We were agents many years ago for Santana which are now owned by Iveco. We had a customer who's fuel pump failed with 2 months left on the original vehicle warranty. Approximately 4 months later the pump failed again (we strongly believe it was the customer using contaminated fuel from his own tank). Anyway as the vehicle was now out of warranty we contacted santana explaining the situation. We were told even if the pump had failed at only 1 day outside of manufacturer warranty they wouldn't replace even though it was a new pump. The customer sought legal advice and was advised that he had no comeback at this point. Using this scenareo I'd say you need do no more.

Sam you will find the period of time at which point a person can reject a car has not been dictated in law. For instance the car may of travelled 500 miles in that 4 days. The seller may well agree to refund but could argue that in 500 miles the OP had opportunity to discover any major faults. But it is a grey area as to specifics in law and does need clearer guidance from SOGA.

azza, Just because I am not giving you the response you would like to hear doesn't mean I'm wrong. You are more than welcome to ignore my (correct)interpretation of the law. You will find out the truth if you do decide to take it to court. -- Edited -- by Conniff

Looking through the DSR regulations. You can only use your right to cancel if the insurance hasn't actually started. If it has you then have to adhere to the insurers cancellation policy.

Just had a look at budgets website. Next to the drop box for the length of NCB is a '?' press that and it tells you what requirements there are to use your NCB. Sorry OP but they are correct.

Sam, what qualifications in consumer law do you have? In particular law pertaining to used vehicle sales. I have both studied it at college and since tried to keep up to date with the current legislation as it related to my day to day living. PS the court isn't concerned in its fitness for fish (porpoise).

a contract entered into must be based upon information supplied by both parties and I have not supplied any false information to the insurance compan In their eyes you have, they asked you if you had NCB, You said yes. It turned out you hadn't when asked for proof.

I didn't think DSR's applied to non physical things such as insurances. Sorry OP but I'd of thought most people know you cant carry your NCB on more than 1 policy. I'd say they have the right to charge a cancellation fee as you gave the incorrect information. Ignorance isn't considered an excuse in terms of law. I think you probably knew this too when you were using NCB from a policy of 3 years ago.

I agree helios in that if I had been the tester it would of failed. But as the MOT system is computerised and requires a categorisation as you have put above. If the system allows the tester to put 5.2 in the advisory print system it must be ok. Unless another tester were to inspect the vehicle and say it categorically is unroadworthy due to this fault, you cannot claim the car wasn't fit for purpose.

You must first give him a chance to repair the car for you. You cannot automatically reject the car. You can expect a loan car while yours is being repaired. Most reputable traders will do this for you.

Rightly or wrongly conniff, It is up to the court to decide if the fault stopped the car being of merchantable value. They use SOGA's outline of what could reasonably be expected given the age, miles and price. The SOGA specifically states: Satisfactory quality is defined as what a ‘reasonable person’ would regard as acceptable, and takes into account factors such as price paid, fitness for purpose specified, appearance and finish, freedom from minor blemishes, safety and durability Now personally using what I have saw and learnt from other traders, in a sub £1k car unless the brakes weren't of roadworthy standard at the time of sale the trader has done no wrong. By and large a buyer of this age of car can only expect it to start go and stop. Which I assume it is doing. The judge at the court if it got that far, would ask what price the car was new eg £11k, look at it being now a £1k car and work on the assumption that it will be 90% worn out. Yes the trader likely knew of the leak, hence why he advised the buyer to inspect the car. By doing this he mitigates his responsibility. This IS written down in law. I'm sorry if you feel my discouraging the OP to pursue it is wrong. But do understand I am talking from a viewpoint of genuine knowledge. I do believe the OP will find himself further out of pocket pursuing this. Again yes the motor trade gets a bad reputation at times. Often unfairly I think. In most of these cases it is those who have bought the cheapest cars. If you aren't sure of a car, get an inspection done. In the same way you wouldn't buy a house without a survey.

Incorrect, if it had made the car unroadworthy then the MOT tester would of put it of failed it at the time of test not given an advisory. Sam you obviously have some form of learning disability. An advisory 10 months ago has no bearing on the car being of merchantable quality at the time of sale. There is a massive difference between merchantable quality in a new and a 10 year old used car.

Scania, partly due to scrappage schemes and a decrease in the regularity of fleet managers of large companies changing their cars. The price of desirable used cars has risen pretty much month on month for the last 2 years. Personally I dont subrcribe to some of the valuations currently given in the trade price guides. I personally try to buy right and turn a car over at a small margin. To give an example of current valuations. A mid range petrol clio is worth £100 more today trade & retail than it was in August last year. Thats according to the current and oldest cap black books I have. Sadly the main dealers are not training their staff in the product they are selling, they are trained to sell warranties and finance. My tip when looking for a car is to find an independant garage you trust and ask them to source a vehicle for you.

well said post. Pay the buggers enough.

