Faulty car bought from local dealer.

[Dragons Dennis]

You have a new resepect from me Helios. I respect you anyway, but that goes the extra mile. Top man.

[Jeepstar]

Challenge accepted. My chosen charity is 'This Motor Traders Beer Fund'. Charity begins at home for me.

 

Rules are it must go to court and the OP either get a full refund or his faults fixed. Outcome to be confirmed by both OP and trader. OP must name trader and give date of case when it is due to come up.

[heliosuk]

Oh come on Jeepster!! I note your comments of previous posts so whose afraid to put their money where their mouth is now eh?

 

I've come to the conclusion that you are someone who suffers from Plysteer Residual Angle Torque and if you would care to google the acronym in relation to cars apart from it's obvious relation to you, you will note that someone who knows and understand this also knows about chassis systems.

 

The reality is that if the OP pointed out the noise, which incidentaly the trader admitted was there prior to and post sale he has to take the fix on the chin.

 

It is inconceivable he didn't know what the issue was. He's a bloody car dealer!!! If he didn't know what the fault was then he shouldn't be selling cars.

Edited May 13, 2011 by heliosuk
Sodding grammar

[Jeepstar]

Better go read post 52 helios. Told you bet was on. Only rules I asked for was that verifiable confirmation of either OP winning and getting what he was asking for or trader winning as per my original post on a wager in post 33.

 

As for your acronym- sticks and stones may break my bones but 50 quid will get me a few pints!

[Jeepstar]

OP why not invite the trader to this thread. Let him give his side of events.

[heliosuk]

When you understand the rules of the site you might realise that your personal beer fund is not a recognised charity and again you are suggesting money for personal gain albeit posted in a jocular manner.

 

However your posts do not help the OP in his case which is what the site is all about. Invariably there is balanced and considered opinion given to each post and it is up to the OP to decide which is the best way to proceed. The balanced and considered opinion is that you are wrong so being as honourable as you suggest, back off and let the people who know what they are doing help the OP in what is I suggest a prima farce case.

 

The posts you make are neither helpfull or relevant and just cloud the issue and when you make absurd challenges you want to change the rules. In fact this seems to be confirmation that you are indeed a "used car salesman" employing the said same tactics people posting here complain about. Say one thing and then try to change the rules.

 

To the OP, sorry about this ding dong and as before listen and follow what Sam and the Dragon say with my technical back up and you should be OK.

[sailor sam]

I pointed out the dealer stated in his letter that he would be ignoring any further correspondence except a court summons to which she replied well if he ignores your lba letter get back to use and we will take this further to get you a refund. She was giving me advice completely the opposite to the jeepster's advice, so I would say cough up the money jeep!

 

She also kindly pointed me in the direction of the lba template letter on the direct gov website which I have now editted and printed off, ready to be sent first thing tomorrow morning, thanks for the offer though!

 

Don't forget to send by recorded delivery. Did they suggest rejecting the car? If so and you decide to reject the car, you must state this in the letter indictaing that you require a full refund and they should arrange collection. Once posted, you must not use the car again. You mention that CD would 'take this further to get you a refund' which sounds good. Lets see what happens.

[sailor sam]

Consumer direct can only give advice, In the same way the thread you quote can only give advice Sam. With regard to that thread btw, it is regarding a 4 year old car costing substantially more. How you guys fail to understand that the level of comeback DOES reduce with age and price. This IS the law.

Can you provide a link to the relevant law please? SOGA says that a used vehicle purchased from a retailer/trader must be fit for the purpose, irrelevant of cost and age.

 

 

The only person that can physically make the trader do anything is the courts. Trading standards can only recomend his local authority remove his trading license. They would only do this if they feel he was doing business illegally.

 

Trading Standards can also prosecute traders who regularly breach the SOGA.

Edited May 13, 2011 by sailor sam

[sailor sam]

Challenge accepted. My chosen charity is 'This Motor Traders Beer Fund'. Charity begins at home for me.

 

Rules are it must go to court and the OP either get a full refund or his faults fixed. Outcome to be confirmed by both OP and trader. OP must name trader and give date of case when it is due to come up.

 

Not that I want to be involved in this, you are being totally unreasonable here. I would say the outcome depends on the court's judgement which is the decision on the outcome of this 'bet'. It may not mean that the trader will follow the court's judgement BUT it will confirm that the advice that has been given has been qualified by a judge. To demand the OP names the trader is again unreasonable. All the OP needs to do is post up a copy of the judgement (and should wash it of any persoanl details). In any event, i'm not sure that this 'bet' falls within the rules of the forum.

[raydetinu]

well jeep does not appear to follow any rules ( or legislation ) other than his own!

[azza87]

well jeep does not appear to follow any rules ( or legislation ) other than his own!

