Rejecting a second hand car from a dealer under UK Consumer Rights Act
Dumb Coder has already given you a link to a website that explains your rights. The only thing that remains is how to execute the return without getting more grief from the dealer. Though the legal aspects are different, I believe the principle is the same. I had a case where I had to rescind the sale of a vehicle in the US. I was within my legal rights to do so, but I knew that when I returned to the dealership they would not be pleased with my decision. I executed my plan by writing a letter announcing my intention to return the vehicle siting the relevant laws involved with a space at the bottom of the letter for the sales person to acknowledge receipt of the letter and indicate that there was no visible damage to the car when the vehicle was returned. I printed two copies of the letter, one for them to keep, and one for me to keep with the signed acknowledgement of receipt. As expected, they asked me to meet with the finance manager who told me that I wouldn't be able to return the car. I thanked him for meeting with me and told him that I would be happy to meet in court if I didn't receive a check within 7 days. (That was his obligation under the local laws that applied.)
I am a carsalesman. Lets get one thing straight, we are not allowed to give people a better deal just because they pay cash, regardless of what some people say. That can be seen a discrimination as not all people are fortunate enough to have cash available. if anything, finance is better for the dealership, as we get finance commission and the finance company DOES pay us the total amount immidiatly "The ""guaranteed minimum future value"" isn't really a guarantee so much as the amount they will charge you at the end of the agreement if you want to keep the car. In this sense it might better be considered a ""guaranteed maximum future cost"". If the car has fallen below that value at that point, then you can just hand back the car and you won't owe anything extra. If it turns out to be worth more, you end up in profit - though only if you either actually pay for the car, or if you roll over into a new PCP deal. So the finance company has an incentive to set it at a sensible value, otherwise they'll end up losing money. Most new cars lose a lot of value quickly initially, and then the rate of loss slows down. But given that it's lost £14k in 2 years, it seems pretty likely it'll lose much more than another £1k in the next 2 years. So it does sound like that in this case, they estimated the value badly at the start of the deal and will end up taking a loss on the deal when you hand it back at the end. It appears you also have the legal right to ""voluntary termination"" once you have paid off half the ""Total Amount Payable"". This should be documented in the PCP agreement and if you're half way into the deal then I'd expect you'll be about there. If that doesn't apply, you can try to negotiate to get out of the deal early anyway. If they look at it rationally, they should think about the value of your payments over the next two years minus the loss they will end up with at the end of those two years. But there's no guarantee they will. Disclaimer: Despite living in the UK, I hadn't heard of these contracts until I read this question, so my answer is based entirely on web searches and some inferences. The two most useful sources I found on the general subject were this one and this one." It might be possible to sue you successfully if someone brought evidence that your brother was absolutely totally unsuitable to drive a car because of some character flaw, and without your financial help he wouldn't have been able to afford a car. So helping a brother to buy a car, if that brother is a drinking alcoholic, or has only a faked driver's license and you know it, that could get you into trouble.  A not unsimilar situation: A rental car company could probably be sued successfully if they rented a car to someone who they knew (or maybe should have known) was disqualified from driving and that person caused an accident. I've been told by staff in my local car hire agency that they get such big discounts that they actually make money selling the cars, so they replace all their cars every six months (in the UK the number plate indicates when the car was registered, in six month periods). This suits the manufacturers, because it means they can offer a lower-cost product to price sensitive customers, while charging more to people who want something brand new. For example, you could buy a brand new Fiesta for £14,000 or a 6 month old version of the same car with a few thousand miles on the clock for £12,000. This means if you only have £12,000 then you can afford to buy a nearly new Fiesta, but if you can afford a bit more then Ford will happily take that off you for a brand new Fiesta. Ford sell an extra car, and if the car hire company only paid £11,000 then they make some profit too. "Generally, a polite decline. However, I have dealt with sales people who take first refusal as a ""test"" response, and decide to go into the details anyway. The longer they talk the more robust my responses. See this Telegraph article that discusses why their experts think it's a ripoff, and why you should check your credit cards and home insurance policies as they may already have you covered (possibly UK/Europe only). