Thanks to 10110001 and Mooreda. Will check out these avenues this weekend. To 'Worn Down', no it is not VanMan. Sorry. Thanks again for looking guys/gals.

Hey there, is it possible for you to take alook at my response when you get a chance. Thanks.

First of all, apologies for not writing sooner. Secondly, apologies for the length of this response. I have included a copy of my final correspondence to the company (known as company xxx). Now where to start? From beginning, I saw the car via internet. Land Rover Discovery Metropolis Td5 84,000 miles, no previous owners, 3 years old. I phoned up the car company for description. Two salesmen tell me it is immaculate. One walks around car describing it inside and out. Other than a few stone chips that have been filled in, it is “immaculate”. We pay a deposit, and they say that if car is not in condition as they describe, then we get deposit back. My wife and I went up on a Friday. The salesman seemed eager to get monies off me even before we had seen car. We asked to see car. On looking around car, there were a few parts that showed wear and tear, but which the dealers did not want to tell us about. In the grand scheme of things, I let these points go. They were worn driver’s seat, and worn centre console. We asked for it to be started. On the engine running, there was a rattling noise coming from the exhaust. We asked about it, and both salesmen told us it was normal for a diesel to behave like this. It would stop after 15-20 minutes. We weren’t too sure about it, but as we had a need for this car, we carried on with sale. My wife enquired with the main salesman about a missing seat switch, and the salesman said that he’d order it direct from Land Rover, and mail it to us. He confirmed this with his manager (who gave me the rudest look when we went into to confirm this – I will need to have a word with him to ask the purpose of this act),and I left with this knowledge. Car was bought for £12,500 on May 11, 2007. Back in London, we showed car to folks and brother, and they all asked about the rattling exhaust. We explained as the salesmen did to us. On the Sunday, I used the car for a motorway journey. I found the CD player did not work. Also, as it rained hard whilst on the motorway, there was water leaking above driver’s door into cabin. The following week, I phoned up the main salesman, and told him of these issues. He said to get quotes, and fax them to him, and he will submit to his warranty company. On taking car to a Land Rover specialist, the head mechanic said that the rattling of the exhaust is definitely not normal, and that the exhaust manifold was faulty. This is what has now made me angry. By 11 July, another problem arises with the car such that it cannot pick up speed when on a hill. So, after my first fax, where I notified them of the issues of leaking water and faulty CD player, I now send a second fax which tells of faulty exhaust manifold, and injector harnesses needing replacing, which I have been saying were both present on car when I bought it. The fault of loss of power occurred within 2000 miles of driving. This is where the company has lied to me. They told me it was normal, yet it has been proven to be faulty. I want them to know that all 4 participants in this episode are guilty in one way or another. They cannot sell a car as “immaculate” and with a fault and expect to get away with it. This just is not right. They have totally ignored my first fax. I called for the manager over 20 times, sent 3 faxes, sent 4 letters, and all I have had back are 2 phone calls trying to make me accept half of the cost of the repairs from the second fax (his offer is for £300). Before these guys made any attempt to contact me, because they failed to talk to me, the car sat unusable for 2 months. Unfortunate as it may be, I needed the car in these 2 months as I had 2 very close funerals within my family. As a consequence, I had to borrow another car to attend funerals. I have lost out on insurance, tax, and with the repairs, it will cost me over £2000. After speaking to the director, I tell him I need car, so am going to pay for repairs to get it roadworthy. He disregards any talk of my first fax by saying that is an issue to deal with the other manager. He is referring to the manager who does not take my calls. Below is the final letter I sent to this company. I have spoken at length about my statutory rights, and how they failed me. Right now, I am in a situation where I need to get my money back. This is a car I need for my large family. I am deeply upset and extremely stressed by this. I had spoken with Consumer Direct who advised me about writing to them, and using a court of law as last resort. I am at that stage, unless you think otherwise. Thanks in advance. “ I have written this letter as a follow up to the letters/faxes I sent you on 10 September 2007 and 28 September 2007. Since my last letter, and following telephone conversations with you on 3 and 4 October 2007, I was told that I would receive correspondence from yourself. Since our conversation on 3 October 2007, I had spoken with the ‘consumer direct’ advice centre. They have given me advice about the different trading standards that are applicable, including my rights under the Sale of Goods Act (1979). I told them that Company xxx were in the process of drafting a letter to me making an offer. I was advised to wait for this letter before responding. However, as a considerable amount of time has passed, it is apparent that this letter has not transpired. It has been 5 weeks since our last correspondence. I did phone