My apologies Mike. I had assumed that the wording as lifted from the act would of been sufficient. I hadn't realised this forum needed the exact piece of legislation ad verbatim. But here it is for you. It is the Sale of Goods Act 1979. 14(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory— (a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made, (b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or ©in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample. I don't see it as a get out of free card. Consumer law is there to protect both parties. Also given that the Op is now only looking at a solution through legal means, guidance would be pretty much irrelevant. Only law would be applicable.

Struggling to understand what you are saying there mike. To the very best of my knowledge Sale of Goods Act 1979. Section 9.7. is a Parliamentary act not guidance. As such it would be classed as a common law.

With all due respect sailor sam. It might be prudent you use the advice you gave George Carman and read the link you posted. The exclusions to the legislation are clearly there. There is no mention it only applies to non serious items. I'd also like to reiterate that nobody can or cannot say whether the car was indeed unroadworthy.

You misunderstand me silverfox. What shiply have done is completely wrong. But shiply are simply an intermediary. I imagine somewhere hidden deep in their terms and conditions there will be information stating the contract is between the customer and the self employed agent who should of collected the car. That means it will be the driver with his car & trailer who garry will need to make the claim against. Garry would more than likely win a court case but that is entirely different from getting paid. That is why I advise caution. He may end up further out of pocket and have all the stress that goes along with it.

As wrong as it might be. You have to pick your fights. If you do decide to go down the court route it will cost you in excess of the £44 to start the claim. Even if you do win it is not a guarantee of getting your money.

That would be Sale of Goods Act 1979. Section 9.7. In particular the following If you specifically draw to the consumer’s attention the full extent of any fault or defect before they buy the vehicle – for example, if you draw to the consumer’s attention that a vehicle has a specific worn part before they decide to buy it. and If the consumer examined the vehicle before buying it and should have noticed the fault. Where the vehicle is examined by the consumer rather than an expert, this mainly applies to cosmetic defects such as scratches or dents that are obvious. You will not be able to evade responsibility for defects if they were not apparent on examination. Also, it will only apply where a consumer actually examined the vehicle – not to a consumer who has declined an opportunity to do so This information comes from the link you told George Carman to read.

There is scope within the legislation for the vehicle to be sold as is when the customer is aware a fault exists. None of us can tell with any certainty that the vehicle was unroadworthy. . The Op has changed her story on several occasions. To my mind the only person the Op could theoretically have a greviance against is the motor trade professional she employed to inspect the vehicle. But even he told her the steering required attention.. Whatever spin you put on it. The Op knew a fault existed. Decided to carry on the purchase knowing that fact. But now for whatever reason feels hard done to.