Faulty car bought from local dealer.

[azza87]

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

 

Nope! Been there, seen his posts and still have the headache to prove it!

 

The OP has in the eyes of the law contradicted himself by continuing to drive this 'dangerous' car. You cannot have it both ways, it is either dangerous or its not. if it is you dont drive it. As the little meerkats say- simples!!!

 

Due to work I have had no option but to drive the car, do you not think I've inconvenienced enough by all of this to then not be able to drive the car to earn a living?

 

I know I'm asking the above question to the wrong person as we all know what your opinion is and quite frankly nobody is interested in reading them.

 

The MOT tester today confirmed that the car is indeed dangerous and unroadworthy and I now have no option but to not drive it, how I'm going to manage getting to and from work for the next however long I don't know.

 

You point out it's only £400 to get it through it's MOT but that is besides the point and when you take the 10 advisory notices into account it is going to cost a hell of a lot more than £400 make it right.

Edited July 8, 2011 by azza87

[grahamengineering]

I'm sure the people in the thread regarding £10,000 cars are pretty inconvenienced by not having their cars too. Yet trading standards are not intervening to bring a private case to get their money back. They wont for you either.

 

I am astounded you can state the car as dangerous yet still drive it. That is a criminal offense. If I was the trader I'd be pointing that out to trading standards too.

[sailor sam]

Sailor Sam, the facts speak for themselves. In the case against Parks are trading standards conducting the court case? Answer is no!

 

I've read the thread and some of your other posts in other threads, you seem to have no comprehension of the law. Just because you type it on here does not make what you are saying true.

 

The OP has in the eyes of the law contradicted himself by continuing to drive this 'dangerous' car. You cannot have it both ways, it is either dangerous or its not. if it is you dont drive it. As the little meerkats say- simples!!!

 

Whatever... talk to the hand ect ect ect. You are entitled to your opinion and you have given it. Now as this is the OPs thread and he has indicated that he dosn't want to read your waffle any longer,

 

GO AWAY!

[grahamengineering]

For waffle read correct information. - - edited - -

Edited July 9, 2011 by Conniff

[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.

[scaniaman]

Sorry to have to agree with GE as far as TS are concerned. It has been made abundently clear to me by several TS offices that they will go to court to prosecute a trader for illegal practices but this will not include financial restitution to the customer. What in effect happens, is that when a trader realises that he is in for big trouble by TS, he then puts wrongs right in the hope that TS will drop actions against him.TS will not do a lawyers job for him, and this means no private prosecutions. The money side of things have to be done by the customer.Sorry, but this has unfortunately been my experience.

[azza87]

If this is the case and the dealer is being dismissive/refusing to do anything how do I go forward if the money side of things falls on the customer? What about the right to reject the car within 6 months of purchase in cases like this, I've been under the impression this was something TS would help with/achieve?

[scaniaman]

Yes, if you go down the rejection road. That comes under the SOGA rules. If you force rejection on the dealer and he doesn't pay up you still have to take court action against him.

[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.

[sailor sam]

It may indeed be the case that TS have slightly miss-lead the OP into believing that they will act on behalf which is as I read it. My advice (as always) is based on what information I am given and the OP has stated (post #144) that TS lady told him that if the dealer dose not respond, 'it will go to court'. I agree that it isn't clear what is maent by that in respect of what cort action TS is taliking about.

 

The fact of the matter is that the OP has few options it seems. One is to rely on what the lady at TS has indicated to him that they intend to prosecute the dealer. This suggests to me that TS are satisfied that the OP has a genuine and a legit case against the dealer. He appaers to have a good paper trail of evidence st support the fact that the dealer sold the car with a known problem which has now resulted in the car failing the MOT. It is also signifitant that the dealer was made aware of this around 2 months ago and has chosen not to rectify the problem. Yes, the OP has continued to drive the car with the 'advisory' defect but in the OPs defence, why would he not do so? Thats what he bought the car for and if the car had an advisory, this to the average person would make them think that 'OK, this needs to be sorted before then next MOT but it can't be dangerous because it would of failed in the previous test'. So I don not believe that the OP has compromised his position. So it remains to be confirmed that TS will indeed take the dealer to court and obtain a full refund or whether they are merely going to prosecute the dealer for selling an unroadworthy car.

