Jump to content

oddjobbob

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by oddjobbob

  1. Have yuo got a copy of the original ad? Autotrader are normally fairly helpful in tracing it for you. If the original ad definitely said 2 previuos keepers then confromtthe dealer with this and tell him its not right and yuo want compensation of some kind... having said that it does depend on the age / mileage / price of the car.. eg if it was a 58 plate car with 20,000m and 5 owners in toal rather than 2 or 3 then this knocks probably 10-15%% off its value... on the other hand if its an 02 ie 10yo car ith 100,000m then the difference is negligable. But what they've done isn't right
  2. No good messing about. Speak / write to the dealer, telling him he has one chance to fix it. And tell him if he will not do so you will go to trading standards / CAB and wil reject the car as it is not fit for purpose... and if he will not fix it yuo will take him to small claims court for the cost of fixing it. If he works from home you might like to tell him you're going to phnoe his local council to tell them he's running a business from home too... they rarely have permission. Unfortunately I think you have to give him a chance to fix it first before rejection.
  3. BE CAREFUL.... absolutely avoid Welcome finance and any of the mega apr finance merchants! You are best off saving up for a few weeks and buying a decent sub £1000 motor that you actually own. If you buy a car on finance from any of those rip off finance merchants you'll never finish paying for it,
  4. Also hayley I think where its going to get sticky is when they offer to 'repair' it for you. They def won't let you book it into VW and they pay the bill... and you can understrand why as VW will want to make it into a new car... the repairs dept is where the money's made nowadays, they will find every poss thing wrong and want to fix it. The problem is letting where yuo bought it from repair it.. it must at least look cosmetically ok otherwise you would never have bought it... so that begs the question of what do they actually do? reject if you possibly can, I just hope it does
  5. They may have contrvened SOGA... it depends on whether they own up or not! They'll either claim you never asked or that the car runs and drives perfectly well and the bodywork was there for al lto see, etc. It aint gonna be easy! But I truly wish you well.
  6. Hayley I truly wish you well... but in reality it could get very complicated. There is a mile of difference between the car having had cosmetic paintowrk done (they nearly all have by 5 yo) and its having had new chassis legs and a straightened out chassis from a major accident for example. Im only trynig to tell you what the dealer will say.. ie they've all had paint, you expect this at 5yo, etc. Its pretty clear that you don't want the car any more and so carry on as best you can trying to reject it... but I don't think it wil be easy (I hope it is tho!) and could drag on for
  7. Nope sorry Sam, the act that the OP bought a car at top book..ie too much, does NOT mean that it should have this or that with it, it merely means that they paid too much for an average car. You don't always get what you pay for. I don't think it ws bought from a VW dealer unless the op can enlighten us... but a VW dealer weould NOT want an accident dammaged car being sold under their used cr programme, dependent however on what the damage was..
  8. I don't really think you've got anywhere to go with this. If the ad sais good clean condition AND the car is capable of passing an MOT test, then, by definition, it is a safe car, the fact that it has been previously repaired is really of no consequence except of course to its value. I know its not what you want to hear but they didn't put a gun to your head to buy it, and, even though it was too dear you bought it anyway... thats not their fault. Having said that I have no doubt that the garage were aware that it had been repaired, and I'm not trying to defend them in any way.
  9. Didnt spot that leak was seriuos.. I agree with sam, take it back, don't fiddle with it, let him fix it otherwise he'll blame you!
  10. You nshould in theory get £995 back. Or £745 plus yuor old car.. .and that what I'd go for.. .but I doubt you'l get far, he sounds like a 'part time ' trader to me who doesn't know what he's doing. However, as the car was onyl £995 then in reality you would expect it to have some faults (I would),, and if you change the cambelt thats a good idea anyway. An oil leak is par for the course at the mnoey you've paid I'm afraid, cars that are less than £1000 are generally comnig to the end of their life... don't get me wrong, I fully realise its probably all you can afford, but I'd personally g
  11. TC... not trying to start any arguments, I never said they didn't recommend what you say. And in a perfect world where everyone paid a CCJ or din't try to delay court proceedings erc then no doubt that'd be the way to go. But if the OP wants a car he can use and not leave on his drive for 2 years he needs to do all he can to get it fixed by the dealer first. I know he's reight and the dealer is wrong, we all do... but you have to deal with the cards you've got not the cards you wanted.
