Faulty car bought from local dealer.

[scaniaman]

Jeepstar, Citroen will hardly replace anything under their own 3 year warranty, and certainly won't conduct investegatory tests on vehicles which are nearly new.A bit off topic Heliosuk, but your last post is almost suggesting what many of us would like to see----all people involved in vehicle retailing be made to undergoe training / testing to ensure that they are of fit character / knowledge to be selling high value goods to the public!!!!!!!!! (That would close AC down overnight) LOL.In fairness to traders though, we see almost every week, posters on here that are buying pretty old cars and getting annoyed when they go wrong. It is also quite unbelievable that people buy cars at over 100,000 mls and expect them to be trouble free. By 9/10 yrs old and 100,000mls, a car is "Getting tired" at best, irrespective of care.

[Jeepstar]

If it was dangerous then it wouldn't of passed an MOT then would it? As I say unless the manufacturers are willing to stand by their products for ten years, then whatever tests you may or may not have carried out (allegedly) are pointless.

 

YOU ARE talking nonsense as far as the eyes of the law are concerned. I'm confident the trader in question also is well aware of the law which is why the OP has been told to take it to court by him. He knows he WILL win.

[sailor sam]

If it was dangerous then it wouldn't of passed an MOT then would it? As I say unless the manufacturers are willing to stand by their products for ten years, then whatever tests you may or may not have carried out (allegedly) are pointless.

 

YOU ARE talking nonsense as far as the eyes of the law are concerned. I'm confident the trader in question also is well aware of the law which is why the OP has been told to take it to court by him. He knows he WILL win.

 

It appears that TS don't agree but of course, what would they know.

[Jeepstar]

Jeepstar, Citroen will hardly replace anything under their own 3 year warranty, and certainly won't conduct investegatory tests on vehicles which are nearly new.A bit off topic Heliosuk, but your last post is almost suggesting what many of us would like to see----all people involved in vehicle retailing be made to undergoe training / testing to ensure that they are of fit character / knowledge to be selling high value goods to the public!!!!!!!!! (That would close AC down overnight) LOL.In fairness to traders though, we see almost every week, posters on here that are buying pretty old cars and getting annoyed when they go wrong. It is also quite unbelievable that people buy cars at over 100,000 mls and expect them to be trouble free. By 9/10 yrs old and 100,000mls, a car is "Getting tired" at best, irrespective of care.

 

Well said scania, It is well known that towards the end of the manufacturers warranty period, by and large the only things still covered are the engine and box.

 

I also totally agree that the biggest complaints about cars are nearly ALWAYS about near end of life cars. This is why SOGA limits what the trader is expected to cover as the vehilce is older, cheaper or has covered more miles.

 

While you will always get the odd dodgy dealer, most (myself included) are pretty knowedgable about their product. And conversant with the relevant laws.

 

Sam while you may make insulting statements, bear in mind that trading standards are NOT the law and are actually only advising OP in his options. I'm confident they will have told him the best option would of been to try and come to an agreement without going to court. They will (or should) advise of the costs and difficulties involved in doing so. ie, taking his car off the road until the case, getting an inspection carried out by a recognised body and the fact he could well end up paying the costs of the trader.

[Conniff]

We seem to have gone a bit off track on this one.

 

A few points that I would like to pick up on.

 

The trader allegedly said the noise could be the fans. But was open enough to invite the customer to inspect inside the engine bay prior to purchase. The hissing would of been significantly worse from there.

 

I don't agree that the volume of the vacuum leak would be significantly worse/higher by lifting up the bonnet. The engine will be idling so would be significantly reduced or not noticeable at all, he 'would' have known this. So no reliance can be placed on that.

 

 

Assuming the brakes were of sufficient standard at the time of sale then the trader has done nothing wrong.

But its not no brakes, its a leaky servo. Providing it is giving enough servo assistance to the braking system it has met the requirements of sale.

 

How would he know if the brakes met the required standard or not, unless he has a rolling road or put it through an MoT. To my mind he was aware of the servo leak as none of the fans on any car either under the bonnet or in the heater make a hissing sound and certainly not one that can be compare with a vacuum leak.

 

He may not have set out to deceive, but you can bet he was more aware of things than he let on, after all, this is his trade and you will know exactly what I mean by that.

 

I will say no more on the above posts, but ask aaza87 if he would summarise everything that has happened up to date in a chronological order ie 'date/problem/action taken', so we are up to date and can move forward. I ask this as the thread has got a bit muddled so getting hard to read through and keep track of.

