Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by oddjobbob

  1. It doesn't matter who bought your car... they offered to buy it, you sold it, and accepted the deal. Unethical? Yup, all day long. Illegal? absolutely not. Ref your new car, I can see this going on for months / years unless you're careful... keep on the case, try to get them to fix it properly, once and for all (I'm sure that sounds frustrating, but may well be your best way forward). One thing yuo can be sure of is that after all this time they will do everything possible to avoid taking the car back off you and refunding you... despite what the law says, they will try and frustrate
  2. If you've tried every possible way to resolve this with the dealersuch as going halves each on a repair etc, then court may be your only option. However there's no guarantee that you'll win: especially with a cat C car (in theory this should make no difference, but it may well do so:) although I would expect you would win a contribution towards the repair cost. Regarding the missing air box.. I would have thuoght that if it ran perfectly ok for several months / several thousand miles then the fact that this was missing wouldn't have casued the turbo to fail. Out of interest what
  3. A slight correction Sam, indeed you don't... you suggest SOGA as a first resort... ie the law. If something is able to be sorted amicably then going into someone's forecourt and quoting the sale of goods act at them is the very last thing to make them likely to stay friendly and negotiate towards settlement. Indeed when someone came onto my forecourt years ago and threatened me with TS (over an AA report) I told them to go right ahead... if they'd come in on a proper footing then we could have sorted it. Nothing came of it anyway, and its just an aside to this discussion. Just becaus
  4. To all for public consumption.... I don't think its a case of anyone jumping on the 'SOGA is your friend' advice. In my 55 years on this planet, 38 of them spent running my own businessess, in my experience a court case should be your last resort, never the first. I have seen others lose 'sure fire' cases and others win ones they shouldn't have had a hope n hell's chance with. If a problem can be sorted amicably and reasonbly fairly then that's the way forward (in my opinion) because by the time you get to the doors of the small claims court the parties are by definition to
  5. no, this ones got trouble with a big T written all over it I reckon.
  6. I would say extremely rarely rather than never. Its up to the OP at the end of the day, but it took kimbo 2 1/2 years to lose his case when the consensus semed to be that he'd win... it just shows you that court is best avoided if you can get some kind of deal done to sort it out. It's all about the art of what's possible, not necessariy whats right, as sometimes what's right is not possible
  7. Sam is pointing out that you siad I bet CAB tell him he's got no chance when in fact it seems the opposite is the case according to them. i got it straightaway.. specsavers have a sale on if oyu're interested?? Despite what TS etc say though I think the OP wil have a hard time getting any money out of them. I really don't know his best way forward.
  8. @ sam and graham.... If its so easy, simple and fast then why did it take poor Kimbo 2 and a half years to lose? Life would be great if the law was the law and it was applied the same way in every case. ut it isn't.. if any of US had been caught fiddling our expenses we'd be in prison, quite unlike 197 out of the 200 MPs that got caught. LIFE is all about what it is possible to achieve not what you should achieve under the law. Yes, the company have put 4 holes or whatever in the OPs bumper, and yes by rights he should be awarded a new one, painted to match and with a hire car thrown
  9. I agree col.. those scrapyard mateys are hardly likely to give you an envelope full of cash with a smile and a 'sorry sir'. I'd try to get them to fit and supply a replacement engine as your next move.. .but its a difficult one I know
  10. Like I say, I wish him well. But as i've stated in another thread, winnig the argument isn't the same thing as actualy geting paid. I really don't know what i'd do apart from definitely not buy a Range Rover! I do know though that these thnigs can go on and on and if he can get them to repair it to a good standard then that might well be his way forward.
