Faulty car bought from local dealer.

[sailor sam]

I think the courts accept that recorded delivery is sufficient DD. Nothing lost in seeing what CD thinks when the OP contacts them on Tuesday though.

[MARTIN3030]

Agreed.

Update CD and see what they say.

Are the traders aware that you have spoken to CD ?

[azza87]

When I sent the first letter (soga) I sent it via special delivery as advised in here and even now using the tracking code on the royal mail website it says the letter is out for delivery and the second letter (lba) it just states where I posted it. I'm thinking either the postman on the dealers round is just posting the letters without actually getting a signature or the royal mail website isn't being updated with delivery info.

 

AFAIK the dealer isn't aware I've been speaking to CD which is why he tried to fob me off in his response to me soga letter.

[raydetinu]

suggest you contact RM and get them to track and look into it.

[azza87]

Just a quick update, I've called royal mail this morning and they have confirmed both letters (we already know the first one was received as I got a response) were signed for by the recipient.

 

It was delivered at around 10am on 17/05/2011 and I requested proof of this to be emailed to me and I've now received this.

 

I've also phoned CD again this morning and informed them I've received no response to me lba to the dealer. They have now passed my case on to trading standards who will contact me within the next 5 working days.

Edited May 31, 2011 by azza87

[sailor sam]

I take it you have a reference number?

[azza87]

I have a reference number for CD if that's what you mean? Or do you mean royal mail?

[MARTIN3030]

Good to hear.

So as suspected the Postie had not entered it onto the system.

Not much you can do for the moment then.

CD or TS will not impede or affect your rights to take your own action.

It may even transpire that TS will advise that you take it to Court-this is something we have seen before,much depends on the workload of your TS and unfortunately these days,also their budget.

 

In any event,you have completed pre action protocols insofar as can reasonably be expected.

[sailor sam]

I have a reference number for CD if that's what you mean? Or do you mean royal mail?

 

CD reference number. If you havn't heard anything by Friday, I would give them a ring.

[sailor sam]

Any news on this Azza?

[azza87]

Nothing to report so far. Still not had any contact from the dealer. I couldn't phone CD/TS Until today due to work, they basically said TS usually take 5 working days to respond once cases have been passed on to them.

 

It was referred to them on 31st may so tomorrow will be the 5th day, the lady I spoke to today said if I don't hear back from them either today or tomorrow to give them another call.

[azza87]

Just a quick update, I had a phone call from TS this morning. They are going to send out one of their officers (?) out to the dealer to try and come to a reasonable resolution. The lady I spoke to asked me what I wanted to do about all of this, ie the dealer cover the cost of repairs, or the dealer carry out the repairs etc.

 

I told her I would be willing to accept them either covering the costs for the repairs or them actually carrying out the repairs but I with how long this has been dragged out and the fact the dealer is now completely ignoring my correspondance etc, I would prefer to reject the car, get my money back and buy another car elsewhere. She said once one of her officers has been to see the dealer she will give me a ring back.

 

As far as I'm concerned the dealer has had the chance to offer one of the three solutions on the soga letter and he point blank refused to accept liability, which should leave the ball in my court I think. didn't say this to TS, am I right in thinking this? If so, when she rings me back I will just tell her I would like to formally reject the car, what needs to happen next for this to happen etc.

 

Thanks all.

[sailor sam]

Keep us posted

[azza87]

Still nothing new to report. I've not heard anything back from TS so not sure whether one of their officers has actually been to see the dealer yet or not. The lady I spoke to/who is dealing with this has been out of the office the last 3 days I've tried calling her to try and chase this and today I sent her an email instead so hopefully once she gets back she'll see it and give me a call, I've asked her if rejecting the car at this stage would be possible and if so how I would go about rejecting it.

 

The MOT is due this friday and I'm worried it is going to fail, the faults were on an advisory 12 months ago and I've convinced myself they'll be worse after all this time. I guess all I can do is wait for TS to get back to me but it's so frustrating not knowing what is happening plus the worry of knowing the MOT is due in just 4 days.

 

Thanks

[sailor sam]

Following their advice; 'if the trader ignores you...' ect, I would just keep on to them and ask them to do what they said they would do.

[azza87]

Well seems I had reason to worry about it's MOT. Just got back from having it tested and it failed dramatically.

 

Reasons for refusal of a Test Certificate:

 

Offside (may be bulb thats deteriorated) headlamp excessively deteriorated so that the light output is severely reduced [1.7.4a]

Brake servo leaking [3.6.C.1f] **DANGEROUS**

 

Nearside front lower ball joint has excessive play [2.2.B.1f]

 

Exhaust emissions lambda reading after 2nd fast idle outside specified limits [7.3.D.2b]

 

Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle excessive [7.3.D.2b]

 

(aborted, engine started to overheat) Emissions not tested [7.0]

 

The guy told me the leaking servo was an instant fail and when I told him it was an advisory on the last MOT he said it shouldn't have been an advisory, it is dangerous to drive in it's current condition.