[sailor sam]

its strange don't you think Conniff that the dealer didn't mention the advisory notice to the OP and the fact that it was missing from the documents supplied to the OP. In your opinion, do you think that the advisory notice (which mentions the servo leak), would be sufficient evidence to show that the fault was present at the point of sale to the OP thus making the seller responsible to rectify?

[Jeepstar]

It would only have any bearing if the MOT test had been carried out by the trader involved & only if that test had just taken place. Irrespective if the fault was present or not at the point of sale Sam, the buyer was given the opportunity to inspect, did so and confirmed to himself the vehicle was to his satisfaction. Now as the servo unit is bolted onto the bulkhead. It would be fair to assume the noise would be louder from inside the engine bay.

 

To get any recourse he would have to prove the vehicle was non roadworthy when he bought it. Having an existing fault does not automatically mean it wasn't of merchantable quality at the time of sale as it was an old and cheap used car.

[heliosuk]

It would only have any bearing if the MOT test had been carried out by the trader involved & only if that test had just taken place. Irrespective if the fault was present or not at the point of sale Sam, the buyer was given the opportunity to inspect, did so and confirmed to himself the vehicle was to his satisfaction. Now as the servo unit is bolted onto the bulkhead. It would be fair to assume the noise would be louder from inside the engine bay.

 

To get any recourse he would have to prove the vehicle was non roadworthy when he bought it. Having an existing fault does not automatically mean it wasn't of merchantable quality at the time of sale as it was an old and cheap used car.

 

This is exactly the bit you don't get Jeepster. It was pointed out by the OP at the time of sale and a leaking servo automatically makes a car unroadworthy. Further, he has proof that there is a history of it being unroadworthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! whether the seller knew it or not.

[sailor sam]

No, the fact is Jeepstar that the OP has proof in the advisory notice that the fault exisited prior to the point of sale. A fault does not be an 'unroadworthy' one if it is present at the point of sale and that is irrelevant of age and cost. If the seller does not make the fault known to the buyer in the vehicle's description, then the buyer can ask for it to be rectified at no cost within the first 6 months of ownership. In this case, the advisory notice confirms thst the servo was faulty at the point of sale and as Helio states; whether the seller knew it or not. I suspect that the seller knew it and as such, should pay for the repair in full.

 

To be honest, i don't know how many more times I have to drum this into you, but it will be the last.

[Jeepstar]

This is exactly the bit you don't get Jeepster. It was pointed out by the OP at the time of sale and a leaking servo automatically makes a car unroadworthy. Further, he has proof that there is a history of it being unroadworthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! whether the seller knew it or not.

 

Incorrect, if it had made the car unroadworthy then the MOT tester would of put it of failed it at the time of test not given an advisory.

 

Sam you obviously have some form of learning disability. An advisory 10 months ago has no bearing on the car being of merchantable quality at the time of sale. There is a massive difference between merchantable quality in a new and a 10 year old used car.

[sailor sam]

Ok let me spell it out to you AGAIN Jeepstar in the form of how the judge may ask in court> The advisory was issued for the leaking servo 10 months ago whith the MOT. The OP purchases the car on 8th April 2011 with the same defect which obviously has not been attended to. QUESTION 1: WAS THE DEFECT PRESENT ON 8TH APRIL 2011? ANSWER: YES QUESTION 2: IS THIS ITEM A 'DEFECT'? ANSWER : YES QUESTION 3; WHAT DOES THE SOGA SAY ABOUT USED CARS? ANSWER: DEFECTS WHICH OCCUR WITHIN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP ARE ASSUMED TO BE PRESENT AT THE POINT OF SALE UNLESS THE SELLER CAN PROVE OTHERWISE. QUESTION 4; DOES THE SOGA EXCLUDE CARS BECAUSE OF AGE OR MILEAGE? ANSWER: NO QUESTION 5: HAS THE OP PROOF THAT THE DEFECT WAS THERE AT THE POINT OF SALE? ANSWER: YES, THE ADVISORY NOTICE WHICH WAS ISSUED WITH THE LAST MOT. QUESTION 6: CAN THE SELLER PROVE THAT THE DEFECT WAS NOT THERE AT THE POINT OF SALE? ANSWER: HIGHLY UNLIKELY UNLESS HE CAN PROVE THAT THE SERVO WAS REPLACED SINCE THE ADVISORY NOTICE WAS ISSUED. QUESTION 7: DID THE SELLER MAKE THE OP AWARE OF THE ADVISORY NOTICE AND/OR THE DEFECT? ANSWER: NO

 

Now unfortunately my 7 year old son is at school at the moment so I can't check to see if he could understand the above, so i'll ask my fellow Caggers if they can form an opinion and perhaps help translate it for you into another way that I cannot think of.

