a repair / replacement / refund if it's faulty. Tick tock.

If they've swapped the tyres after you've agreed to buy it then it falls foul of "as described" under CRA, they should be replacing those (and frankly that sort of ****'s trick would make me want to send it back wholesale out of pique). Same with the things they've promised to sort and failed to do so. Kinda difficult to hold them responsible for a puncture though.

The 'noise' needs addressing. See above. It's deemed to be an inherent fault unless they - not you - can prove otherwise.

MOT is neither there. The MOT just says that it's roadworthy, not that it works.

Any T&Cs can only add to your statutory rights, not remove them, so this is likely also not relevant.

How did you pay for it? This may give you additional options.

I’ll speak with the dealer once I have the RAC inspection

No, speak to them now. Time is not your friend here. Also, they could argue "well, it was probably fine until someone else messed about with it."

If you expect them to adhere to the law then you have to do so also, you have to give them a chance to rectify it (or tell them to shove it).

I am expecting them to fob me off,

That's the second time you've said this now. Why?

Are you overreacting, or is there more that you haven't disclosed?

Thanks, Bank transfer.

Because of the distance & the because they have told the small fibs mentioned above, the inspection is Wednesday.

I had issues with my Vito this time last year. I gave the dealer a chance to fix it first and make it right, after that was discussed i said "OK, may as well just refund me"... It was really just that simple.

The distance is the issue though.

I stuck my KTM in the back, took it there and said "let me know when it's fixed"

This dragged on and they fobbed me off on a few bits, hence me just getting the refund.

I'd be right royally peeved/concerned they'd made the effort to SWAP TYRES after you'd agreed to purchase. Unless they'd swapped for 4 brand new tyres cos the cross climates were bald, i'd be properly concerned at that behaviour alone.<br />Don't get it inspected. Just get a refund and move on.<br /><br />DrP

I looked at all 4 tyres when I viewed it, they were all fine. They buy ex fleet vehicles from auction & probably have spare wheels from other ex BG vans kicking around.

the only issue appears to be a puncture (which is going to be hard to prove it existed at point of sale), and some noise (which the dealer should fix if it is an actual issue). if its a whining belt, it probably just needs the belt replacing, which is a small job and no reason to reject a van.

Buyers remorse isn't enough reason to reject a vehicle, the dealer has the right to fix things and give the van back to you.

the light-related light could just be a bulb on its way out - it might be pushing enough resistance to trigger the circuit but still light up. Figure out which bulb it is and replace it yourself.

Because of the distance

Is it a chain, or by "dealer" do you actually mean two blokes with funny accents and a forecourt? Ie, is there a more local branch you could take it to?

If you spoke to them you could ask them to advise. They might offer to let you get a third-party repair, for instance. But as above I would be [color=red]highly[/color] wary of letting anyone else touch it without telling them first. You haven't given them any opportunity to rectify the issues and, your reservations or no, this puts you on the back foot because that's the first thing they'll argue if you take the Legal Rights route.

(In a past life I once won a court case in a capacity as an expert witness for exactly this reason, the plaintiff took it upon himself to go to a local shop who didn't understand what they were looking at. I'd be concerned that as soon as someone else lifts that bonnet you give them an 'out' unless they authorise it or at best don't tell you not to do so after you've notified them. It might well be a bogus argument, but it's a potential complication.)

Buyers remorse isn’t enough reason to reject a vehicle

Correct.

the dealer has the right to fix things and give the van back to you.

Incorrect.

Dealer isn't responsible for the puncture, that's just bad luck and bad timing.

Mechanic mate who owns a garage and a colleague who was a mechanic both say it sounds terrible, it didn't sound like that when I viewed it. I'm getting a diagnosis wednesday and then I'll see.

Thanks Cougar, your advice is sound. I'll contact them in the morning. The RAC are inspecting, I don't think they will work on the van, I will tell the dealer thats whats happening & see what they say.