 

Advisory Notice:

Measurements

Brakes advisories: RBT Service Brake Efficiency: 50%, RBT Park Brake Efficiency: 17%

 

Advisory items:

 

Rear Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread [6.3.1d]

 

Nearside front brake hose slightly deteriorated [3.6.B.2c]

 

Offside front brake pipe slightly corroded [3.6.B.2c]

 

Nearside front brake pad(s) wearing thin [3.5.1f]

 

Offside front brake pad(s) wearing thin [3.5.1f]

 

Nearside front lower suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement [2.4.G.3]

 

Offside front lower suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement [2.4.G.3]

 

Service brake Your vehicle has only just met the required service brake efficiency. It would appear the braking system requires adjustment or repair. [3.7.A.9]

 

Parking brake Your vehicle has only just met the required park brake efficiency. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. [3.7.A.10]

 

Front brake discs corroded

 

N/s/f inner driveshaft boot leaking

 

They have quoted me roughly £400 for repairs including labor but are unable to get hold of a replacement brake servo so I would have to supply this myself, labor costs to fit the brake servo would be roughly £70 as it is 1.4 hours work. I was absolutely speechless when he gave me the results of the test. It wasn't at kwik-fit or halfords either, it was at Lakeside Service Centre who are members of the good garage scheme.

 

So far I've been unable to get back in touch with the lady at TS who is dealing with this, each time I phone it goes to her message machine saying she is out of the office. I've had no response to the email I sent her a few days ago. What would you recommend I do now, obviously with the failed MOT I can't drive the car so I'm stuck without a car until this whole mess is sorted.

 

Cheers

Aaron

[azza87]

I've just spoken to TS, she replied to my email on the 4th (I didn't get it!) and has just resent it (again nothing has come through!). An officer was sent out to the dealers address but there was nobody there. They left a card asking them to get in touch with TS and he phoned and left an abrupt message stating he wasn't happy about TS going out to his address.

 

Since the message TS have sent out a letter asking for the dealer to ring them to make an appointment to go in to see them seeing as he is unhappy with them going to his address but they have so far heard nothing back from him. She did say he will have only had the letter for a matter of days and he does have 14 days to get back to them before they chase it up.

 

So at the minute I'm now without a car as it's unroadworthy and without an MOT and I don't seem to have gotten very far as yet with TS. What a major headache this has turned out to be.

[sailor sam]

Mmm, I'm not happy about the casual way TS are treating this. the seller had 14 days to trespond to your complaint back in may and didn't. I see no reason for dragging this out any longer to be honest. Send a copy of the fail doc to the 'lady' at TS and politely ask what action they intend to take. Remind her that the seller has been totally dismissive so far and now you cannot even use the car. So now you are not only out of pocket with an unroadworthy vehicle but are being inconvienienced as well.

[azza87]

I told her over the phone today that the reason I was calling to chase things up was due to having the MOT today and it failing going into detail about what the fails were, one being the original fault in this dispute and all she said in response was the MOT was irrelevant until they hear back from the dealer as no matter how much information I give them they can't go any further without them talking to the dealer.

 

I did ask what would happen if the seller ignored them like he has ignored me and she just said if that was going to be the case it would go to court and could take between 6 and 9 months to resolve. I just can't see this ever going anywhere and I'm at the end of my tether now!

[sailor sam]

I've just gone through the thread again and noted that you actually bought this to the attention of TS on 5th May being just over 2 months ago. Personally I would be thinking of making a complaint against them by now. To me the facts are simple; you bought a car which had a known defect (a fact you have proof from the advisory given last July). The dealer did not make you aware of this and even possibly removed the advisory notice from the documentation. You have given the dealer the opportunity to rectify and he has point blaink refused to do so which is a clear breach of the SOGA. You reported the matter to TS 5th May who appear to be dragging their feet by writing to the seller and waiting for a reply which we all know isn't going to come. We are now on the 8th July with no progress. By now the matter should be in court as far as i'm concerned.

 

Unfortunately there is little you can do but wait if you want TS to take the dealer on. At least you won't have to find the court costs yourself. In the meantime, you could ask them about hiring a car and recovering the costs from the dealer. i know that will be a risk but IMHO, you have a strong case here so consiquential losses can be added to a claim. If I were you I would send the seller a brief letter saying that due to his refusal to honour his obligations to you under the SOGA, you have now asked TS to investigate. Enclose a copy of the MOT fail doc and add that you now anticipate legal action being taken and as such you are considering hiring a car as your car (which they sold you just 3 months ago) is now an MOT failure. The hire cost will be added to the claim as a 'consiquential loss' unless the matter is resolved within the next 7 days. I would suggest that before you do this to run it by TS first.

[grahamengineering]

Aaron, You claimed the vehicle was dangerously non roadworthy mid April. You contacted the dealer who rightly or wrongly said that advisories found in an MOT done 9 months previous by a different garage were not covered by him. You continued to claim the car was dangerous and contacted trading standards.

 

 

My question is, If it was so dangerous why did you continue driving it? You prove that by saying you are now left without a car as it has failed its MOT. To my mind that throws your statement that the car was dangerous and not fit for purpose out the window.