you to inform you of an email address and fax number, as postal strikes in early October may have hindered delivery of any letter. This letter is still to arrive. I do not know why this has taken so long to write. I am conscience of time, and thus, I am left with little option but to write my final correspondence. Should we not come to an amicable solution within 7 days of your receipt of this letter, I am obliged to forward all correspondence to a solicitor and will prepare for court. First point to note is that I was told that ‘reverse burden of proof’ applies for this situation we have. I feel that I was misinformed about the condition of the car when I phoned to enquire about it. With this in mind, I have told ‘consumer direct’ that I have already asked for copies of the ‘pre-sale’ checks carried out on the vehicle, and the quote from their garage stating it would cost approx £300 to do some work on the vehicle which has cost me £607. I have paid for this work already, and you are in receipt of the invoice. Secondly, as a precaution, going forward, all phone calls to and from Company xxx Direct will be made in office hours only, and on a recorded line, else via email or letter is acceptable. Also, calls made between Company xxx and myself previously (particularly when talking to the salesmen around purchase time) had been recorded, and should be available to all parties should the need arise. At the moment, I have not taken this route, but should evidence be required at a later stage, I request the right to call on this. The phone will show that a conversation with one of the 2 salesmen contains dialogue about the description given for the vehicle, which is far from accurate. There was no entrapment on this phone call, simply questions relating to the condition of the vehicle. Third, the requirements of the warranty company and my statutory rights (SOGA 1979) are not related, and I am raising issues under the latter. With the Sale of Goods act (1979), my understanding is that if a fault appears on the second hand car within 6 months of purchase, it is deemed to be present when the car was purchased. Please correct me if I am misinformed here. The injector harnesses became faulty after only about 1300 miles of driving. These would have been faulty at the time of purchase. I was told on purchase day that the rattling on the exhaust system was normal, but this was not the case. Since this has been fixed, a knocking sound is now apparent from the steering box. This is also a part that will need fixing as it has been present since purchase. The temperature controls are faulty also. Furthermore, with SOGA (1979), the following 3 points would apply (Please correct me if I am misinformed on any of these points) the car must be of satisfactory quality (even after taking into account age and mileage, the car is not "immaculate", and definitely not satisfactory) the car must be fit for its purpose (it took me to London from Loughborough, but within 1300 or so miles, it failed to drive at speed, and more importantly, within 6 months of purchase – the fault appeared in early July, thus lasting merely 6 weeks after purchase) the car must be as described (when they say it is in "immaculate" condition, any person using a car price guide such as parkers etc would assume that this is the equivalent of being in A1 condition - the car is not "immaculate") Taking each point above in order, firstly, I am not satisfied because a car I bought under the premise that it was “immaculate” failed to drive at speed after 6 weeks of driving. The number of faults has expanded since I bought the car, and I am not satisfied that this car was in condition that belonged to the age and mileage of the car, given wear and tear. More important is that I am particularly dissatisfied after being told that rattling of the exhaust is normal. This was definitely not the case. In appendix II, all faults have been listed, along with a degree of applicability and estimates for some of those costs for which you do not have an estimate already. Secondly, the rule that the car must be ‘fit for its purpose’ has been fulfilled in the sense that it took me from A to B (i.e. from the dealer to my house). However, after only 1300 miles of driving, the loss of power meant I could not use the vehicle for long journeys without using a high amount of fuel, and with major loss of speed on any hill (problem diagnosed as faulty injector harnesses). As this problem arose within the 6 months of purchase, I would argue that the car was not fit for its purpose for the 2 months it sat on my drive whilst I waited for Company xxx to contact me. Tax has cost £34.17 for the 2 months, and insurance has cost £848.67. Finally, with respect to the car being described accurately, this is most definitely not the case. I understand and agree that for a 3 and a half year old car with approx 84,000 miles on the clock, there will be some ‘wear and tear’, but as you see from the list in appendix II, some of those items cannot for sure be attributed by this reasoning. Through a telephone conversation, it was described to me as “immaculate”. On a separate note, the car was sold with a full service history. Its last service was on 72,000 meaning a service was due at sale time. The salesmen did not make any attempt to identify this fact. After I asked the question, I was offered an oil and filter change, and was told the service history book would be stamped. Appendix I lists the efforts made by myself to contact Company xxx’s management from early July 2007. The first call from Company xxx to me was made on 6 September 