If I was in the same situation I'd feel pissed off that they had swapped the tyres over and also not rectified the snags they said they would. Would make me want to take it back so I 100% get where you're coming from. TBH I'd be on the phone tomorrow to the garage saying you want it fixed citing the issues above or that you want it returned. Don't wait for RAC, they may surprise you and agree.

If you go for fixing then I'd push for them to get a local garage to address the issues at their cost, to save you the time and inconvenience of a 400 mile round trip.

The warning light for the bulb/lamp is probably a bulb/lamp on the way out. Had it on my Octavia, it looked ok and worked but the warning light kept coming on. Swapped it out for a new bulb/lamp and issue went away.

Not driven a caddy but if it's like anything else VAG the infotainment system should tell you which bulb/lamp is faulty.

Dealer gets one shot at fixing it if faulty.   Or you can reject if not as described

Which magazine website has a really good guide

You say you're getting the RAC to check it - is that because it had a supposed RAC pre sale check? The van I bought this summer was supposed to have a pre sale check, but it was inadequately done to put it politely. The dealer gave me the choice of returning it for a refund, or getting a few quid (really not much) back. I took the few quid and have since used the RAC warranty to cover a few things that became apparent after a bit of use. But the pre-inspection RAC thingy seemed to have zero value, and the complaints progress just led to 'we'll take it back' rather than 'we'll deliver what you paid for'.

As others have said, I'd immediately let the garage you bought it from know there are issues and see what they say.

Please do.

IF I was a dealer and IF I wanted to be a git, I could argue for instance that, well, what good is an RAC report anyway? They're just failed mechanics who repair punctures, boost flat batteries and tow people home where they can get a real mechanic. Which is bollocks of course, but will be a complete pain in the 'arris if they decide to be obstinate.

Work out the lie of the land here, don't give them excuses to go "ah yes, well, but..." The tyres are low-hanging fruit because that's blatant, that would probably be my opening gambit.

Is it the same van?

Dealer gets one shot at fixing it if faulty. Or you can reject if not as described

Not quite.

The right of a retailer to repair in the first instance is between 30 days and six months of taking collection. Within 30 days you can cancel the sale if goods are faulty or otherwise in breach of CRA.

Is it the same van?

Ooh. Plot twist!!

Thanks everyone for your input, The reason for the RAC inspection is that I have RAC membership & they are independent, rather than having the mate who owns a garage look at it who the dealer could argue are biased. and he's awy this week.

I'm now rethinking the RAC Insepction, or postponing it.

RAC inspection won't tell you what tyres it had on last week - that's always going to be your word against theirs.

Puncture = bad luck. I think you would seriously undermine your credibility by trying work that into your case.

Puncture = bad luck. I think you would seriously undermine your credibility by trying work that into your case.

I agree, but it's a reasonable explanation for how the OP noticed the switch.

Just get them rung back up with your initial concerns 

They will either be understanding or cowboys whether you have an RAC report or not

And actually if you go back saying you bought the car and then decided to have it checked wouldn’t that be more of an argument for them to tell you to bog off? ie why didn’t you get the report done before you bought it and then drive it for 5hrs damaging every component on the vehicle 

Thanks everyone for your input, The reason for the RAC inspection is that I have RAC membership & they are independent, rather than having the mate who owns a garage look at it who the dealer could argue are biased. and he’s awy this week.

I’m now rethinking the RAC Insepction, or postponing it.

So (I'm starting to feel like a stuck record) tell them that. Get onto the phone tomorrow, say you've got some concerns, and that you've arranged for the RAC to give it a once-over because it's part of your membership or whatever. Just casually, rather than "because I think you're all bastards." You're thus giving them the opportunity to voice any objections, you can go ahead if there aren't any and they can't subsequently complain.

Oh, one other thing. Start writing stuff down. Who you spoke with, what was said, when. If it all does go breasts uppermost you'll be glad you started documenting early.