 

 

Frankly £400 to get an old banger through its test isn't excessive.

 

 

I recall reading another thread here where 2 other people have been fighting for 2 years with their cars off the road. This was on cars at over £10,000. You cannot really expect trading standards to be putting your case to the top of the pile.

 

 

Much as some of the posters on here might believe and post, The courts aren't as favorable as you might think where cheap old cars are concerned. The law is incredibly complex and open to interpretation with the description of fitness for purpose.

 

 

The trader probably knows how limited trading standards powers are. He also will know that the only option left to you is to pursue a claim through small claims which he will likely win.

[azza87]

Aaron, You claimed the vehicle was dangerously non roadworthy mid April. You contacted the dealer who rightly or wrongly said that advisories found in an MOT done 9 months previous by a different garage were not covered by him. You continued to claim the car was dangerous and contacted trading standards.

 

 

My question is, If it was so dangerous why did you continue driving it? You prove that by saying you are now left without a car as it has failed its MOT. To my mind that throws your statement that the car was dangerous and not fit for purpose out the window.

 

 

Frankly £400 to get an old banger through its test isn't excessive.

 

 

I recall reading another thread here where 2 other people have been fighting for 2 years with their cars off the road. This was on cars at over £10,000. You cannot really expect trading standards to be putting your case to the top of the pile.

 

 

Much as some of the posters on here might believe and post, The courts aren't as favorable as you might think where cheap old cars are concerned. The law is incredibly complex and open to interpretation with the description of fitness for purpose.

 

 

The trader probably knows how limited trading standards powers are. He also will know that the only option left to you is to pursue a claim through small claims which he will likely win.

 

Jeepster mk4 by any chance?

 

£400 for repairs after a test isn't that much to some people but it is alot of money to me on my wage and seeing as car was faulty when I bought it I don't see why I should have to foot the bill for such repairs.

 

I have done less than 1000 miles in the car since I bought it 4 months ago, are you really saying that all of those faults and advisories on todays failed MOT are from my usage of the car? All these failures just point out just how bad a condition the car is, I know you can't expect an old used car to be in perfect/new condition and I wasn't, but there is no way I am going to accept that a car with this amount of problems is acceptable 11 years old or only costing £999 or not.

[sailor sam]

Jeepster mk4 by any chance?

 

My thinking exactly! Clearly another trader!

 

Fact of the matter is you have documented PROOF in the advisory notice that the car had a known defect when you bought it AND the dealer (in my opinion) deliberately witheld that info from you and disguised the defect by giving you some load of bull about the hissing noise durung the test drive. Your case is pretty solid I would say and so does TS (apparently).

[grahamengineering]

No Aaron, the faults picked up in the test are all wear and tear on a car of this age and price. If you wanted a car that had no wear and tear then you have to buy new. Common sense and the courts will tell you that. Sorry to be harsh but you do have to weigh up can you afford a car if you cant afford to maintain it.

 

Sailor Sam if you actually were aware of the law here you would not be posting what you do. Trading standards will not bring a case to return Aarons money. They may after speaking to the trader bring a prosecution for illegal business practices. The OP would still be then left to pursue a case for his losses. They dont have the powers to make the seller return the money.

 

If you look at the thread where Parks of Ayr are being discussed. Trading standards are not pursuing the personal loss claim. In those cases it is for £10,000 cars that don't even go. The people concerned are having to bring cases themselves.

[sailor sam]

No Aaron, the faults picked up in the test are all wear and tear on a car of this age and price. If you wanted a car that had no wear and tear then you have to buy new. Common sense and the courts will tell you that. Sorry to be harsh but you do have to weigh up can you afford a car if you cant afford to maintain it.

 

Sailor Sam if you actually were aware of the law here you would not be posting what you do. Trading standards will not bring a case to return Aarons money. They may after speaking to the trader bring a prosecution for illegal business practices. The OP would still be then left to pursue a case for his losses. They dont have the powers to make the seller return the money.

 

If you look at the thread where Parks of Ayr are being discussed. Trading standards are not pursuing the personal loss claim. In those cases it is for £10,000 cars that don't even go. The people concerned are having to bring cases themselves.

 

Oh god, here we go again!

 

Yes I am aware of the law thanks and have been involved in a number of cases like these. You are clearly suggesting then that TS are lieing to the OP as they have told him that 'it will go to court' if the dealer ignores them. For your info, TS or anyone else for that matter can bring an action against the dealer on behalf of the OP if they so wish. There is absolutely no rules against anyone doing so.

 

If you have read the whole thread (and i've no doubt that you have... more than once and not ionly today!), you will see that the OP has an advisory notice which was issued prior to him buying the car with a brake cylinder leak which still exists now and has been subsiquently resulted in a fail now. I believe (and so does TS it appears) that there is sufficient proof to show that the dealer miss-sold the car in the first place by not disclosing that fact. You will also see that a previous suspected 'trader' tried to take over the thread by giving similar contrdictory advice to other reliable and experienced Caggers.

 

So please go away and pester someone else unless the OP wants more of your 'advice'.