  12. T.C. No doubt yuo are correct in law. But having the law on your side is not the same as winnig the case or getting paid i'm afraid. i would refer you to a case on this board in which the case went against the buyer AND took getting on for 3 years to resolve. In life, you have to achieve what is possible.. .and indeed its entirey possible that the OP can win and get his mnoey back using the law... but he's better off trynig to get it fixed properly by the dealer first, as the last thing he needs is a car on his drive that he can't use or sell for 2 + years and i think this should be
  13. The law is that yuo should be able to reject the car under the sale of goods act as it is unfit for purpose... ie it should drive along safely and satisfactorily but not necessarily perform as it did when new, just as it should for the age and mileage, but it MUST do what a car does, ie start, go along the road, stop safely, etc. This one doesn't by the sound of things. However, actually rejectng it might be harder than yuo think, the dealer sounds a right ****head, he really ought to be fixing this after 9 days. I would give him 1 chance to fix it free of charge to you, it is h
  14. No thats not right, you've only had it 9 days. IN WRITING (take the letter there if necessary) exlain that you've only had it 10 days and that since it is undriveable its not fit for purpose and yuo eiter want your money back and return the car or the problem fixed. Speak to trading standards ar cab, they will help you with a letter, or plenty of examples on here. The dealer shouldn't be delaing if he won't fix a car after 9 days.. .you shouldn't have to pay a contribution. If they really won't play ball then your only option is court.... Did you pay by credit card
  15. I think on an £1800 car you ought ot give them a chance to fix it... or is the dealer refusing this also?
  16. Op.. if the differences are major, such as year, mileage (50,000 when its done 53,000 doesn't count, but 50,000 if its done 70,000 DOES), also remember that in adspeak (I never made the rules) 1 former keeper equals 2 owners in total, or if they've deliberalely misrepresented the engine size or something ie MAJOR then take the car back. If its minor such as 'airbags' in the ad and its only got 1, or 'rear headrests' and it doesn't have them that that, as a previuos poster has indicated, could be construed as a genuine mistake... although as a former dealer it will be a 'deliberate' mistak
  17. No, look on the V5, it says on there ''.. the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner...''
  18. Op I realise and do sympathise with your frustration... but this one could run and run. Looking at it calmly I still reckon your best bet is to get them to do a proper repair and not just charge up the battery. TBQH they should have fixed it first time, just frightened to death of spending any money on it so it sounds to me. Shouldn't be selling cars if they can't take a few knocks, its like that, been there, got the t shirt.
  19. Excellent news, well done OP, we're all pleased for you I'm sure... at least the seller did the right thing.. AND I think this shows that you ARE much more likely to be able to resolve things with a business seller as oposed to a private sale.
  20. AFAIK they are only allowed to keep their reasonable costs.. .say £50 -£75 for actually, say, removing the car from their sales website, prepping it for you to pick up, and a quick re - valet, they aren't alowd to keep thousands, that wouldn't be fair at all. Is it a main dealer or a just a secondhand forecourt or something? I'd go down there on a busy day when they've got other punters around and have a big row about it, they won't want you there causing a furore! .. but try and pseak to someone first to try and get moost of your money back.
  21. @ helios...yes it is cheap but car is Cat C... so 35-40% loss of value esp on a lateish car. @ graham...yes, a class action (do they exist in the UK?) take BMW to court. That WOULD be an interesting one under SOGA for sure... enough of those turbos have failed for goodness sake
  22. No he won't get the sack... it goes on WHOLESALE graham... lost count of the cars I underwrote nad lost due to them selling them to the staff. all at it. Its no ammo at all, and has no bearing on the case imo. Best thing is a once and for all proper repair I reckon
  23. I'm no engineer, I stand corrected by helios. But the fact remains tht a £7500 car should last longer than this one has.
  24. I would have thought that withuot fail one would need prof that an item bought with a credit card was faulty. Otherwise we'd all have a new telly every 11 months free of charge... just ring em up 'my tellys gone wrong' (again).. ok we'll refund you so you can get another one! Don't tihnk so do you?
  25. Surely if it was missing it couldn't be blocked could it? TBQH if you've got £7500 to spend on a car. you re far better off with a proper one rather than a cat C, even if a year or so older, etc. Those cat C's just aren't worth it in the main... the VIC test that is trumpeted is ONLY to confirm the identitiy of the car, nOT that any repairs have been carrie out properly. As said, court may be your only option, a £7500 car should last alot longer than a few months, Cat C or not. The turbos on these BMs are a known fault, and TBQH, BMW aren't going to tell you that in a hurry... i
×
×
  • Create New...