If the Firestones on the back are summer tyres that is a potentially dangerous mix. In normal driving ok. But if you are on snow and ice the fronts will stick while the backs will lose traction causing a spin.

https://www.goodyear.eu/en_gb/consumer/why-goodyear/winter-driving-all-season-uk.html

https://www.michelin.co.uk/auto/tyres/michelin-crossclimate-plus

cross climates are all season tyres 

But are the Firestones? Summers on the back and all seasons on the front is far from ideal.

A slight aside but...I bought a Sprinter van from a local well regarded specialist. It was high spec/low mileage and had originally been Airstream caravans. The gearbox had a rare PTO option which I had a use for.
Had agreed and shook on a price (chipped him down £400 to a round number). Made arrangements to collect following week.

Mid week noticed a Merc PTO gearbox for sale on his eBay account for £400! Messaged him and had a lame reply. He'd swopped it out for a 'normal' box. Told him to FO and bought a Transit instead (the Sprinter was better).

Don't trust anyone when it comes to car/vehicles.

Upon starting it this morning it sounds terrible, really rough and there is a noise coming from the aux belt,

the cam belt on caddy’s can frey then either jump a couple or teeth - causing a rough, clattery sounding engine before just snapping and causing a lot of sadness. - or just snap without the warning

I can’t bring myself to throw away the hanging-on-by-thread belt from ours because although it cost us hundreds that thread saved us thousands

really like our caddy for lots of reasons and we’ll probably keep it a long time  but wouldn’t recommend them to anyone and we won’t buy another one, or another vw.

The dealer is unlikely to pay another garages rates to resolve the issues. It's cheaper for them to do it, and they know you are not going to want a 200 mile round trip. It just gives them leverage to mess you around so I don't think I'd even suggest it.

Take a step back and assess things. You liked the van originally. Buy some blades and penetrating fluid, it's not worth the agro. Puncture, hard to stick that on the dealer but the tyres would annoy me and I'd expect them to sort that for you if they've been swapped after you committed to buy. If you hadn't put a deposit on it I think it's down to you to recheck the vehicle on the next visit.
The only sticking point is the noisy/rough engine, sounds like it can be narrowed down and then you can take it back for that specific job.  Electrical gremlins could be various stuff but corroded/wet towbar looms/towbar ECUs can cause these sort of errors.

It amazes me how far people are prepared to travel for bog-standard vehicles.

A rare classic car yep, I get that, but a van!!? 🤷‍♂️

It's a question of finding spec, miles, condition, etc etc all within a sensible distance.

My van was the closest vehicle out of about my last 10. But imo 200 miles isn't unreasonable

The right of a retailer to repair in the first instance is between 30 days and six months of taking collection. Within 30 days you can cancel the sale if goods are faulty or otherwise in breach of CRA.

Whilst true, it's up to the purchaser to prove the fault was present when he bought it. If it sounded fine when he bought it, and the light was not lit up, but after driving it the light has lit up and it sounds worse, it's difficult to prove the fault was there (the door lock is an easier thing, but may fall under wear and tear)

He's still entitled to the normal under 6 month protection but that does not give a right to reject.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights-aAnMC5b0ZzJb

Whilst true, it’s up to the purchaser to prove the fault was present when he bought it.

No it isn't. Within the first six months it is up to the seller to prove that it wasn't.

He’s still entitled to the normal under 6 month protection but that does not give a right to reject.

If it's sodded then within the first 30 days yes it does.

I am not convinced yo are right there Cougar - the which guide says:

I’ve owned the car for less than 30 days  <br />The Consumer Rights Act gives you an initial 30 days to reject the vehicle if it is faulty and claim a full refund from the dealer that sold it to you. Alternatively you could ask for it to be repaired or replaced.
In either case you will need to prove there is a fault with the vehicle that is beyond normal wear and tear, and that this fault was inherent at the time of purchase.  
After those first 30 days you have to give the dealer a chance to repair or replace the car. The dealer should agree to do this within a reasonable period of time, without any cost to yourself and without causing you significant inconvenience.

