Faulty car bought from local dealer.

[heliosuk]

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.

 

 

Oh dear jeepster for a trader you don't know an awful lot about cars do you?

 

Leaking servo = unroadworthy car

 

And...............that has never ever changed. It falls under all vehicle inspections, services and mot as condition of system which should have no leaks. Car should not have been sold in that condition and as a trader you ought to know better.

[heliosuk]

Perhaps if you did it might stop you talking b******s all the time!!!

[heliosuk]

azza, take Sams and the Dragons advice. Reject the car. Jeepster seems to be on a different planet.

 

The long and the short is that a leaking servo is considered to be unroadworthy. It doesn't matter whether or not it was on a previous advisory, the fact of the matter is that you picked up on it on the test drive, was fed a cock and bull story and have asked for it to be repaired. DO NOT fit a used part on a braking system.

 

Servos are usually very reliable and two things cause them to fail. External damage to pipes and connectors, which suggests "something unusual "in its past or a master cylinder fault where fluid leaks in and contaminates the diaphraghm. That's the more serious fault!!

[heliosuk]

I'll take you up on that Jeepster. Only if it goes to court and the OP wins you pay £50 to the CAG site running funds. We do things for nothing here. If the OP loses I'll honour the £50 though I expect you to reciprocate and nominate a charity of your choice. CAG site rules which you signed up to is that nobody will pesonally benefit financially on the forums.

 

MARTIN 3030 You OK with this?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[heliosuk]

Load sensing valve needing freeing off is B****y dangerous especially on a wet road. The fact that it was seized warrants a red ticket.

 

It would therefore appear that the standard of the test carried out 10 months ago is very iffy indeed. Two safety system items here. 1 advisory which should have been an immeadiate fail and 2. a seized load sensing valve where frankly if not changed by the MOT garage should have required the car either trailering away or being towed.

 

Other items are not realy dangerous but are a requirement that they work.

 

And before jeepstar starts blowing hot air about it being ok to free off, bare in mind why it seized in the first place. Freeing off never gets them back to full working condition and really should have been replaced. Check to see if it looks newish.

[heliosuk]

OK jeepstar. Get me same said type of car and I'll lock LSV valve as though it seized, then put a leak into the servo. I'll put a load equivalent to a weeks shopping for a family in there as well, unsecured to help you.

 

Now you take it up a motorway in heavy rain at 60 mph and hit the brakes hard in traffic.

 

Result is that most probably this site and thread will get back to normal as you wouldn't be around but the unfortunate thing is you'd take out a lot of innocent people as well.

 

If I proposed this same said test under controlled test conditions by a team of test drivers such as I use they would tell me very quickly to foxtrot oscar and I'd probably be referred to the company psychatrist for even suggesting it.

 

If you had an ounce of decency about you, you would comply with post #99 as requested.

 

It is pretty obvious you have no real technical background or qualifications and previous posts suggest you are indeed a pub mechanic. You might have fiddled with cars and buy and sell them but you are no true reflection on the good side of the motor industry. In fact your attitude is exactly that which the industry is trying to avoid.

 

Finaly, please refrain from posting on this thread any more so we can get on with helping the op.

 

If you want a ruck start your own thread and I'm sure you'll get one but when you have been warned take heed. My fish one is the one to use if you don't have the imagination to create your own. Hurl abuse at that NOT here.

[heliosuk]

I was going to ask as well, what's the latest?

[heliosuk]

Grahamengineering,

 

Might be an idea to put your opinion in a more constuctive way. The unfortunate thing with this thread is that it was "sullied", as this is an in word at the moment, by someone, a trader who for want of a better sentance "portrayed all that is wrong with the used car market" at the moment. The issue at hand is that the OP complained about issues with the car prior to sale and post sale which the trader refuses to recognise and fed the OP cock and bull stories that the car was OK. This ihas now turned not to be the case, i.e. the car has been dangerous all along.

Yes, some of the problems are open to debate but to suggest that it is OK for a dealer to sell unroadworthy cars which is obviously the case here is fundamentally wrong. The law is quite clear here. It is not appropriate for you to suggest that Sailor Sam does not know the law, he has not said anything of the sort. All he is doing is to advise what the OP's right are and the process involved.

I frequently clash over the SOGA rules on this forum but this is a clear cut case of the dealer taking the ****.

 

Something makes me think that your contributions will be usefull on this forum but they have to be in a manner that is constructive.

 

With regards to this post it might be an idea if you refrained as it has history you will not be privy to unless of course you are jeepster?

 

Your post however should act as a reminder that SOGA is not clear cut........fortunately in this case it is with the major problem.

 

Some of the items the OP has highlighted will have to be swallowed but unfortunately there are items which are a big no no, the servo being the main one.

[heliosuk]

I think toothless tiger springs to mind. They have powers but it takes so long for them to act. I understand that they act swiftly based on the amount of complaints but they will act. When they get around to individual complaints does though seem to take time.

[heliosuk]

Because of the large amount of complaints about the motor trade, in 2010 new regulations were put in place to bring these cowboys to boot.

 

Unfortunately Scania, they were not regulations but a code of practice that the traders should adhear to which essentialy means it aint worth the paper it's written on. A trader is not obliged to follow it only that it is recommended they do.

 

The upshot is that the motor industry needs some sort of regulation now to prevent cowboys from buying and selling. The industry should now be starting to follow aircraft standards of sales and service if it wants to get rid of the bad image that has evolved, more so in the last few years as cars get more complex and the trade refuses to pay people who know how to fix them sensible money. Quite willing to pay a gobby salesperson large amounts of dosh to shift dodgy metal though arn't they.