2007. Appendix II lists the faults on the car. I have not put a cost next to the item’s that I would consider ‘wear and tear’, however, all items where the fault is man made or the mechanical fault was present on the car at purchase have had a cost attached. I believe a resolution is only possible in 2 options: Option 1 Company xxx take the vehicle back from me, paying back in full the amount on the purchase invoice, plus insurance, repair and collection costs. Option 2 Having considered the faults in appendix II (concerning whether the vehicle is “immaculate”), Company xxx makes a settlement offer. My original faxed estimate was for the faulty CD player, leaking water on driver’s door and faulty hinges. These faults have been disregarded altogether, which is not acceptable. Why is that? Please respond to this letter within 7 days of receipt. Should this not transpire, I will have no choice but to forward all correspondence to a solicitor to prepare for court action. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Yours sincerely xxxxxxxxxxxx (Office: xxxxxxx, Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) Appendix I (efforts made to try to contact a manager at Company xxx. Records of all calls made can be collated should they be required. Main body of appendix I taken from letter sent on 10 September 2007): 1. 18 July 2007: Called for JS. John answered and said he would get JS to call me back. No call. 2. 18 July 2007: Called for JS again. Was told he was unavailable, and he would call back when available. No call made to me. 3. 24 July 2007: Called for JS. Megan took message, and I told her JS still not called me from a previous time. She said she'd pass on message 4. 26 July 2007: Called for JS again. Megan answered, and said she'd pass on message again. No return call made. 5. 27 July 2007: Called for JS again. Spoke to John. He said JS not in office today. 6. 28 July 2007: Called for JS again. Spoke to Gary and explained what I was waiting for. He put me through to Sam. Sam said he was assistant manager in JS' absence. However, he said he could not help me with my issue, as he was not authorised to deal with the warranty company. He said he would put a note in JS' diary to call me back on Monday 30 July 2007 (This return call from JS does not materialise) 7. 1 August 2007: Called for JS again. Sam answered. Said JS was unavailable. However, JS was close enough to tell Sam to tell me that the warranty company would only pay for the injector harnesses. I asked Sam to put me through to JS. This was not possible again. I told Sam that my cousin had passed recently, and I needed to go his funeral with my family. As this car is off the road, I told him of the inconvenience at me having to arrange for 2 cars to take us to the funeral, so repair was imperative. 8. 3 August 2007: Called for JS. Gary took message and said JS would call me back. No call. 9. 4 August 2007: Called for JS. Spoke to Matt. He said JS was unavailable, and that if I called him back on Monday 6 August 2007, he would put me through to JS. 10. 6 August 2007: Called in morning. Spoke to Megan, and she could not put my call through to Matt. I asked to speak to JS. After taking all the details again, she then tells me that JS is busy. Have asked for Matt to call me back. 11. 7 August 2007: I called for Matt. Spoke to Gary as Matt was with customer. Matt to call back. 12. 8 August 2007: I called again. Spoke to Matt. JS was in meeting. Matt will get JS to call me back same day. 13. 9 August 2007: First call today, I spoke to John, and asked to speak to JS. He was unavailable, and would call me back. 14. 9 August 2007: Called for JS again. John picked up phone again. He said JS would call me back before 6.00pm this day. 15. 10 August 2007: after speaking to John again, and telling him that JS has failed to call me back yet again, John manages to get my call through to JS. The first thing JS says is that I need to take the car to Loughborough. Even after I tell him that the fault on the car would make it extremely impractical, he still insists on this measure. I tell him I am not unreasonable, and that he should reconsider, or send someone to pick the car up. He does not completely answer this issue. He suggests that both parties pay 50% toward the cost. I decline. I ask him why he has made no effort to contact me even though he must have nearly 15 messages to call me. He does not have an answer for this. I find this an extremely poor level of service, and it has been extremely upsetting for me and my wife. He then goes on to say that he could do something for me if the list of faults was in writing. He says he has told me this before. To this day, I will swear in court or take 'lie detector' tests if necessary that no conversation has taken place between JS and myself, where he has asked me to put this in writing. In fact, no conversation has taken place between us since 12 July 2007. Apparently, the fax they had originally asked for is no good now. This is nearly 30 days after the fax was sent through to him. Why did he not call me to tell me that I need to send more information? Subsequently, I have to yield and agree to send him the faults in writing. 16. 21 August 2007: Fax sent of my query. 17. 23 August 2007: Copy of fax posted. 18. 24 August 2007: I called to check that the fax had been received by JS. Sam said JS was away from desk, so he would check my file. He confirms that there is a fax in the file from me from 21 August 2007. 19. 