[Conniff]

Irrespective of it being an advisory on the last MoT, it is a fault. This may have been dismissed by the previous owner as 'not caused any problem yet', but that was his prerogative and one he thought he could live with.

As you should know Jeepstar, the servo is a critical part of the braking system and failure of braking assistance can be as dangerous as an hydraulic failure itself and could very easily lead to an otherwise avoidable accident when the driver presses on the pedal as normal only to find there is no response.

 

Is a leak in a servo normal? without a doubt it is not so is a fault. Was that fault pointed out to the buyer on purchase? No, (in fact it was covered up with some salesmans pitch about it being a fan).

The regulations state that a fault can only be complained about if it was neither pointed out to the buyer nor could have reasonably been expected to have been seen by the buyer, both of those apply here.

 

So forgetting the advisory completely, there is a fault with the car and it is the responsibility of the seller to make good that fault. It is up to the seller to show that the fault wasn't present at the time of sale, this is where the advisory will help him make up his mind as it shows that it was indeed present when he sold the car.

 

Just because it was an advisory 10 months ago, it doesn't mean that it has not deteriated over the past 10 months to now make the car a danger to the driver and other road users.

The retort that the hissing was a fan when the subject was mentioned says to me that the seller was aware of the true nature of the noise, if so, he has intentionally misled the buyer by taking advantage of the buyers lack of mechanical knowledge.

 

I am aware of Sailor Sam and Heliosuk qualifications, as they are of mine, and I fully respect their comments, as you should.

 

In normal circumstances I would say that it is laudable for someone to stick up for their taken profession as a used car seller, but in this case, you're bringing them deeper into disrepute. Car repairs and car sales are the general publics top 2 most mistrusted and complained about industries and you seem bent on keeping it that way.

 

Having read the thread a couple of times, I'm still not sure of where we are at the moment.

Has the servo been replaced?

Have letters or emails been sent with written replies denying any responsibility?

 

Out of interest, what were the MoT failures mentioned?

Edited May 17, 2011 by Conniff

[Jeepstar]

Rightly or wrongly conniff, It is up to the court to decide if the fault stopped the car being of merchantable value. They use SOGA's outline of what could reasonably be expected given the age, miles and price.

 

The SOGA specifically states:

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

 

Now personally using what I have saw and learnt from other traders, in a sub £1k car unless the brakes weren't of roadworthy standard at the time of sale the trader has done no wrong. By and large a buyer of this age of car can only expect it to start go and stop. Which I assume it is doing. The judge at the court if it got that far, would ask what price the car was new eg £11k, look at it being now a £1k car and work on the assumption that it will be 90% worn out.

 

Yes the trader likely knew of the leak, hence why he advised the buyer to inspect the car. By doing this he mitigates his responsibility. This IS written down in law.

 

I'm sorry if you feel my discouraging the OP to pursue it is wrong. But do understand I am talking from a viewpoint of genuine knowledge. I do believe the OP will find himself further out of pocket pursuing this.

 

Again yes the motor trade gets a bad reputation at times. Often unfairly I think. In most of these cases it is those who have bought the cheapest cars. If you aren't sure of a car, get an inspection done. In the same way you wouldn't buy a house without a survey.

[raydetinu]

House is not a fair analogy is it! not buying from a trader who is supposed to be a to some extent knowlegable in what he is selling, most householders are not!

houses dont come with a guarantee ( unless new ) also a lot more money invoved generally.

But agree always best to check car out thoroughly before purchase, but that should not absolve trader for defects that occur or show up soon after purchase.

Thats why people buy from traders so that their is the supposed peace of mind that checks have been done so the car is safe and roadworthy and they have a come back if something goes wrong.

[heliosuk]

Incorrect, if it had made the car unroadworthy then the MOT tester would of put it of failed it at the time of test not given an advisory.QUOTE]

 

That's also the point. Section 5.2 of the catergorisation of failures clearly states with regards to a braking system servo "loss of air/vacuum" = immeadiate fail. i.e. unroadworthy.

