The law allows you to reject the car within 28 days for a full refund. Speak to a specialist solicitor on a free interview basis if you are not happy googling the proceedure. Which magazine has a pro-forma on their web site and clear instructions.

But you may have scored a home goal by allowing them time to repair it.

Best of luck dealing with these sharks.

As above, a 16-plate written off car which was written off due to damage will have likely had a major bump costing many, many thousands to fix properly. Otherwise, the insurance company would have repaired it.

I think your comeback may be minimal in law. You have knowingly purchased a written off car which you have no right to expect to be of anything like the same quality as a "proper" one so your "reasonable" expectations must be very much reduced. If you're going to argue it was unroadworthy than that is a different issue and is nothing to do with consumer rights but can be a tricky argument to win.

I'f fully agree above, I'd have no issue with an old lower value car written off due to a scratch on the bumper as no one would have carried out any major repairs on it because the figures would not add up but newer cars which are written off are a whole different ball game.

Presumably this purchase was from a dodgy backstreet or 'at home' dealer, rather than from somewhere with business premises? So a night time visit to 'have a look' at the stock on his forecourt isn't an option....

That looks suspiciously like you are encouraging Arson or Criminal Damage.

Which would then be the offence of 'conspiracy to cause ... etc', and would see you in prison, even if the OP didn't act on your 'suggestion'.

Ever considered that you should think first, type later ?

That would assume that the OP has the competence to inspect a car, at night, and see badly-repaired damage, or that such repairs would be obvious at a glance - or by torchlight.

The fact that they bought the original car would suggest otherwise.

Rob's not in a hole - he knows what he's talking about and probably has more knowledge of the law than you.

The suggestion (even if tongue-in-cheek) to pay a night-time visit to the dealer's premises is obviously dodgy. And the excuse that it would be to inspect stock is ridiculous. "Have a look" is in quotation marks and therefore not to be taken at face value.

Are you a magistrate Rob? I thought the JP was simply the initials of your other Christian name and your surname.

But Bromp makes a good point. I taught law to accountants for many years and am still an examiner, and there is just so much greater a volume of law, in all areas, since I first taught it 40 or so years ago. And not all of it due to the EEC / EU.

Quite interesting. At the risk of going wildly off topic, would such a response generally require the individual to actually carry out the act, and then perhaps plead that they were encouraged/coerced into doing it by others? Presumably the tests of 'in the public interests' and 'realistic prospect of conviction' would likely fall some way short if nothing resulting crime actually occurred?

I would of course hope that the authorities might have more worthwhile places to track down dangerous online criminals that our very own HJ backroom! And I'm maintaining my defence, M'Lud!