Bought new car from EBAY then broke down 4 weeks later help !!!!!

[Conniff]

That's not what the regulation, or I, have said.

 

You should have a read of one or all of these:

 

Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002

 

Key Facts:

 

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

[buzby]

You do not become a 'trader' simply by selling a vehicle. Many people do this as a hobby, and as such the only viable caveat (apart from 'emptor') is that is must not be dangerous. By selling with an MoT, he has covered himself on this (even though it only reflects the car on the day of test).

 

There will be no other warranty assumed or implied unless explicitly agreed and verifiable. In the circumstances outlined, unless this was an established trader operating from his home (as a commercial entity), there is very little to be gained otherwise.

 

It would be the courts who would decide these issues, so there remains the risk that if the judge doesn't side with the purchaser, they'll be left with the cost of this and no resolution. By purchasing from a 'proper' trade premises, you WOULD get additional consumer protection, but until this is established, any comments to the contrary would be taken with a large pinch of salt.

[welshperson3]

Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

 

I think point one ( at time of sale)

And point two might be quite a large hurdle to over come if it went to court

[Conniff]

We are currently having a clearance sale of p/ex's

it was sold through a business account and his trading name

 

I think there is little doubt of commerciality here, so we can take it he is a trader.

As a trader he is governed by the soga and the vehicle must be fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality neither of which are present in this car.

It is up to the trader to show the fault was not present at the time of sale.

The soga says 'during the first six months, it is up to the seller to prove that the fault didn't exist at the time of sale'.

 

A clutch failing after 4 weeks is not what any 'reasonable' person would expect and shows the fault 'was' there at purchase.

 

I am not saying this is what happened in this case, but there are ways of making a clutch last for a few weeks.

[batcher]

had similar problem also with a rover.Head gasket blew 3 weeks after purchase>told the seller agreed to refund my wife £450 towards cost but when garage inspected car needed new front disks and other bits.Total repairs cost £871.00.Never got any further reply from seller.

Also found out after car was delivered that the 3 months tax he had left on it was disabled tax and nearly got prosecuted for that.

Moral of story ,leave wife if she goes near ebay Rovers after begging her not to.

[batcher]

had similar problem also with a rover.Head gasket blew 3 weeks after purchase>told the seller agreed to refund my wife £450 towards cost but when garage inspected car needed new front disks and other bits.Total repairs cost £871.00.Never got any further reply from seller.

Also found out after car was delivered that the 3 months tax he had left on it was disabled tax and nearly got prosecuted for that.

Moral of story ,leave wife if she goes near ebay Rovers after begging her not to.

[buzby]

Afraid there IS still doubt. Use of the royal 'we' proves nothing - it could be him and his missus (she provides the teas). The second quote doesn't clarify much either; 'sold through a business account' ? Similarly 'John Doe Motors' as a trading style can still be of no assistance.

 

Since there were not business premises, that would be the first warning. Is the land/house registered for business purposes? If not, this all point to someone making their tin-pot enterprise look bigger than it really is.

 

Further research is needed to answer with any certainly, and if a trader connection can be proved, go for it.

[Conniff]

Part ex is a big giveaway. If he sells for a profit then he is classed as a trader. Unless they were his own cars, but then you wouldn't advertise as 'part ex'.

[buzby]

Not so. I have a few mechanics who similarly part-ex in their quest to acquire bigger (and better) cars to fix and then sell on. They are all private sellers.

 

If he's VAT Registered, has partners, a business bank account, trade premises, pays business rates - all these things will prove a trader, anything else is camouflage

[Conniff]

Vat has nothing to do with if you are a trader or not, If you make any profit it must be declared to HMRC and you are then classed as a trader.

Or is what HMRC says irrelevent.

[buzby]

It goes to proof that it is a business undertaking. Whilst some businesses (usually unsuccessful) can manage without breaking the VAT threshhold, but then it lets them argue it is a hobby, not a business.

 

As for your last comment - probably, it would need to be covered by an appropriate Act of Parliament, not made up on the spot.

[heliosuk]

Vat has nothing to do with if you are a trader or not, If you make any profit it must be declared to HMRC and you are then classed as a trader.

Or is what HMRC says irrelevent.

 

Not true conniff. If it is a family car or your sole car and you happen to sell at a profit it is not declarable and you are not classified as a trader. The number of times you do it in a tax year determines this.