 

Now it might be that in the testers opinion 10 months ago he/she wrongly gave the part the benefit of doubt but what he/she has highlighted is that "something isn't right with it" and needs attention. It should have been a failure in reality.

[Jeepstar]

I agree helios in that if I had been the tester it would of failed. But as the MOT system is computerised and requires a categorisation as you have put above. If the system allows the tester to put 5.2 in the advisory print system it must be ok. Unless another tester were to inspect the vehicle and say it categorically is unroadworthy due to this fault, you cannot claim the car wasn't fit for purpose.

[sailor sam]

JESUS! I give up. Can't this person be moderated? His advice is FLAWED. THE CAR HAD A KNOWN DEFECT WHEN SOLD TO THE OP THUS IT WAS NOT FIT FOR THE POURPOSE!!!!!

[Jeepstar]

Sam, what qualifications in consumer law do you have? In particular law pertaining to used vehicle sales. I have both studied it at college and since tried to keep up to date with the current legislation as it related to my day to day living.

 

PS the court isn't concerned in its fitness for fish (porpoise).

Edited May 17, 2011 by Jeepstar

[heliosuk]

JESUS! I give up. Can't this person be moderated? His advice is FLAWED. THE CAR HAD A KNOWN DEFECT WHEN SOLD TO THE OP THUS IT WAS NOT FIT FOR THE POURPOSE!!!!!

 

True Sam, So true. I know I've had a few ding dongs on here over aspects of SOGA but at least I'll roll over and play dead when beaten!! I feel sorry for the OP, he must be pulling his hair out.

 

The good thing though is that we can proudly tell Jeepster's carers that we've done our bit for care in the community and he can go home now.

[raydetinu]

Oh well at least we have agreed to differ but the courts are always the final arbiter; After all thats what they are there for!

[heliosuk]

Sam, what qualifications in consumer law do you have? In particular law pertaining to used vehicle sales. I have both studied it at college and since tried to keep up to date with the current legislation as it related to my day to day living.

 

PS the court isn't concerned in its fitness for fish (porpoise).

 

If you are going to stoop to criticising spelling Jeepstar perhaps it might be an idea to check your own posts first for grammar and spelling. Nobody really cares provided the message gets across.

[sailor sam]

If he did have any intelligence, he would know that a porpoise isn't a fish.

[azza87]

I will say no more on the above posts, but ask aaza87 if he would summarise everything that has happened up to date in a chronological order ie 'date/problem/action taken', so we are up to date and can move forward. I ask this as the thread has got a bit muddled so getting hard to read through and keep track of.

 

Having read the thread a couple of times, I'm still not sure of where we are at the moment.

Has the servo been replaced?

Have letters or emails been sent with written replies denying any responsibility?

 

Out of interest, what were the MoT failures mentioned?

 

After giving the dealer a call and being hung up on, I called CD who told me to send off a soga letter the the dealer.

 

I sent of the soga letter sailor sam kindly drafted up for me and received a response from the dealer a few days ago saying the following:

 

My company warranty is 30 day mechanical Breakdown only, it does not stretch to advisory items issued by an MOT station alien to ourselves issued some 10 months ago! Last July these 2 items were 'Advisory' as you alledge. May I also point out you bought an 11 year old car for less than a grand. You 3 seperate requests will not be met by myself and I am happy to attend court as intended in your letter.

 

Any further correspondence (except a court summons) will be ignored.

 

signature/name

I've since spoken to CD again and have been advised by them to send off a lba to the dealer giving them a further 14 days to rectify the problem.

 

This letter was sent off on Saturday afternoon and would have probably arrived on the dealers doorstep either yesterday or this morning at the latest.

 

I will update again once (or if) I get a response. Many thanks to everyone who has taken the time to help/advise me.

 

Jeepster, as I've said before I am ignoring your advice/comments and you are now starting to annoy those that are actually trying to help. I'm sure I speak for most people in this thread when I ask you to please stop posting in here and leave it to the professionals/people who know what they are talking about.

[Conniff]

Jeepster, I request you refrain from further posting in this thread in accordance with the op azza87 wishes.

[Jeepstar]

azza, Just because I am not giving you the response you would like to hear doesn't mean I'm wrong. You are more than welcome to ignore my (correct)interpretation of the law. You will find out the truth if you do decide to take it to court.

 

-- Edited -- by Conniff

Edited May 17, 2011 by Conniff