30 August 2007: Called for JS. Sam answered. He said JS was unavailable, yet he passed on a message that I needed to bring car up to Loughborough. I was puzzled. First, JS was to call me back to confirm what work had been agreed to. I could not entertain taking the car to him if I do not know what work is going to be carried out. Second, in my letter, and on the phone, I have told JS that the car is not in a roadworthy state to drive to Loughborough. Sam said he was just the messenger, and he could do nothing. I asked to speak to JS to see what the reasoning was behind this trail of thought. He was not available. I told Sam that my mother had passed, and I am in mourning. I said the need to get my car on the road was extreme. I told him that I was hugely inconvenienced earlier in the month when I had to go to my cousin's funeral. I told him it was vital that I speak to JS. Sam said he would get JS to call me back. 20. 30 August 2007: Called for JS again in the afternoon as I have a greater need for the car now. Spoke with Gary. He said JS needs to speak to another manager, and then he will call me back. 21. 31 August 2007: Called for JS. Spoke to Gary again. He said he'll check if JS is free. Gary tells me that JS is in a meeting discussing what is to happen with regards to my car. Gary also tells me that JS will call me back before 3.00pm. I had called at 1.45pm. JS did not call all day. 22. 31 August 2007: I receive a call from Ash - he says that this is a courtesy call just to let me know that my issue is being dealt with. He said that he would call me on Monday to discuss further. I said it was impractical due to the funeral on Tuesday. We had agreed to discuss at 10.00am on Thursday 6 September 2007. I asked him if there was going to be a definitive answer on behalf of Company xxx, and he said there will be. His final comment was that the car needs to be brought to Loughborough. I had told Company xxx thrice already that car cannot reach speeds to make the trip to Loughborough. 23. 6 September 2007: Called for Ash. Megan answered the phone. She said Ash was currently out of the office. I then asked to speak to JS. She said she would put me through. She returned on the call and said that JS was unavailable. I asked if he is refusing to take my call, and Megan said “yes”. After nearly 2 months, someone at Company xxx has finally told me some element of truth. Since 6 September, I have been dealing with Ash fairly regularly to be fair. We have had 2 fairly lengthy telephone conversations, but I find that I have to write about my experience as I cannot get my point across on the phone. 24. 28 September 2007 – Sent fax to Ash telling him of work done to car, and asking why he had not contacted me. 25. 03 October 2007: Called for Ash. We discussed the fax, and he asked why I rejected his offer of £300. I said it was not enough, and felt that his salesmen had rejected their previous offers of allowing me to fix car in London, and sending me a part for the car, and fixing the faults from my very first fax. 26. 04 October 2007: Called for Ash, and told him I had spoken to a consumer advice bureau. I told Ash that I had been advised of my rights under SOGA (1979). He asked me to confirm that this was the route I wanted. I said I needed to see his offer in writing before making a decision. He said he would arrange for this. This has been last correspondence. Appendix II (Faults with car): 1. Injector harness's need replacing (this fault happened in early July 2007 - and the warranty company were quite prepared to correct this issue) The following list of issues was not correct on the car when I purchased it, and this is what is being disputed: 2. The exhaust catalyst is faulty. This is the component that caused the rattling. Both salesmen deny that this is a problem with the car. When the car was taken for an 'oil and filter' service, I am quite sure that those mechanics would have recognised this fault and notified Company xxx (fault was present when vehicle was bought). I have paid £607 to repair faults 1&2. 3. The CD player is faulty (present when vehicle bought – Company xxx has been sent an estimate to fix this) This fault, and faults 10&11 were reported to Company xxx (to Matt) within a week of buying the car. 4. The driver's seat is worn (wear and tear) 5. There is a scratch on the door on the passenger side. 6. The passenger side wing mirror casing is broken (this is man made – approx cot to repair £140+VAT) 7. There is a crack on a lamp in the rear bumper (this is man made) 8. There are 4 holes in the dashboard (where a hands-free kit or something similar was installed - this is man made) 9. There is a large scuff mark on the centre console (wear and tear?) 10. Driver’s door leaks water in rain 11. Door hinges are bent 12. On the day we bought the car, we informed the salesman that the passenger front seat was missing the electric seat adjuster cover. He confirmed with JS, and agreed to order one from Landrover, and send it through to us. This has not arrived, 5 months after the car was purchased. (£20+VAT) 13. Knocking sound coming from steering box (£630+VAT using a reconditioned steering box. A new box would increase cost by £250+VAT) 14. The temperature controls are faulty. Other costs attributable to not having vehicle available to me: 2 months road tax: £34.17 2 months insurance @ £424.34 per month, total: £848.67 vehicle storage @ £183.00 every 4 weeks (so far 8 weeks in storage): £366 2 tickets to collect vehicle on 11 May 2007: £39.00 cost of fuel for a second vehicle (which I had to borrow) to take my family to Birmingham for funeral @ approximately £40.00 day’s annual leave from work to collect car” Please advise what you think. Thanks, gingerman

