Well, it may have been a long wait but the GOOD NEWS is that we took him to court under the SOGA and WON!!! £825 including costs, when he could have given us 6, even £500 the first day we went in. We also get to keep the car, which in truth means another £100+ for scrap, so all in all a success. If I was to comment about things that worked in our favour: i) the two faults were quite categorical, neither were open to interpretation; both had failed rather than being in the process of. ii) our letters were calm, clear and offered a further compromise at each stage, whereas he quickly dug his heels in; iii) he didn't seem overly prepared/experienced in the court process (more a matter of him having been able to brush people off, I believe, rather than no-one having complained before) - his case revolved simply about the distance we had driven in the time we had the car, and nothing more, and he didnt submit any additional evidence when asked just prior to the hearing, whereas I submitted all correspondence from both sides and a written timeline of events from start to finish (NB that may not always be a good idea if the other party is likely to pick up on anything you say) iv) he actually admitted during our correspondence that the previous MOT advisory section included a reference to the suspension, thus giving us the killer evidence that this was something that had been developing over time, rather than just hitting a pothole v) keeping calm in court, it is nervewracking, but I was just open and honest, which the judge clearly took note of as in his summing up he called me a "reliable and believable witness". If you can keep your calm, then that can often aggravate the other party into losing theirs. vi) one thing the judge teased out of me, without me thinking of it beforehand, is that when talking about clutches, if you can show that previous cars you've owned have not an issue with this, then that puts more emphasis on it being the car rather than you. It helped that our previous car had been part of the trade-in for the dodgy one, so he had to admit there were no signs of damage on that. So, in summary, it may rely on the judge, I've only had experience of one, but he was clear on the SOGA and wasn't going to take any rubbish as an argument against it; but I also think it may rely on who you are up against. Our guy was clearly not the brightest anyway (he had a sign up over the garage for three months saying "Cars brought for Cash" instead of 'bought') and believed he could just fob us off at first and even when we went to court still thought he could win without putting in any effort. It also took us 8 months from the first letter to the cheque arriving (I am waiting to make sure it doesn't bounce) which obviously could be a problem, but in the end we won, so another tick for the SOGA and a big BOOO to the nasty bogey garageman!!

Having been stung by a dealer, we are most likely going to have to buy another car in the near future, and have seen many comments regarding having an inspection done before we buy...so a few questions: - Who are the best people to contact for this, AA/RAC? - How much does it normally cost and do you have to be a member? - How much depth do they go into, what can they/can't they be expected to pick up? - How long does it generaly take them to come out, as there is obviously issues with losing the car to someone else if it takes more than a couple of days. Any other things we should watch out for?

Why do you say that we have left it a bit late for the refund - do we not have 6 months to do that? Is the mileage the issue? In conversations, he has indicated that he will pay to get the suspension items repaired, by his mechanic; we have accepted that he is not responsible for the tyre and wiper; but the difference of opinion is mainly about the clutch, which he feels that 3months and 4000 miles is enough to claim that there was no problem when we bought it. In writing however, he states that "I feel the faults you have mentioned were not present on the car when you purchased it and the car was commensurate for its age, mileage and price you paid"....." I do not accept that I am responsible in any way for the condition of your vehicle after 4000 miles and three months". He does however, then make the self-defeating reference to the suspension on the previous MOT advisory notice and closes with stating that he is "willing to contribute the sum of £297 in the way of repairs to resolve this matter". So our choices appear to be: i) take up his original offer of repairing the suspension at his expense and getting it through the MOT if we pay the £100 for the tyres/wipers, but then ensuring that we get it checked independently by the AA at his expense - but that does not address the clutch issue ii) take his latter verbal offer of trying to get him to 'move a little' on the £297, then just scrap the car for another £100 or iii) take the legal route and trust in the SOGA to get him to pay for both suspension AND clutch AND costs, at the risk that teh judge might not see it as clearly cut as we do... Any thoughts?