However an engine that becomes very noisy for an obvious fault in the first few days is clearly an inherent fault and the vehicle is not of satisfactory standard assuming yo paid a decent amount for it  a £300 car would be seen differently to a £3000 car

Update, Spoken with dealer, it was civil. the bloke I've dealt with said hes going to speak with the boss and call me back.

RAC cancelled.

Updates as they happen, I apprecaite all the responses here.

In either case you will need to prove there is a fault with the vehicle that is beyond normal wear and tear, and that this fault was inherent at the time of purchase.

Let me re-bold that for you.

In either case you will need to prove there is a fault with the vehicle that is beyond normal wear and tear, and that this fault was inherent at the time of purchase.

Ie, you've not bought it and immediately driven it into a tree. What's "normal wear and tear" on a car you've had for less than a month?

I know it's Which? but I'm not convinced that latter clause is correct (or maybe it's just not particularly well worded), unless there's some sort of exception here that I'm not aware of. My understanding is that when buying a used car from a dealer your rights are as new, and with a new purchase any fault within 30 days is considered inherent unless the seller can demonstrate otherwise.

I think I'd have to look at the actual legislation and I'm not sure as I care sufficiently to unpick tracts of legalese. 😁

Ie, you’ve not bought it and immediately driven it into a tree. What’s “normal wear and tear” on a car you’ve had for less than a month?

in the OPs case, a puncture. "resonsable quality" is also wishily applied to the goods bought, which might reasonably apply to the sticky lock (ie, I think you'd be hard pressed to reject a 5 year old van purely based on that)

I know it’s Which? but I’m not convinced that latter clause is correct (or maybe it’s just not particularly well worded), unless there’s some sort of exception here that I’m not aware of. My understanding is that when buying a used car from a dealer your rights are as new, and with a new purchase any fault within 30 days is considered inherent unless the seller can demonstrate otherwise.

as far as I understand it, the role of the buyer is to prove the item supplied was breach of contract. If it doesn't meet "satisfactory quality" (which is also slightly obscurely defined as something "a reasonable person would consider satisfactory" - so a 20 year old van for £300 has different rules applied to it on how smoothly the electric windows work compared to an ex-demo motor).

I think it all depends on whats actually wrong with the noise at startup. A slightly noisy belt (service item) on a 8 year old van is not something I'd personally consider to be unsatifactory (although a decent dealer would replace it when asked), but a blown bearing on a 1 year old van I would - it might even simply be the nature of having the bonnet open on startup (my newish diesel sounds awful when its exposed, the sound deadening around the engine bay is leaps ahead of what it used to be). The noise itself doesn't mean its rejectable - the underlying fault may.

It quite possibly is easy to show that this vehicle was not of satisfactory quality.  However you still have to show it

"reasonable" has a well defined legal meaning BTW with a lot of case law as well.  Something is "reasonable" if that would be seen to be so by the ordinary person - not someone with specialist knowledge.  The legendary "man on the clapham omnibus"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

Interesting points. So, yes. There is a distinction here perhaps between the customer having to prove that a fault was inherent at time of purchase, and actually demonstrating that there's a fault at all.

Hang on a minute - on practically every thread about returning stuff @Cougar has vigorously maintained that within the first 30 days/six months the onus is on the seller to prove any fault was NOT there. Are you saying that he is wrong and the onus is in fact on the buyer...???? Or is it different for vehicles...?

within the first 6 months its the responsibility of the seller to fix a fault or prove it was not there when they sold it.

Within the first 30 days the right to reject (which is in addition to the above) might (depending on how you read it) depend on the customer proving that the fault was/was not present when bought. Depends on who you google. I've sniffed at the legislation and can't see any difference in onus between the different time periods

Spoke to the dealer again this evening, they are recovering it Thursday. They agreed driving it back is a risk.

They want to repair and I am saying I want a refund, so we'll see what happens once they have diagnosed.

did you aske where the cross climates went?

did you aske where the cross climates went?