 

The final option is for thye OP to commence court proceedings himself. If TS do sucessfully prosecute the dealer, then this would be usefull to the OPs case. Obviously this will initially cost the OP a signifitant amount of money in court fees all of which can be recovered if the OP wins the claim. The OP can also claim consiquential lossses plus interest. But yes, it isn't a quick fix process as we all, know and dispite winning the claim, he may have to then go on to enforce the judgement. So the OP has some decissions to make after hearing back from TS. I have to say that on this occasion, I don't feel TS are painting the complete picture fo the OP and IMO, they should of begun any action before now.

 

Personally if I was the OP now that the car cannot be driven, I would some how get the car back to the dealer and leave it on the forecourt with a sign in the windscreen saying 'Bought from here April 2011, driven only 1000 miles since and fails MOT July 2011 with numerous faults' unless the dealer changes his position.

 

These 'dealers' should not be allowed to get away with this and it p**ses me off when we get 'new' members comming on here trying to give the impression that the buyer of a car which is 10+ years old have no rights available to them.

[scaniaman]

Reference your post #160 heliosuk. This is unfortunately completely true. TS have powers, and it is at their discretion as to how they use them/ or if they use them. They are part of every local council, and if you make a complaint ,it is put through a lenghty 3 stage process BUT by the councils OWN staff, right up to the head of the council. So they are self policing---never a satisfactory scheme.If not happy with head of council, then they refer you to an ombudsman---complete waste of time and effort and not worth the stamp.Worse still, is that the OFT are supposed to have overall jurisdiction over TS. OFT are a joke, and an expense that bankrupt britain cannot afford. They tipify "Jobs for the boys", many of whom have unusual names.!!!!! 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. Again, considering the volume of complaints, i cannot trace 1 case where the OFT have brought a trader to court or suspended his license to trade / frozen his bank account.The only solution i can think of is that many people complain to their MP,s and demand that OFT "earn their corn" and justify their existance by physical action instead of just manufacturing excuses for inaction. These guys have a terrific command of the English language when it comes to excuses.

[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.

[MARTIN3030]

1 post unapproved,site team once again monitoring,theres been enough unwanted comments on the thread already.

[grahamengineering]

Trading standards are often not as well informed as they should be. I find that Citizens Advice take a more common sense approach to problems like this. Trading standards should of told the OP he MUST stop using the car immediately to pursue any case.

 

Unfortunately in this case the OP has been given quite a lot of less than helpful advice. Its all very well saying the car should be free of all faults at the time of sale as someone has suggested. But the law doesn't see it like that. I totally agree a servo issue definately shouldn't be there. But the other faults are pretty much part of buying old bangers.

 

OP you say your brother is a mechanic, My advice would be to get it fixed mates rates and move on. The only 2 big items on the failure are a bottom ball joint and the servo. Parts you could get for around £50. OK nobody likes to think they have been had over. But then you are mobile again.

 

Other option is to let trading standards maybe start a case against the dealer. Personally I doubt they will unless there have been many complaints against him. they would have to satisfy the councils own solicitor and the CPS/Procurator Fiscal that a case would be in the public interest and not excessiviely expensive. They are like all of us and short of money at the moment. I find it very surprising the person at trading standards has said they will start a case without having spoken to the trader. You then could pursue a small claims action to return the car and get your money back. But as you have continued to use the car it is unlikely you would win.

 

You can of course take a small claims against him now without waiting for trading standards. But again I personally doubt you would win as you have been using the car.

 

I definatly wouldn't be taking the advice of parking it outside the dealers with a sign on it. It is now non roadworthy and to park it on a public road would be illegal. It would then be towed away and cost you more money to get back plus a possible fine for using it without MOT.