Thanks folks. Will get details on here over weekend. Enjoy.

Hello I am looking for a solicitor who has experience in making successful claims against motor vehicle retailers under sale of goods act (1979). If anyone can recommend such a firm, I would appreciate it. My current correspondence with the car dealer goes back to July 2007, and although I have called them, faxed them and written to them over 25 times in total, they have called me just twice, and are now ignoring my letters. My final letter was sent in Nov 2007. I look forward to your responses. Thanks

Simon, can you please send me the details of your solicitor. much appreciated. I am now ready to throttle the car dealer for non-reply (2 months since last correspondence sent by me), so I am presuming that only a court order will get them to listen. Thanks in advance.

Hello, I am having a similar problem with a car dealer who refuses to acknowledge or pay for work required to a second hand car. I am now ready to speak to a solicitor and take court action. (Can anyone recommend a solictor with experience in this field) Summary of situation: car is 3 and half years old, has few scratches/faults. Find that CD player don't work, it leaked water in rain etc. When I took this to a specialised garage to get quote, the mechanic there told me that I had a problem with the faulty catalytic converter. This was a problem me and my wife actually brought to the dealer's attention. The 2 salesmen told me it was normal, and it would go away after 15-20 minutes of driving. After 2 months of calling and writing them, I get the problem fixed, but now I am not getting any response from the dealer to reimburse me. Also, they have totally ignored the faulty CD player, and leaking water. Please send me a copy of the letter, or let me know of a decent solicitor. Thanks in advance (and well done for your court success - shame you had to take the long route - I don't want to got this way, but got no choice). [email protected]

Hey Van, it is for a 2003 land rover discovery, and i paid 12500. (the invoice reads exhaust manifold for the faulty exhaust part that was replaced.). it is a diesel automatic. regards

Chesterexpress, I forgot to say also that the CD player was only used when we got the car back in London, so I could not ask them about it. Also, the water leaking above driver's door only happened on the weekend when it was raining. On the day I picked up the car, in the afternoon, there was blue sky. Therefore, when you add the cost of these two items to the faulty exhaust (which I felt cheated on), I ended up including the full list of items to show the car is not "immaculate", which is how they described it to me.

