Jump to content

Chuffnut

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    69
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0.4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Chuffnut

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In future, it's worth remembering (and noting for anyone else reading the thread) that if a car dealer pushes you for a deposit, they see it as a sign of commitment. To avoid situations like this, either leave a deposit as a sign of commitment you are entering a contract (whether you are or not) or, don't leave a deposit. Certainly don't leave one believing you are reserving something to stop other people buying it and that you can easily change your mind and get your money back easily from car dealers. They will push back hard on you. Rightly or wrongly, it's an avoidable situation.
  2. I know this is difficult as you're probably worried but isn't it best to wait and see the outcome of the dealers actions first, rather than invent every scenario in your head and try and get a course of action for every single one? If you liked, you could reject the car for a refund as you have given the dealer one shot (well two actually) to repair the issue and they haven't. So perhaps you might consider doing that. Be prepared for the dealer to make a deduction from a refund as is their right to do.
  3. I'm sure others will be along to advise again soon but what are you waiting for? Have you followed BF's advice and send a LBA? Are you prepared to take this mob to court? You're being fobbed off and f*cked around in my eyes. The financial ombusdman is worthless in this situation in my opinion. You have been sold something that is mis-described. Take them to court and get your money back.
  4. Just to clarify, I wasn't ever talking about VT, neither was the OP, you initiated the VT discussion but thanks for the useless info to the thread. You have shown you clearly know about VT's, it must come in useful, somewhere. Should anyone stumble across this thread, looking for information on selling cars with HP on, just ring your finance company, explain the situation, they will give you permission to either pay off the car yourself with the proceeds of the sale or, more likely, someone else buying the car from you, will pay it off. You don't have to wait until you own the car, or take a short term loan out. Put it up for sale, get the finance paid off, done. As long as the finance is paid off, the finance company will be satiated as will the buyer of your vehicle. Obviously you can't sell the car, say nothing to the finance house, don't pay the finance off and expect nothing bad will happen. I never said that, common sense applies.
  5. Haha, "I don't want to talk to you anymore, you seem to be making too much sense and I can't impose my vast knowledge of useless things on to you" Another sleepless night...
  6. Right. So your original point is neither here nor there then, as I pointed out, with the permission of the finance company, you can get a settlement quote, sell the car, pay off the balance with the proceeds, plus any shortfall and that's the end of it. I'm not sure why you wanted to go to lengths to point out the OP can't sell his car because of the HP, he has enough aggro it seems as it is. If he can find a buyer, they settle the finance direct, so they know its paid off (shortfall paid by the OP) it's a simple thing to do. Perhaps you misunderstood my initial post, I am not advocating selling a car without the finance house's permission but I speak from personal and professional experience, I have paid off many a HP agreement and it hasn't ever been an issue.
  7. As bolded above, it really isn't a moot point. It's THE point. The car was described as HPI clear. I'm assuming in the advert somewhere, on the website, wherever. The description was "HPI clear" The car isn't HPI clear. It is not as described. I don't know how you could argue or to argue otherwise. What you're trying to say, I believe, is that there may actually not be a problem with the car's mileage, it's a clerical error, not a clocked car. OK, that may well be true. But until the discrepancy is removed off the HPI report, it is, and will remain so, not HPI clear. The simplest thing is just for the dealer to do the legwork, get the record straight and that's it, job done.
  8. Yes I understand that mate, I wasn't saying you have it easy, I was just pointing out to the other chap that he was making out that you would have difficulty selling the car on HP, which you won't. I understand the mileage discrepancy is your issue.
  9. You call the finance company, ask for a settlement quote. They will give you a figure you need to pay to settle the outstanding finance, which will expire on a certain date, usually just before your next payment is due.The settlement figure will be the full and final amount to pay, inclusive of interest at that point in time. If you make another payment, you have to ring again, ask for a settlement figure and they will re-calculate. It's very straightforward, I have done it a number of times, both personally and in my line of work.
  10. Are you going to answer my very simple question or not? Can you sell a car that has outstanding HP finance on it, yes or no? If you think no, you're wrong. If you think yes, why are you bleating on about the OP not "buying it" or whatever, it's irrelevant. The fact is, you CAN sell a car that has outstanding HP on it.
  11. Are you saying that you cannot sell a car that has outstanding HP on it? I can assure you I wasn't intending to be shirty.
  12. It's just my opinion of course, however I'd say any reasonable person would expect a gearbox to last longer than 6 months, never mind 6 hours, on a car with low mileage and a price of £4k. You haven't bought new but you haven't exactly bought an old banger either. I'd agree with Bankfodder's assessment way back at the start of the thread that you have a better than 95% chance of being successful. It wouldn't take a lot to convince a judge that the fault was present when you bought the car. Good luck.
  13. I think you have missed the fact that with permission of the finance company, you can sell the car.
  14. Thank you for your candid post and it just shows that we all learn, every day. The bottom line is exactly as you have stated, it's down to the judge, on the day because "a reasonable person" can only be the person that makes the decision and that, ultimately, is the judge. However, I think most people could come to the conclusion that it's unreasonable to expect certain faults to render a car of unsatisfactory quality, logic and common sense would tell most people to not take a supplier to court over something so trivial as a blown light bulb on a used car. You have also hit the nail on the head that a new car, or expensive used car, with expensive components (£200k 1 year old Ferrari's for example) would be of unsatisfactory quality on some faults that a 10 year old, £2000 car would not. Hence the statement in the statue under "goods of satisfactory quality" that refers to price paid. The price paid (and as such, age and mileage of vehicle) will reflect a judges decision on whether a fault, is actually really a fault, or just something to be expected of the nature of the goods. With regards to the burden of proof, Reasonable Ron posted somewhere recently that the burden of proof always existed, it was present in the outgoing SOGA. If a customer wanted to return something, they had to prove the goods were faulty. This obviously protected the retailer from people buying something, making use of it, then returning it for no good reason. It also protected the consumer from goods being defective and the retailer washing his hands of the situation. The reverse burden of proof exists in the CRA that the retailer has to prove the goods did conform to the contract, on the day of purchase. As cited in section 19, subsection 14 and 15 which states; For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. (15)Subsection (14) does not apply if— (a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or (b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract. There is a nuance to the 30 day short term right to reject. As it is such a powerful ally to the consumer, the reverse burden of proof does not exist under the short term right to reject. Should a consumer wish to reject the goods for a full refund they must prove the fault existed at the point the contract was made. This is to ensure fair play for the retailer so that the consumer could not just reject say a car, for a full refund, just because a light bulb blew. However if a gearbox went pop within 30 days it would be safe to say the fault existed at the time the contract was made, gearboxes rarely just let go. So to summarise, the burden of proof rests with the consumer, it always has I believe. There is a reverse burden of proof in the event of a repair/price reduction where the onus is on the retailer, which exists for 6 months, as clarified in the statute above. The burden of proof then again rests with the consumer thereafter the 6 months, up to 6 years I believe. Again, all of this is subject to ascertaining if the fault is actually a fault. Consumers cannot reject a vehicle for any old reason, or, more specifically, they can try but if it goes before a judge, it seems unlikely that the judge would consider a trivial matter such as a lightbulb popping (or indeed a tyre puncturing, a wiper blade smearing, a small thimble full of oil leaking every month) on a car of a certain age, mileage and price point, as grounds for rejection.
×
×
  • Create New...