Does the original ad state it has cross climates or can you see them in the photo? 

If you can they've sold you a different product to what was advertised. 

Anyone that changes tires and puts crap ones on instead is dodgy and I'd avoid as they've probably bodged other things. Plenty of other vans out there. 

Just stay strong, tell them you want a refund. Know your rights and quote them. Also speak to your bank. See if they can give you advice. 

Although I think you said you did a bacs transfer 

Good luck

Hang on a minute – on practically every thread about returning stuff @Cougar has vigorously maintained that within the first 30 days/six months the onus is on the seller to prove any fault was NOT there.

Secondhand or new is the difference I think

New any fault in the first 6 months is assumed to be there at purchase.  Secondhand the buyer needs to show the fault was there at purchase

Another phone call this morning with the owner, pretty terse.

They are collecting first thing Friday and hopefully that's the last I see of it.

I didn't bring up the tyres, I have screen shots of the eBay listing, but nothing that shows all 4 tyres. The text did not specifically mention them.

The puncture is slow, it's lost 2-3 psi in a day.

Last year I borrowed a mates T4 and had 3 weeks in Austria & Italy. I've been plotting a van purchase for months and had lots of plans for trips, all pretty unlikely now. Used vans are bloody minefield.

Used vans are bloody minefield.

A bit yes... but you can mitigate it by going to known good places, or at the very least places that will sort you out if it goes wrong.

I used Anchor vans in Newbury, as have a few mates. (in order to give full clarity, it's owned by my mate). They seem to be 100% focused on making sure the customer is happy with the van, i've seen them sorting issues that really were not their responsibility just to make sure customers were happy.

Thanks Weeksy, I have seen vans advertised by Anchor.

Used vans are bloody minefield.

Or buy the Multispace / Life / Tepee versions instead. Won't have been ragged senseless by khat chewing couriers, faster on dual carriageway and cheaper to insure.

Case in point - my mint condition Berlingo Multispace had a full set of new Continentals and a tube of Steradent and in the glove box.

Secondhand or new is the difference I think

New any fault in the first 6 months is assumed to be there at purchase. Secondhand the buyer needs to show the fault was there at purchase

My understanding - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that when buying a used car from a dealer your rights are the same as when buying from new. To wit, CRA: satisfactory quality; as described; fit for purpose. The difference with a used vehicle is the interpretation of "satisfactory quality" - a satisfactory 1-year old car with 1000 miles on the clock would carry different expectations from a 20-year old banger that's been to the moon. In any case, I would expect/hope that any vehicle dropping to bits on the drive home from the dealer would fail this criterion.

If as suggested by someone earlier the various consumer advice sites can't agree on the details then we're probably heading into Test Case In Court territory.

The right one will come along just be patient and also look for ones that don’t come with a status symbol, you’ll get more for your money.

You’ve had a good outcome from the dealer.

Used vans are bloody minefield.

Prices are falling at last, I'm gonna sit tight and see how far they go.

I used Anchor vans in Newbury, as have a few mates. (in order to give full clarity, it’s owned by my mate). They seem to be 100% focused on making sure the customer is happy with the van, i’ve seen them sorting issues that really were not their responsibility just to make sure customers were happy.

I had a Caddy from Anchor vans. Was fine as vans go, only issue was it being on the same plates as another Caddy, which caused an interesting conversation when I got a parking fine in London whilst in Scotland. DVLA error apparently..

To be clear our Caddy was definitely legit and was duly inspected by VOSA.

Update, I have now been refunded. Thanks to everyone who contributed.

The issue was just the Alternator pulley, but I could not get the full service history, so it was not as described.

I need a vehicle asap and I'm going back to what I know and viewing Swift Sports again in the next few days. I may look at vans again in the future.

Don't get the Swift... have patience and get the van.. I have massive regrets for the number of years i've owned bloody cars... Vans are SOOOOOO much better for MTBers... Honestly... get the van.