Most of the items were disregarded as being 'wear and tear'. It is only after reading other consumer web-sites etc that I would consider some of them as man-made rather than 'wear and tear' e.g. the 4 holes in the dashboard, no one can say that this is from 'wear and tear' - at the time of purchase, my concentration wasn't on this as much as it ought to have been. As for exhaust, we did ask them about it, and they said it was normal for a diesel car, and would quiten down after about 10-15 minutes. As this wasn't the case, I then started investigating about the other faults in more depth. This is how the full list came about.

Chesterexpress, I did see the car before I paid the cash. I was aware of some faults, but what was annoying was that they refuse to acknowledge and repair the faulty exhaust catalyst and faulty CD player. They go on to deny that discussions about the exhaust and CD player had not taken place, which in reality means my wife and I are not telling the truth. The other faults, I can live with. Demon x Slash, thank you. I will take a look at this now and let you know what happens.

Hello, I was hoping anyone could help with a little bit of a situation regarding a second hand card I bought in May 2007. I have included as much fact as I can, so apologies that it is a long thread to read, but I would definitely appreciate any feedback......... I bought a car over the phone, and having spoken to 2 salesmen about it, they both said it was in "immaculate" condition. On seeing and buying car, there were marks and scratches that would definitely dispute the "immaculate" claim, plus rattling of the exhaust (which both my wife and I questioned) and this was said to be normal, and would dissepate after 15 minutes of driving. They also told me that if any work was needed on the car, I could get it done in London (the car was bought in Loughborough and I live in NE London). Subsequently, I took the car. On taking the car to a mechanic for another fault, he immediately said that the rattling of the exhaust was due to a faulty exhaust catalyst (and he noted how annoying the rattle can be). This is not what was said by the 2 salesmen. In early July 2007, I started calling the dealer to find out what I should do. They said to me to get a quote from a local mechanic, and fax it to them. I did as they asked. I was only concerned about 3 issues with the car (examine door hinges, a faulty CD player and leaking water), but when the mechanic told me of the faulty exhaust, I felt cheated, and so I added all the faults I could see on the car to the list. To cut a long story short, the warranty manager refused to return a single call of mine (20 calls made in total), and since end of August 2007, one of the director's has been dealing with me. It is now 3 months since I raised the issue. The car was not moving, and sat on my driveway for nearly 2 months. Subsequently, we have had the work done at a cost of over £600 just to get it roadworthy. I have not had any extra work done, which the car would require to be in an "immaculate" state. I asked them to pay the £600 only, and we can forget about the remainder of the list of issues. He is basically saying that it is the word of the 2 salesmen against that of my wife and I with regards to the rattling of the exhaust. Secondly, he ha snow reneged on the offer to let me get the work done in London. (He has made a gesture to pay £300 towards the costs of these 2 items only. He refueses to talk about the whole list of items, and says he is making a fair gesture regarding the 2 items. What he won't admit to is that his salesmen have basically told lies against myself and changed their story.) Having looked at Sale of Goods Act 1979, I am reading it such that allowing for wear and tear: 1. the car must be of satisfactory quality (this is what I am arguing for - the car is not "immaculate") 2. the car must be fit for its purpose (it took me to london from loughborough, but within 1300 or so miles, it packed up, and more importantly, within 6 months of purchase) 3. the car must be as described (when they say it is in "immaculate" condition, any person using parkers etc would assume that this is the equivalent of being in A1 condition - the car is not "immaculate") Also, I was told that if a problem emerges within 6 months of purchase, it is deemed to exist at time of purchase - can someone clarify this for me too please. This is the list of items that I am questioning: 1. faulty exhaust on purchase (dealer claims this is 'wear and tear', but we are saying it was apparent on purchase, so we did not cause this) 2. holes in dashboard (from a phone holder or something similar - definitely not 'wear and tear') 3. cracked wing mirror casing - is this 'wear and tear'. I say it is caused by someone's driving ability. 4. faulty CD player - surely they can provide evidence of checks being made on this system 5. long scratch on bodywork 6. crack in bumper - definitely man made crack 7. injector harnesses failed 8. scratched up centre console - again, definitely man made crack 9. worn out driver's seat 10. door are not sitting on hinges correctly The car was 3.5 years old when I bought it,and had done 82,418 miles It is very stressful to date. I do need the car. I have had work done on items (1) and (7), and sent the invoice to the dealer. They said their gesture is simply to pay £300 i.e. how much it would cost them to do the work in Loughborough, but they are refusing to acknowledge the other items on the list. Surely this must account for something. The director is telling me that it costs half the amount because they can get discounted parts and cheap labour. I have said to the dealer that I would forget the full list if they would pay for items (1) & (7). They seem to think that it is just these 2 items that we should be concerned with. This is not the case. I have asked for evidence of their costing and also of the checks made on the vehicle, but the dealer is not forthcoming in this respect. Does anyone think I have a strong enough case to get something back. I am not being greedy when I ask for full payment of 2 items rather than the full list (I am aware that a couple of items may come under the 'wear and tear' category) - and should I also include the cost of road tax and insurance payments that have been wasted? Thanks in advance for any advice.