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2820644/Extended-warranties-In-our-view-its-a-rip-off.html On a different note, see this list of questions to ask if you are considering going with the extended warranty. The source doesn't rule for or against the idea, leaving it at caveat emptor: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/technology/home-entertainment/accessories/extended-warranties/page/questions%20to%20ask.aspx" Not sure if it is the same in the States as it is here in the UK (or possibly even depends on the lender) but if you have any amount outstanding on the loan then you wouldn't own the vehicle, the loan company would. This often offers extra protection if something goes wrong with the vehicle - a loan company talking to the manufacturer to get it resolved carries more weight than an individual. The laon company will have an army of lawyers (should it get that far) and a lot more resources to deal with anything, they may also throw in a courtesy car etc. My grandmother passed away earlier this year. When I got my car 3 years ago, I did not have good enough credit to do it on my own or have her as a co-signer. We had arranged so that my grandmother was buying the car and I was co-signing.  A similar situation was happening and I went to my bank and took out a re-finance loan prior to her passing. I explained to them that my grandmother was sick and on her death bed. They never once requested a power of attorney or required her signature. I am now the sole owner of the vehicle. "Care to elaborate? It is my understanding that any asset can be rehypothecated at least in theory. By saying these car loans ""aren't"" rehypo'd, do you mean this is not the practice, or that there is a law/regulation prohibiting it?" "So there are a few angles to this.   The previous answers are correct in saying that cash is different than financing and, therefore, the dealer can rescind the offer.  As for financing, the bank or finance company can give the dealership a ""kickback"" or charge a ""fee"" based on the customer's credit score.   So everyone saying that the dealers want you to finance....well yes, so long as you have good credit.  The dealership will make the most money off of someone with good credit.  The bank charges a fee to the dealership for the loan to a customer with bad credit. Use that tactic with good credit...no problem.  Use that tactic with bad credit.....problem." A loan that does not begin with **at least a 20% deposit** and run through a term of **no longer than 48 months** is the world's way of telling you that *you can't afford this vehicle*.  Consumer-driven cars are rapidly depreciating assets. Attenuating the loan to 70 months or longer means that payments will not keep up with normal depreciation, thus trapping the buyer in an upside down loan for the entire term. They'll refund your money (though maybe with a small service charge).  I'm sure they regularly deal with new car sales gone wrong. "I looked this up on Wikipedia, and was hoping the answer would be ""no - stores cannot refuse legal tender"", but unfortunately, it's not the case!  If the retailer wants to go to the lengths of refusing certain denominations to protect themselves from counterfeit currency, they are fully within their rights to do so. The ""Legal Tender"" page on Wikipedia says this about Canadian bills: [...] Retailers in Canada may refuse bank notes without breaking the law. According to legal guidelines, the method of payment has to be mutually agreed upon by the parties involved with the transactions. For example, convenience stores may refuse $100 bank notes if they feel that would put them at risk of being counterfeit victims [...] What is interesting about what I found out, is that legal tender cannot be refused if it is in repayment of an existing debt (i.e. not a store transaction for which there existed no previous debt).  So you could offload your $100 bills when repaying your Sears credit card account (or pay in pennies if you wanted to!) and they couldn't refuse you!" That is horrible. I would contact your local news stations, local authorities, and demand to talk to the owner of the dealership. Get the story out on social media and do everything you can to put bad publicly on the dealership. Maybe they will see how big of a fuck up they made and make things right. Fuck those guys. Make sure I am reading this correctly.  You signed the car over to you BF, he took a loan against it and gave you the money?   If so, you sold him the car and any use you have had of it since was at his consent.  Outside of a written contract saying otherwise (and possibly even with one) it is now his car to do with as he pleases. It sucks that things are not working out in the manner you intended at the time, but that is the reality of the situation. "Ok, then I was not clear enough.  I will preface my explanation with some ethos sounding pathos: I don't know much about cars in general, and less so about SAABs. I was interested in following the thread and what you wrote, but there was a contradiction so I couldn't.  I listed the contradicting terms - including the possibility that the error was in my understanding of them (""Or am I missing something - am I wrong?""), and I addressed you since you through your husband has expertise in the matter and you are willing to share it here (thanks for that).  Simply put, the premises were:  From you: **Your car is well maintained.**  Assumed by me: Your (spouse's) expertise means that **you won't buy a car that is known to fail despite maintenance.**  **You bought a SAAB.**  So it should follow that *you own a well maintained, non-failing SAAB.*  But you also state: **Your SAAB is failing.**  (I'm a bit insulted to be called a prick for asking about that. Regardless, if you can be more specific I can perhaps offer help on how to maintain electrical systems. I have a vaguely related degree and work/life experience, however it depends very much on the type of system, its circumstances and your circumstances. Unless you were ""trolling"".)  The solution to the contradiction seems to be as given by redditor CC440, that I was wrong in my assumed premise, that you would and did buy a car known to fail.  However, CC440 insinuated that your husband is an idiot, I did the opposite. It's the opposite of idiotic to take a good deal. (Apologies for before-the-fact labelling ""$1500 with heated leather seats"" as ""cheap funkiness"", it was unintentional, and I don't know if it is offensive.)"