The garage is correct OP. They do have a duty of care not to cause damage while working on your car and to ensure it is secured using the vehicles locks when unnatended. They dont however have to cover for damage not caused by themself providing they have the normal disclaimer signs. You will have to pay them for the work as they have done what you requested they do. In fairness to the garage, if it was taken in requiring a new engine it is safe to assume the engine was fitted if it was driven from their site. You will have to go through your own insurance. They will enquire about how the garage secured the car and if it wasn't secured they will pursue their insurer.

The trader wants to sell the car as much as you want to buy. I assume you have the balance to pay? If when you go to collect the car isn't up to standard then dont hand over the balance until it is. No reason why it shouldn't be ok.

Well if you have a receipt saying you have paid in full, it would look like you owe no more. Did you know you owed the £220? If not I'd say forget it.

It would only have any bearing if the MOT test had been carried out by the trader involved & only if that test had just taken place. Irrespective if the fault was present or not at the point of sale Sam, the buyer was given the opportunity to inspect, did so and confirmed to himself the vehicle was to his satisfaction. Now as the servo unit is bolted onto the bulkhead. It would be fair to assume the noise would be louder from inside the engine bay. To get any recourse he would have to prove the vehicle was non roadworthy when he bought it. Having an existing fault does not automatically mean it wasn't of merchantable quality at the time of sale as it was an old and cheap used car.

Scania the quotes I give are for 2-3 years ago. Most of us up here in Scotland are doing ok but margins are well down. Really depend on the trade in to turn a profit. As you say the stock prices are actually rising. Just begining to level out a bit last couple of months. Finding clean merchantable stock is a problem unless you pay strong money. Apologies popeye wrote that wrong. She went in with no trade in and got quoted £11k to buy a new van, I went with her and got that same brand new van for just over £7k. That wasn't using trade sales or anything full retail.

Well said scania, It is well known that towards the end of the manufacturers warranty period, by and large the only things still covered are the engine and box. I also totally agree that the biggest complaints about cars are nearly ALWAYS about near end of life cars. This is why SOGA limits what the trader is expected to cover as the vehilce is older, cheaper or has covered more miles. While you will always get the odd dodgy dealer, most (myself included) are pretty knowedgable about their product. And conversant with the relevant laws. Sam while you may make insulting statements, bear in mind that trading standards are NOT the law and are actually only advising OP in his options. I'm confident they will have told him the best option would of been to try and come to an agreement without going to court. They will (or should) advise of the costs and difficulties involved in doing so. ie, taking his car off the road until the case, getting an inspection carried out by a recognised body and the fact he could well end up paying the costs of the trader.

If it was dangerous then it wouldn't of passed an MOT then would it? As I say unless the manufacturers are willing to stand by their products for ten years, then whatever tests you may or may not have carried out (allegedly) are pointless. YOU ARE talking nonsense as far as the eyes of the law are concerned. I'm confident the trader in question also is well aware of the law which is why the OP has been told to take it to court by him. He knows he WILL win.

I totally agree many in the motor trade take advantage of women. While looking for a new van for my partners business she got quoted a price £4k more than we got offered when I walked in with her. Mileage for a diesel large saloon is average of 12k a year making it 72k average. Believe me popeye. Most of us are nowhere near as wealthy as the public like to believe. In the year before scrappage scheme. Garages were shutting at an unbelievable rate. Traders sitting with stock were watching cars on the forecourt drop by 7-10% month on month. Most were struggling to break even on cars. What does make me laugh in this case is the fact the OP traded in a faulty car, got offered it and her money back and still was complaining.

It should certainly be easy enough to prove it had a haircut between 2008 and 2009. Have a look and see what dates the owners changed on your log book. If it had the same owner between these dates, call and ask if there was a reason for this from them. There may of been a legitimate reason like it needed a new speedo head. If the ownership changed around the MOT date in 2009 I'd certainly be looking to point the finger of blame at a trader who sold it at that point. It is difficult as you really need to prove the dealer set out to deceive and verified the mileage.

Hey OP the friendly operators here can type what they like. It doesn't make them right. Helios says an item like a servo has a 10 year life expectancy. What utter tosh. If that was the case then the manufacturer would be liable on every failure. Not a chance of that happening. We had to fit one to a 3.5 year old citroen van with below average miles 3 weeks ago. Do you honestly think citroen were interested in paying for it helios? Using that (incorrect theory) anyway. What age is the 206 OP. If it was 9 years old for instance, by helios reckoning you would have to pay 90% of the servo price anyway. They seem unable to understand that your fault does not make the car unroadworthy. If it did I assume it has covered next to no miles since you purchased as you claim it is making the cars braking system not work thus making it illegal to be on the road? Advisory notices or MOT's only stand up any in case in law at the time the MOT was carried out Definately NOT 10 months later. You said there was a noise, trader said it could of been the fans but invited you to inspect to satisfy yourself. You did and I assume could find no faults in the braking system either at this point or during the test drive. Come on get real. You have no chance in any case against the seller.

That is incorrect as if any disclaimer is placed in a prominent position in the car saying unverified or NMR search ongoing that would supercede it.