  11. Hi bank... yes i'm certain that in law you are correct... but regsitrars are human beings not law machines and I know from a car dealer friend of mine that emotion does play a part... he was right in law but lost on the day... if the regstrars neighbour for example has recently been ripped off by a car dealer then its a perhaps sad fact that on the day no matter how good your case you can lose. Its only my opinion, as all things are on here, but I still think the OP is better off accepting a decent smart repair... better than having holes in your bumper on a car you cannot sell until the
  12. @ graham and bank.. I don't think its a fine as such is it? If the defendant can convince the regsitrar that they've done everything possible to find a sensible compromise ( and the problem here is the number of parties involved) then of course the registrars mnid will tend to side with the defendant and possibly (tho not definitely) make him think that the plaintiff just won't accept a (what may be seen by some as a) sensibe solution of a smart repair. I think that the OP would be best to accept a decent smart repair, this could drag on for years. If he has it done then he'll forget it h
  13. You may wel lhave difficulty rejecting it now that repairs have been attempted: but i wish you well. Range Rovers have always been an electricians nightmare, especially the 95 on ones.
  14. Very sticky one this... I thnik IF the ad caimed it was a superb car, etc then he might just get somewhere... but even if he wins, winning a CCJ is not the same as getting paid. I do tend to agree that if it is quite clear on the receipt that its a damaged / previously repaired / cat c car whatever then as long as this isn't written in tiny tiny writing I recon he's pretty stuffed. Also they aren't necessarily saying its been a write off, just saynig it was previuosly damaged. They are absolute charlatans and should be locked up: but if you see some of the types that run these scrapy
  15. Nope. If you've paid half you can hand it back. Make sure they don't try and penalis yuo for minor scuffs, etc, it only has to be in keeping with the age and ileage, not brand new when you give it back.
  16. Yes Sam, I'd already seen it: and its still good advice: but your stance and insistence that the OP has rights against the seller has changed since then, you seem more definite that he can win if he follows what you say, or so it appears to me. Like I already said, we can go no further until the OP lets us know of his rights or lack of them in this case. I must say he appears very sensible and realistic about the whole thing.
  17. Also I would say that none of us can make any further comment until such time as the OP has taken legal advice as to his rights or lack of them in this matter.
  18. No I read that sailor and how it reads to me is this... when you buy at auction and SOGA does not apply then that's it, there is nothing further you can do, effectively your rights are signed away by the act of buying at an auction withuot soga... and yes, you CAN sign your rights away in this instance. If SOGA DOES apply at an auction then indeed your gripe is with the seller and NOT the auctioneer. At a car auction , sold as seen means exactly that... if it didn't then everynoe would do what graham says and buy cars from auctions with no faults.. which wont happen.
  19. Exactly Drew. Altho I do believe Graham's post was directed at auctions in general and not your particular case
  20. Graham... As a trader you are duly expected in law to have sufficient mechanical knowledge to know a tu of scrap from a good car. You live and learn.. I sold 5000 cars and quickly learned that there are certain sections of the community (no I won't be naming them or saying anythnig else) that you should NEVER take a px from as they never px their cars until they are worn out. And personally, no, I don't think they should be made to pay... I took it in chop, its my fault. However, as an amusing aside to this, I often remember tkaing in a shed and then 3 weeks later getting the ca
  21. Alos let me be quite clear here, I'm not here to argue with anyone, just being realistic and calling it how I see it. I've been wrong sometimes in the past and I'll be wrong sometimes in the future.
  22. Crossed post with Graham... he puts it better than I!
  23. Sorry to rain on yuor parade but... As far as I an see in the auction leaflet you posted sailor, it says that you lose your rights if the goods are secondhand AND that you attended in person AND were told by way of a notice in their terms and conditions or verbally that SOGA does not apply or that the goods are sold as seen AND that the auctioneer can show it was reasonable. All off these apply in this case, they're 2nd hand, the OP attended the auction, the car was obviuosly sold as seen, there will be a notice that SOGA does not apply to SAS cars and the auctioneer can show it was reas
  24. Hi Drewmond I already said as much and indeed you included it in your quote ''(NOT suggesting this at the OP he knew he was taking a chance). ''... indeed dodgy mots can and should be stopped. I really don't think yuo'll have much joy against the seller.. .who is more than likely in the trade... despite other thuoghts on here, which might be right, I am firly of the opinion that a SAS auction car is sold in that way and that SOGA will not apply in a trade auction hall. But you are def doing the right thing by pursuibg the MOT station as far as you possibly can, but the seller /
  • Create New...