Edited July 10, 2011 by grahamengineering

[scaniaman]

Heliosuk, i rather think that we have discussed this problem at lenght on another forum. As you say, a code of practice is worthless. My wish that many of the public petition their MP's about getting regulation into the motor trade is basically common sense. Council workers and others have to hold certificates to operate simple machines like mowers, chain saws, sprayers and other small power tools so why shouldn't car salesmen have to qualify in the product they handle. In the case of car salesmen, they are handling large amounts of the publics money to purchase a car, but in far too many cases these salesmen have little or no product knowledge (basis of my complaints with arnold clark). The only product training car salesmen have to have is when handling cars for Motability and some are trained in the regulations surrounding financial dealings. This lack of product knowledge extends well above the rank of car salesmen, and should not be so, as you rightly indicate the complexity of the modern vehicle. To justify the high income that you mention, in addition to product knowledge, they should have some qualification to indicate their understanding of consumer legislation as well.I fear that unless there is mass demand from the public, todays poor perception of the motor trade shall continue. I make no apology for re stating that many in the trade rely very heavily on "Joe Public's" naiviety, and prey on their lack of "Car Knowledge". It is therefore essential that this category of car buyer has the intended purchase thoroghly checked by a trained motor engineer.

[oddjobbob]

I used to be a car dealer but retired a few years ago... and here's my opinion...

 

If the car had a 'slight servo leak' advised on the MOT a year ago, then as long as the needles on the brake meter went up to the right place when the brakes were tested, then the brakes are NOT unsafe... ON THE DAY OF THE TEST.. and thats it, a snapshot of the car's condition on the day of the test.

 

The dealer did not MOT the car, but IF the OP genuinely heard a hissing sound (we only have his word that this happened at the point of sale) then he should have investigated it or got his friendly mechanic to look before parting with his money.

 

The myriad faults that the car failed on for its current MOT have NO BEARING whatsoever on the condition of the car at the time of sale... indeed some of them like bulbs not working and washer jet (described as DANGEROUS by the OP) are inherently obviuos to even the most uninformed motorist.

 

A 10 year old car WILL in court be presumed to have faults as it nears the end of its life.

 

They are the bad bits for the OP... her's the good.

 

The dealer was in my opinion aware that there was a servo fault, and to me, as a responsible dealer, anything to do with brakes, steering and safety in general MUST be sorted out before the car is sold whether it's £5000 or £500. Having said that an MOT advisory is just that an advice to the owner that the part in questionrequires attention but is not deemed seriuos ebough to fail the car ON THE DAY THE MOT was done. The dealer should have fixed it.

 

Other advisories (not necessarily on this car) such as number plate fade, small chip under 10mm in windscreen, etc would not be fixed on a sub £1000 car prior to sale, as has been pointed out on here, if it was £10000 new and now its £1000 then its 90% worn out anyway.

 

I can't remeber for sure but it would be quite appropriate to fit a secndhand servo to this car... as long as it works and doesn' leak, then it is no different to any other 10 year old car that has a working servo that hasn't been replaced.

 

If I were the OP I'd buy a secondhand servo unit and get his friendly mechanic to put it on and move on.

 

One other thnig in the OP's favour is that most county court 'judges' , althoug they are supposed to apply the 'law' simply want to get rid of the case and more often than not will side with the general public in these matters no matter what the law says. I would add here that I've never been to court OR sold an unroadworthy car... but from others in the trade with a lesser conscience than I, I know it to be the case that very often the CC guy will find in the public's favour... what you need to remember here is that the CC bloke will have heard similar cases before of joe public versus the bad motor trade and / or have a neighbour/ friend who has been stitched up.

 

The Motor trade, quite rightly in many cases has a very bad name, and I cannot help but feel that if the OP had gone back to the garage in a reasonable way and asked for the supply and fit of a secondhand servo and not demanded all and sundry trying to make it into a new car then he may well have got that done.

 

To be quite hnoest, a £999 car really only has a year or two of useful life left in it anyway.

 

The dealer SOULD hve fixed the servo. The other stuff is incidental.

 

That's my opinion anyway!