 

Which is why I'm not, nor should anyone on this forum take any notice of his 'advice', only then the turn this so called given 'advice' into a betting game to fund his bear fund. I think I'd have to be pretty crazy to take advice from a used car salesmen when the advice I'm in need of is dealing with a dodgy used car dealer so your posts are wasted in this thread jeepster.

[Jeepstar]

Do as you please OP, I look forward to hearing about how the trader won. Be sure to come back and let us know.

 

Helios, I didn't in any way change the rules of the bet. Independant confirmation of the outcome of any trial will be fine. After all the OP should have no problem naming the trader after the judgement.

 

Feel free to read CAB's advice here: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_second_hand_vehicles.htm Be sure to read it in its entirety.

 

I'll highlight one passage for you:

A secondhand vehicle must match its description, be fit for its purpose, and be of satisfactory quality. However, the standard for meeting the requirement that the vehicle is of satisfactory quality will be lower because it is secondhand. A secondhand vehicle should be in reasonable condition and work properly. When deciding whether a secondhand vehicle is in reasonable condition it is important to consider the vehicle’s age and make, the past history of the vehicle and how much you paid for it.

 

Lets see if the court actually believes it meets satisfactory quality requirements in their eyes.

[sailor sam]

How you guys fail to understand that the level of comeback DOES reduce with age and price. This IS the law.

 

Still waiting for the link which states this!

[Jeepstar]

Of course Citizens advice are giving out the wrong information eh Sam! Go read SOGA if you want. Its in there.

[sailor sam]

Let me help you then;

 

When you buy goods from a trader, you enter into a legally binding contract governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. If you buy a used car from a trader it must be of satisfactory quality, fit for the purpose, and as described. Obviously a very old car with a high mileage will not be as good as a newer car with a low mileage, but it should still be fit for use on the road, in a condition which reflects its age and price, and reliable.

 

This is what trading standards state. http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/problemswithvehicles-sum6.cfm Now where does it say that your 'level of comeback is reduced'? In any event it dosn't change the fact that the seller sold the car with a active advisory notice which he failed to make the OP aware of.

[Jeepstar]

Dear lord, you have just pretty much posted what I've been saying Sam.

 

Heres what SOGA quotes for defining the quality of a used car.

 

Satisfactory quality is defined as what a ‘reasonable person’ would regard as acceptable, and takes into account factors such as price paid, fitness for purpose specified, appearance and finish, freedom from minor blemishes, safety and durability. If it becomes apparent that an item is not of the quality you were led to expect, you were not aware of any such defect when you bought it, and you bought from a seller acting ‘in the course of a business’ (i.e. not an informal sale), you are quite within your rights to go back to the retailer, even after some months of use. If a product develops a fault within the first 6 months, the assumption will be that this defect was present at the time of purchase and you will not have to prove anything. If you are returning an item after this 6 month time period, this automatic assumption does not apply, and it may be up to you to prove the fault did not occur through misuse. You should also consider aspect of durabilityacceptance. and

If it is the case that you were invited to carry out a thorough inspection of the product and fail to spot a defect which that inspection ought to have revealed, you may not have recourse. Safety is an important aspect of quality and we will look at unsafe goods and product liability under different legislation – namely that of the Consumer Protection Act

Using these parameters if you bought a £995 pug 206 and say the going rate at trade/auction was £850 and retail forecourt price was £1500 then the argument is that it will be of lesser quality due to its lesser price. Likewise when the OP carried out his inspection at the traders urging to discover any fault in particular the hissing he complains about, As he failed to detect a fault he has no recourse.

 

What age and miles was the car OP?

 

Level of comeback= in a condition which reflects its age and price.

 

 

 

 

[sailor sam]

Jesus Christ, no wonder we have so many problems with used car traders. You still don't get it do you? THE SELLER SOLD THE CAR WITH AN ACTIVE ADVISORY NOTICE AND DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS TO THE OP. THE PRICE/AGE OF THE CAR IS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT AS THE SELLER HAS MISS-SOLD THE CAR. THE CAR CLEARLY HAD THE SAME DEFECT AS PER STATED ON THE ADVISORY NOTICE AND THE SELLER ATTEMPTED TO DISGUISE THIS TO THE OP BY GIVING HIM SOME LAME EXCUESE AND THE SAID ADVISORY NOTICE WAS MYSERIOUSLY MISSING FROM THE CAR'S DOCUMENTS. In anyevent, even a car bought from a trader for £100 should still be fit for the purpose and be roadworthy. If it has known defects (like and active advisory notice) then this should be disclosed to the buyer, so the PRICE/AGE IS IRRELEVANT to a car being miss-sold or wrongly described. From the OP's account, his car was wrongly described because he wasn't made aware of the advisory notice for a defect which WASN'T fixed before he bought it.

 

Now do you get it?