Worked for BEtterware for a year without a car a long while back (when I was young and fit enough to carry bagloads of catalogues and items). As for the door signs, I tended to put them through those that had signs saying things like no sales at door etc, as I wasnt actually trying to sell face to face, and received many orders from these households, so seems like my logic held up.

We bought a 52 plate Xsara in July 2012 from a local dealerfor £995 (including £600 for our old Micra). It had about 88k on the clock, andan MOT until October. My wife took it for a test drive and did not see anyproblems other than stalling it a couple of times, and that the rear viewmirror was missing, which the dealer told us he would sort out for us (thoughnever has). Over the following couple of weeks I noticed that the clutchbiting point was nearer to the floor than I was used to, but not knowing a lotabout these things, thought nothing more of it, particularly as one member ofstaff told me that it had had a new clutch fairly recently. However as timewent on we began to notice more issues with the clutch, with the car judderingwhen reversing and a few days short of the MOT my wife even reported that it hadstuck down on one occasion and she had had to lift it up with her foot. we nursed it through to the MOT which was when wehad a real shock. Not only was the clutch completely shot, but there were majorfails on the front and rear suspension, along with tyres, wipers needingreplacement. The view of the tester was that the vehicle was a right off, withthe rear suspension alone set to cost £800+ as a new rear axle was required. At this stage we were stuck until a call to the CAB led tous finding the SOGA. As we had had the vehicle for less than 6 months, we feltwe had a pretty good case to go back to the dealer. However, when we did so, hewas very dismissive and was rude to my wife, calling her ‘obnoxious’ when shestarted quoting the SOGA to him. Since that day he has refused to speak to heragain, citing her attitude and comments made to another customer as we left. He came back a few days later after talking to ‘his’mechanic (that has not seen the vehicle), that the suspension problems wouldonly cost about £300 to repair, and that he would be happy for ‘his’ mechanicto repair it and get it through the MOT if we gave him £110 for the tyres &wipers. At no stage has he acknowledged any responsibility for the clutch as hestates that we had not gone back to him about it since we bought it, and that itcould have all developed since we bought it from him, as we have covered about4000 miles in that time and what did we expect for a car of this age. As this would represent us having to pay him £110 for hismechanic (who hasn’t seen the car) to do a £300 repair on something we have beenquoted £800+ for by the MOT inspector (who has) & to get it MOT’d, and then payfor the clutch ourselves, we felt this was totally unacceptable. followingadvice from the CAB and Consumer Direct, we wrote to him stating that we wouldaccept £750 as full payment (to allow for the 3months usage/wear&tear ontyres/wipers). He has now written back, after talking to ‘his’ mechanic,offering us just £297, along with telling us that the only relevant itemsmentioned on the previous MOT was an advisory comment about the frontsuspension, (which to my mind volunteers the fact that the suspension wasalready questionable 9 months before we bought the car and would therefore havedeteriorated further over time). Our reading of the situation is that we have a pretty goodcase to get a full refund, or at least something in the region of the £750 wehave asked for, t hough in our last conversation with him he told us he was happy forus to go to court as he “knows he will not be made to pay anything like that”. Does it sound to those of you with more experience of thesethings that we do have a case, or are there factors involved that may make ourcase less robust than we think and mean it more advisable that we take him up on his offer of‘moving a little bit’ from the £297 he has offered? What should be our next move, and is it worth getting asolicitor involved (we would hopefully qualify for Legal Aid)? If we do go tocourt, what sort of expenses can we realistically charge to him from theinterim period (we have been able to share my mother-in-laws car, at herinconvenience, but have still had to take buses and trains on occasion)? Could we hire a car and charge it? What wouldhappen if we bought a cheap car in the meantime, would that affect ourposition? Do we need to keep the car in question for further potentialinspection? Should we ask the garage which did the MOT to write a report on thecar – what is this likely to cost?