Car rejection based on the issue of reasonable time and significant inconvenience- a success story

Under s23 Consumer Rights Act, the trader must complete the repair free of charge, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the customer.

But what constitutes a reasonable time and significant inconvenience? In law, this is not defined, apart from taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

Because of this, dealerships and finance lenders have come to believe that issues of time and inconvenience can be mitigated by simply supplying the customer with a courtesy car while the repairs are being carried out.

This was the central theme of the decision of Mann Island Finance to decline Mr V’s vehicle rejection.

Our Instructions

Stormcatcher’s Mr Philip Harmer, specialist automotive law and car finance lawyer, represented Mr V in pursuing a reject a car claim for a one-year-old Hyundai Santa Fe Estate 1.6 Tgdi Plug-in Hybrid with Mann Island and the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The Facts

Around 2 months after taking delivery of the Hyundai, Mr V informed Mann Island and the broker, Carfinance247, that the engine oil light came on and the engine, to all intents and purposes, failed.

Mr V paid to have the car recovered to a Hyundai dealer as he was asked to do, and they confirmed the engine big end bearings had failed, requiring an engine replacement.

With no qualms about liability, the dealership agreed to repair the Vehicle, but by May 2023, around five months later, the Vehicle hadn’t been repaired and Mr V wished to reject it.

Stormcatcher prepared a legal opinion in the form of a letter setting out the legal principles which supported Mr V’s rejection.

In June 2023, Mann Island replied explaining that it did “not agree that he has a right to reject the vehicle by virtue of the operation of section 23(2)(a) and section 24(5)(c) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).”

And

“We do not accept that your client has not been so inconvenienced, as he has, throughout this period, been provided with a courtesy car, free of charge.”

The matter was referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The decision

It was successfully argued by Stormcatcher that what is a reasonable time to complete the repairs is a matter of fact, and not contingent upon the availability of parts, etc.

On the issue of what constitutes significant inconvenience, it was successfully argued that because the Hyundai was only a year old, had only covered around 6 or 7000 miles and cost close to £50,000.00, it should have been a priority repair.

Instead, the dealership treated the matters as a warranty claim, under which repairs are not ‘time is of the essence’.

Additionally, Mr V had selected the Hyundai in particular, not only because of its hybrid powertrain but because of the specific needs of his family, which were not met by the loan car.

These aspects and the financial distress of having to continue to pay the car finance instalments resulted in Mr V suffering significant stress, anxiety and inconvenience. The Financial Ombudsman upheld the complaint and directed Mann Island to end the agreement, collect the car, refund Mr V’s deposit and a proportion of the monthly payments, as well as interest at 8% on those amounts.