 

Further, whilst everyone is entitled to protection under SOGA, a lot of advice is given here as to the six month guidance however when this came out I don't think it was meant to cover cheap used cars of £500 with 100k miles on it. Is there any case law where anyone has been succesful in pursuing such a case?

[Kraken1]

I think he is a trader, on the evidence presented.

 

But, any claim is very ropey.

 

 

It is up to the trader to show the fault was not present at the time of sale. The soga says 'during the first six months, it is up to the seller to prove that the fault didn't exist at the time of sale'.

 

No. Not true. It is for the seller to show that the goods conformed to the contract - whether there is a fault is irrelevant.

 

In this instance this means that the goods must be of satisfactory quality, i.e. they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

 

This is what the trader must show.

 

In this case I don't think that this motor would be deemed not of satisfactory quality. it cost £500. around 10% of the cost of the cheapest new car. At best therefore it can only be considered to be 10% as good. a clutch and a few shocks need sorting? For this age car, for this price, expect this at the very least.

[heliosuk]

This is only a personal opinion but I believe kranken is starting to hit the nail on the head.

 

Frequently we here of the SOGA directions and this six month rule which is frankly getting monotonous and is often offering or giving posters false hope of a succesfull redress irrespective of mileage, age and condition unless knowingly sold and this is very difficult to prove.

 

Yes there are some posts which are quite outrageous in the way they have been treated by privaters and traders but I get tired of posts quotingSOGA and the six month direction which is by a long way not clear cut.

 

I prefer to rely on the basis of UK law in that what would a reasonable person expect from a reasonable person. Some of the claims here are frankly quite unreasonable.

 

Going to my nuclear bunker now.

[mikeyboy197663]

Hi,

 

Thank you for all the great advice, just to give you an update the seller is registered as a business seller on ebay, he has sold over £200,000.00 of cars in the last 16 months, he is registered as a director of a used car sales through companies house.

 

What i see as reasonable, is that if i buy a car (regardless of price) that says it has no faults and is a good sound runner then i expect it to last longer than 4 weeks, it is not just the clutch that is wrong there is over 20 faults with this car, now i do not expect the seller to repair all these, i just expect him to repair the car so it is roadworthy again.

 

The car had only done over 100 miles by my 65year old diabetic father in law, so i know he has not been thrashing the clutch or going street racing in it.

 

Thank you for all the great advice

[buzby]

Excellent news.

 

Next step is to ensure you make your complaint in WRITING. (Required for possible evidential purposes later). Doesn't matter if you've covered the points verbally before - res-state them and send the letter by RD.

 

Give 28 days for him to respond with proposals to rectify the problems you identified, and advise that if the matters are not resolved to your satisfaction you may have to take matters further.

[Kraken1]

Good luck with it all, let us know what happens.

 

I suspect however that you will not do any better than the dealer's offer.

[mikeyboy197663]

thanks for all the great advice, i will not give up till i get a car that works for more than 4 weeks, or a full refund.

 

I will let you know how it goes

 

Regards

[kwaks]

My tuppence, I think the seller was more than fair in offering the clutch kit, and if a garage is asking £200 to fit it then its time to find a new garage.

 

The clutch burning out after 4 weeks does not indicate a fault at POS, it is a consumable item and therefor can go at any time, quick possibly due to the driving style of a diabetic 64 yr old father in law who is unfamiliar with the vehicle (side note, not sure what the diabetic thing has to do with anything, can diabetics not do the things non diabetics can? Is it a symptom of diabetes that makes them all drive as if Miss Daisey is in the car?).

 

The car cost £500, it was MOT'd one month before. You can't expect it to last like a new vehicle. Seems to me you paid for a fixer upper and thats what you got.

[danielr]

how long do you think it should last ?

you don't say the mileage or the age, but if your car is say 10 years old and 100k miles, then any one living in the real world will expect to have some problems now and then.that is why they sell for £500.

the clutch is a wear item the same as brakes and Tyre's.

at what point in time after you bought it and it goes wrong would you say is fair, maybe the same as manufactures warranty 3 years?

I'd expect it to last a fair while...

 

My £350 car, (a K reg (18 year) old peugeot 205) has lasted me three years since I got it, -and it's still going strong!!

All it's needed in that time is tyres and brake pads, (and new discs). +oil changes... so wear and tear/service items.

 

if you buy a car for £500 that's sold as being good, you would reasonably expect that car to be good.

 

edit, just to clarify, that's 3 years, and just over 40 thousand miles, (bought the car at 129k it's now done 175K).

