Jump to content
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ReasonableRon last won the day on June 5 2018

ReasonableRon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Excellent

About ReasonableRon

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. My comment was made on the understanding that there was an option to attend in person, as there is with most 'normal' motor auctions. If not then I happily stand corrected. However, the site Terms appear to be clearly stating that by registering with them as a bidder you are declaring yourself to be a trader and not a consumer. OP did you register with them on this basis? * The user acknowledges that our business is that of selling used, recovered stolen, accident-damaged and/or insurance write-off vehicles and other used goods. * As such the user acknowledges that as a registered Trade Member you are a trader in such vehicles and/or other goods and, whether or not this is your first occasion that you are using our Services, you are purchasing all Lots with a view to your trade and with a view to a profit. * The user expressly acknowledges and agrees that you are not a consumer of our services, but a trade purchaser. As such you accept that it is fair and reasonable in all circumstances for us to exclude, restrict or limit (as the case may be) our obligations and liability to you in respect of the lots we offer for sale on behalf of sellers (who on occasion may be us).
  2. However Section 28(g) of the above legislation excludes coverage to contracts concluded at a public auction.
  3. I think that your view about a lightbulb being sufficient to render an entire vehicle to be of unsatisfactory quality may well be considered by most people to be 'unreasonable' and therefore would fail the test for satisfactory quality at a very early hurdle. See CRA Section 9(2). I also think that a split wiper blade may also be legitimately argued against under the same grounds, bearing in mind that they are both easy and cheap to replace. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to test this in court! Regarding the duty to inspect the goods, I agree that there is no actual duty.....however if the goods are inspected before purchase (and who buys a used car without inspecting it first?) then the CRA does not provide protection for faults that should have been apparent. See CRA Section 9(4)(b).
  4. Doesn't that slightly contradict what you said earlier in the thread about not being able to charge anything? I agree that the actual charges in this case seem to be massively excessive and probably easily challenged, but generally speaking if a firm can prove or justify what their reasonable costs are then they wouldn't seem to be in breach of any rules, or am I missing something?
  5. Not sure what doesn't make any sense about my post? I never said the OP took finance out, I was talking about the finance that the person (the fraudster) took out immediately prior to selling the vehicle to the OP. Assuming that finance agreement was indeed a fraudulent one then the decision in Hudson v Shogun Finance may well bind the court in this case.
  6. The issue that appears to work against you here is the fact that the vehicle was fraudulently sold so soon after the finance had been taken out, with no payments being made. This would indicate that there was an intention to commit this crime from the start (i.e. use the finance as a means to steal the vehicle). This takes the matter into different waters than if the vehicle was being sold further into the life of a HP agreement. Normally, providing you could demonstrate that you were clearly acting in good faith, you would be able to claim the rights of an innocent purchaser under s27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 however in this case the actions of the seller would suggest that good title to the (stolen) goods is unlikely to have passed to you. The HPI check is a sideshow because it does not make any difference legally to either the buyer or the lender. My only suggestion is to present your case as best you can in court and see what they decide.
  7. Sorry but from your description you seem to be pigeon holing GAP into yours/others experiences of it associated with historic failed sub prime finance providers, which risks having a very narrow minded and - if I may say so - evidently cynical viewpoint. GAP is actually widely associated with the purchase of new or nearly new cars - the 'return to invoice' variety in particular has nothing to do with finance agreements and can prove to be a financial lifesaver. I bought a brand new Mitsubishi ASX two years ago, paid cash for it, and bought a 5 year GAP policy for the equivalent of less than £80 per year. If the car is written off during that time then the policy tops up my insurance payout to provide a brand new replacement vehicle. Bearing in mind that after 4 years the car will have depreciated by at least £10k that is not some mickey mouse Welcome policy but done through a proper insurer and providing a real potential benefit. I get the fact that for whatever reason you don't like GAP, or maybe the firms you seem to associate with it, but I think that the advice provided has had weight added by your 'site team' status yet it could be potentially very damaging to some. Sorry I'm not meaning to offend by the way.
  8. I agree. It is dangerous for anyone on this site to give sweeping statements such as 'GAP insurance is useless', and I doubt he/she or this site itself would take responsibility for someone acting upon that advice only to suffer a claimable event the following week that ends up costing them £1,000's.
  9. Just for clarity, was the vehicle new when you originally leased it?
  10. I would have thought that the basic expectation would be that each party is returned to the position they were in immediately prior to the original sale taking place. In the case of a p/ex vehicle then this should be returned where possible but if that is impossible then the cash equivalent of the original allowance should be paid. That's why it is important to both parties to ensure that a sensible and realistic p/ex valuation is provided. Incidentally, motor vehicles are the only goods that the Consumer Rights Act allows the seller to make a deduction for their use if returned within the first 6 months (not applicable to outright rejection within 30 days).
  11. Without wanting to re-ignite what appeared to turn into some form of disagreement on another recent thread, I think that the opening post should also point out that the trader has the right to challenge the assumption that a fault occurring within 6 months must have been present at the outset. The following extract from the CRA is relevant here, which although partly repeating what is quoted above also gives the full picture of when that would not apply: (14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and © and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. (15)Subsection (14) does not apply if— (a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or (b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract. In other words, under 15(a) above, if the trader can prove that the fault was not or could not have been present at the time of delivery but has happened afterwards then their liability for remedy under CRA cannot be safely assumed. This is an important point particularly relating to the sale of used motor vehicles, where faults that were not present at the time of delivery can occur at any time. Whilst it may be difficult for a trader to prove that the fault was not present at the time, it is not impossible (e.g. if the fault would have caused an MOT failure yet it passed at the time it was sold).
  12. Not really any need for that when it is yourself that appears backing the wrong side in this argument. Have a look at this, which is the guidance issued by the Department of Business Innovation & Skills when the CRA came out. On page 40 there is a table showing who has the responsibility for what in the different periods following purchase. It clearly shows that it is applicable to faults present at the time of delivery. All the reversed burden of proof does is make the assumption that if a fault occurs within 6 months then it is assumed to have been present at the beginning, but the trader can rebut this. If suitably and genuinely rebutted, then there is no liability. If the dealer is liable for all faults that occur after purchase then why does this guidance make reference to them needing to be present at the time of delivery? Any success stories being relayed in this and other threads are great. They show traders exercising good customer service, but they do not mean that they were necessarily bound by law all the time. The problem with giving incorrect advice such as 'the dealer is always responsible for any faults that occur in the first 6 months' without drawing attention to the caveats within the CRA is that it creates the potential for someone to enter into misguided and potentially costly action.
  13. Chuffnut is 100% correct on this matter. Surfer01 appears to have the widely held but incorrect view that the CRA applies to ANY fault that occurs within 6 months, because of the assumption that it must have been there at the start. Yes that assumption is there but so is the right of the seller to be able to prove otherwise, and if they can do so then they are not liable. That is exactly what the extract from the Act posted by Chuffnut is intending to apply. A lot of the advice given on this site (and others) seems to ignore or underplay this significant factor.
  14. Exactly the same thing happened to my daughter a few years ago after a minor car park shunt. In the absence of any CCTV or other proof one way or the other her insurers decided to let the threatened court case actually go ahead, and the judge decided that my daughter was 100% innocent and awarded costs, compensation etc to her. In other words, this type of tactic is primarily to try and scare you into making a quick settlement. Any court case will be in the form of an informal hearing and regardless of the outcome it is for each insurer to handle matters on behalf of their client....that's what we pay them for.
  • Create New...