[raydetinu]

Bet he doesnt ( not allowed to bet tho! )

[azza87]

I look forward to hearing about how the trader won. Be sure to come back and let us know.

 

What a nice little person you are, not. So you 'think' I will lose here, fair enough that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but to look forward to hearing I lost/the trader wins is just malicious, if you've nothing more to add to this thread please leave the advice giving to those that are actually giving advice and know what they are talking about.

[Jeepstar]

As said before, an advisory notice does not stop the car from operating. You cannot prove he tried to hide anything including an MOT advisory.

 

Yes OP personally I hope you do lose (as I say I've got the balls to put my money up so confident I'm correct) as it is Joe public like you that want a new car for old car money that give the genuine buyers a bad name.

 

Sam you really are extremely naive if you think ANY trader, court, police or anyone would give you any rights other than it was roadworthy on a £100 car.

[azza87]

Yes OP personally I hope you do lose (as I say I've got the balls to put my money up so confident I'm correct) as it is Joe public like you that want a new car for old car money that give the genuine buyers a bad name.

 

No, It is used car dealers like you who think they are above the law that cause problems like this. I wasn't expecting a new car for old car money, I was expecting the car I paid £999 for to come without any defects just as I was told it was when I paid for it. Have you not read any of my opening post here? I was told there was absolutely nothing wrong with the car and that the hissing sound from within the car was the fans. Is it really that unreasonable that I'm not happy about this, I don't think I am and the friendly operators I've spoken to at CD happen to agree.

[heliosuk]

Lets get back to the basic problem in hand. Jeepster shold have been taken back to his secure accomodation by now.

 

The crux is that the OP has been sold an unroadworthy vehicle in that the servo had a leak. It was pointed out prior and post sale.

 

The fact it had an advisory has no bearing as it is indeed an advisory notice. With an MOT it is either pass or fail. Frankly I cannot see how it's possible to issue an advisory on a leaking servo, it should have been an automatic fail.

 

So give the dealer the benefit of doubt, even if he was aware or wasn't aware of the servo leak, or even the advisory notice which has no legal standing and is what it says, advisory, it should still have been picked up on a pre sale check. It is not acceptable to replace brake system components with used units purely on the basis that the service life is unknown. It is acceptable for the dealer in this instance to ask for a contribution if they are replacing with new components and this should be done on a ratio of it's designed service life i.e. 10 years or 150,000 miles. Therefore if the vehcle has done 75,000 miles it would not be unreasonable for the dealer to request a contribution as the new owner has been deprived of some of the life of the component left, but will additionally benefit from the additional life the owner will have advantage of.

 

It's not rocket science!

 

 

 

What should have happened is the dealer take the responsibility for it. Some they win, some they lose. That is what trading is about.

[sailor sam]

The advisory notice will probably satisfy a judge that the defect was present at the point of sale, therefore the dealer is liable to rectify at no cost to the OP in my opinion.

[Jeepstar]

Hey OP the friendly operators here can type what they like. It doesn't make them right. Helios says an item like a servo has a 10 year life expectancy. What utter tosh. If that was the case then the manufacturer would be liable on every failure. Not a chance of that happening. We had to fit one to a 3.5 year old citroen van with below average miles 3 weeks ago. Do you honestly think citroen were interested in paying for it helios?

 

Using that (incorrect theory) anyway. What age is the 206 OP. If it was 9 years old for instance, by helios reckoning you would have to pay 90% of the servo price anyway.

 

They seem unable to understand that your fault does not make the car unroadworthy. If it did I assume it has covered next to no miles since you purchased as you claim it is making the cars braking system not work thus making it illegal to be on the road?

 

Advisory notices or MOT's only stand up any in case in law at the time the MOT was carried out Definately NOT 10 months later. You said there was a noise, trader said it could of been the fans but invited you to inspect to satisfy yourself. You did and I assume could find no faults in the braking system either at this point or during the test drive.

 

Come on get real. You have no chance in any case against the seller.

[heliosuk]

For information Jeepster I actually test, devolp and sign off chassis systems such as brakes, steering and suspension in accordance with EEC and other World Wide legal requirements. You seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land with your expertise. In fact you seem to have no idea about reality in realtion to vehicles.

 

When I say a system is tested, it is and thouroughly and is designed to last at least 150K miles or 10 years. The only exception is dampers which are allowed a degredation figure of 20% from 80K miles onwards.

 

If I say a leaking servo is dangerous then it is. I do not specify as a requirement of a vehicle that a servo leaks but I do specify it should not after 10 years or 150k miles show any sign of leakage and ths is for a part which is non serviceable.

 

You are another example of the used car trade which is scurriolous and generally tries to fly in the face of genuine consumer rights.

 

In fact I'd go so far to suggest that you are not in fact a car trader, as most are more sensible but are employed in the "merchant banker" profession!!!

Edited May 15, 2011 by heliosuk
Spelling