Thanks Scott

Hello, I was hoping anyone could help with a little bit of a situation regarding a second hand card I bought in May 2007. I bought it over the phone, and having spoken to 2 salesmen about it, they both said it was in "immaculate" condition. On seeing and buying car, there were marks and scratches that would definitely dispute the "immaculate" claim, plus rattling of the exhaust (which both my wife and I questioned) and this was said to be normal, and would dissepate after 15 minutes of driving. They also told me that if any work was needed on the car, I could get it done in London (the car was bought in Loughborough). Subsequently, I took the car. On taking the car to a mechanic for another fault, he said that the rattling of the exhaust was due to a faulty exhaust catalyst. This is not what was said by the 2 salesmen. In early July 2007, I started calling the dealer to find out what I should do. They said to me to get a quote from a local mechanic, and fax it to them. I did as they asked. I was only concerned about 3 issues with the car (examine door hinges, a faulty CD player and leaking water), but when the mechanic told me of the faulty exhaust, I felt cheated, and so I added all the faults I could see on the car to the list. To cut a long story short, the warranty manager refused to return a single call of mine (20 calls made in total), and since end of August 2007, one of the director's has been dealing with me. This is now 3 months since I raised the issue. He is basically saying that it is the word of the salesmen against that of my wife and I. (He has made a gesture to offer to pay for 2 items, but then only 50% of the total costs involved. He refuese to talk about the whole list of items, and says he is making a fair gesture regarding the 2 items. What he won't admit to is that his salesmen have basically told lies against myself and changed their story.) Having looked at Sale of Goods Act 1979, I am reading it such that allowing for wear and tear: 1. the car must be of satisfactory quality (this is what I am arguing for - the car is not "immaculate") 2. the car must be fit for its purpose (it took me to london from loughborough, but within 1300 or so miles, it packed up) 3. the car must be as described (when they say it is in "immaculate" condition, any person using parkers etc would assume that this is the equivalent of being in A1 condition - the car is not "immaculate") Some of the items that I am questioning: 1. faulty exhaust on purchase (dealer claims this is 'wear and tear', but we are saying it was apparent on purchase, so we did not cause this) 2. holes in dashboard (from a phone holder or something similar - definitely not 'wear and tear') 3. cracked wing mirror casing - is this 'wear and tear' 4. faulty CD player 5. long scratch on bodywork 6. crack in bumper 7. injector harnesses failed 8. scratched up centre console 9. worn out driver's seat 10. door are not sitting on hinges correctly The car was 3.5 years old when I bought it,and had done 82,418 miles It is very stressful to date. I do need the car. I have had work done on items (1) and (7), and sent the invoice to the dealer. They said their gesture is to pay £300 i.e. half the cost involved, but they are refusing to acknowledge the other items on the list. Surely this must account for something. I have said to the dealer that I would forget the full list if they would pay for items (1) & (7). They seem to think that it is just these 2 items that we should be concerned with. This is not the case. Does anyone think I have a strong enough case to get something back. I am not being greedy when I ask for full payment of 2 items rather than the full list (I am aware that a couple of items may come under the 'wear and tear' category) Thanks in advance for any advice. :-?