(I'm going to watch the lock roll past a quarter of a million and then sell it).

 

My house mates old car was a P reg xantia, that'd done 250k when he got it, (and that was only £300 too) he had it two years and it only ever needed the brakes changing once.

My dads land rover has done over 340k miles (including many thousands of towing miles) and that has had a clutch last year, (and the shocks changed a couple of times in the 14 years he's owned that car)...

 

 

just because a car only cost £500 doesn't mean it shouldn't be working as described in the advert, and I know that some of you guys here probably spend £500 on a change of tyres, but not everyone can do that... £500 is a lot of money to some of us!

Edited February 24, 2010 by danielr

[ClampingKing]

That was probably the best reply I have seen in this thread.

[Mrs E Blackadder]

I had a clutch go on a brand new Escort, so I think it is fair to say that no one can ever be sure when something on a car will breakdown. I know I was covered by various warranties, but unless you buy a car from an actual garage that gives you in writing exactly what its warranty terms are, then you may be on to a bit of a loser in this case.

 

I had problems with a seller on Ebay, and the local trading standards said that when you buy via an auction site (or even a local auction) the rules and regulations are different to buying from a trader, so this might apply in your case. However, why don't you give your local trading standards a call and see what they have to say. In my case they quoted 'Caveat emptor', which is basically an old law and means 'let the buyer beware'. It might also be worth getting a free half an hour with a solicitor who could tell you where you stand, or even Citizens Advice although they are difficult to get an appointment with. I doubt Ebay will want to get involved - they usually manage to wriggle out of helping anyone even though they are happy to take your fees. Did you pay via Paypal? They might consider a complaint if you did.

 

I think, though, that most of the answers given here are probably in the right direction and that the age of the car, length of time you have had it, the price paid and how you bought it will all be taken into account with any complaint you make. You might not see the offer of a clutch kit as being much use (I would probably feel the same), but as the seller has made some gesture of goodwill this will go in his favour. As one last attempt at getting something positive done, have you thought about asking the seller if he would exchange the car for another one? He probably won't, but it might just be worth a try. Good luck.

[Kraken1]

I'd expect it to last a fair while...

 

My £350 car, (a K reg (18 year) old peugeot 205) has lasted me three years since I got it, -and it's still going strong!!

All it's needed in that time is tyres and brake pads, (and new discs). +oil changes... so wear and tear/service items.

 

if you buy a car for £500 that's sold as being good, you would reasonably expect that car to be good.

 

edit, just to clarify, that's 3 years, and just over 40 thousand miles, (bought the car at 129k it's now done 175K).

(I'm going to watch the lock roll past a quarter of a million and then sell it).

 

My house mates old car was a P reg xantia, that'd done 250k when he got it, (and that was only £300 too) he had it two years and it only ever needed the brakes changing once.

My dads land rover has done over 340k miles (including many thousands of towing miles) and that has had a clutch last year, (and the shocks changed a couple of times in the 14 years he's owned that car)...

 

 

just because a car only cost £500 doesn't mean it shouldn't be working as described in the advert, and I know that some of you guys here probably spend £500 on a change of tyres, but not everyone can do that... £500 is a lot of money to some of us!

 

I think you have been lucky and I doubt the local DJ will see it this way.

 

A car for £500 should be worth 500. Compare it to the 'perfect' new version. this should give an idea of the level of deterioration etc you should expect.

 

Ultimately, if the OP thinks he has a case, despite the balance of the advice here, he should sue. I think he'll be disappointed with the judgment.

[danielr]

we can agree to disagree on that.

 

and I'll take the couple of small cheap old cars that I've had that have lasted and lasted and jut accept that I was just lucky.

and I'll accept that the same conditions but applied to friends cars, they were just lucky...

 

 

or could it be that the people who sold, me and the various friends I've had who've had cars that are old, cheap and reliable, were honest, and when they said, it's a good car and there's nothing wron g with it they actually meant it...

 

I don't think that anybody is arguing that for £500 you don't get a lot of car, and you don't expect it to last forever, or be maintenance free!

 

just that you expect it to last longer than 4 weeks.

 

the DJ doesn't have to have had an old car that's just lasted and lasted and lasted without any real trouble, they just have to read the advert and decide in all likelihood, was describing this ca as good actually misleading.

[Kraken1]

So what is incorrect about the advert, that you can prove the seller knew about?