Car Trader issue.

[WeeRascal]

This is a re-post, as I'm having no response from the forum I first posted into. Apologies.

 

I'm gutted. I bought a Disco 2 from a trader 6 weeks ago. Last week I started hearing a loud clicking from the engine and I took it into a reputable Landy garage. They've told me that "someone" has recently worked on the engine to "fix it up" and my crankshaft is completely knackered. They say a new engine is required.

 

This is the advertisement which OFT have obtained from Autotrader: -->13th June: Car advertised in Autotrader as the following: 2001 LAND ROVER DISCOVERY 2.5 Td5 S 5 Seat 5dr Diesel Sw 95,000 miles, excellent condition one owner since new, full service history long mot till may 2012 immaculate bonatti metallic, 1st genuine caller will buy for only £3995, a series 2 landrover discovery td5 for only £3995, this is giveaway price, some old mark 1 discoverys are still comanding £3000, this is a 51 plate series 2 td5 for only £3995, grab this bargain, was £4995, must go this week, be prepared for this winter, be quick, no offers. £3,995 No offers. Tel: 07842 XXXX Telephone Number: 0784XXXXXX

 

When I bought the car, the trader had me sign the usual disclaimer "I understand that this is a used car and accept that it may have faults" etc. Here are the terms printed on the sales invoice:

1. I have been given full opportunity to inspect the vehicle and accept its condition. 2. I am fully aware that this is a used vehicle therefore may have faults. 3. I am fully aware and agree that this vehicle is being sold on the condition that there is no warranty/guarantee been implied or given to me. 4. I agree to purchase this vehicle on the condition that it is to be used for any spares or repairs required to make it roadworthy. 5. I am fully aware that this vehicle should not be used on a public road until it has been made roadworthy and complies with all current road traffic acts and that the responsibility for making the vehicle roadworthy rests with myself.

6. By signing I agree to the above conditions.

 

Point 4 above doesn't even make grammatical sense??

 

The following is my own document of what has happened so far:

 

16th June: Car purchased, cash for £3,995 after test drive and drive by seller. Inspection made by me - found welds in chassis at rear and medium rust on chassis throughout.

 

 

19th July: Loud clattering noise heard while driving (all speeds) Oil noticed on tarmac under car. Immediately took car to a reputable 4x4 specialist in Larbert. Car now not driven since.

 

 

25th July: 2pm Contacted Consumer Direct to inform them of my situation. CD advise to have an independent report made by specialist to clarify fault/s and send letter to Mr XXXXX asking for refund or repair (include copy of report)

 

 

25th July: 4x4 specialist verbally reports major faults with crankshaft and cylinders. Not repairable and recommends a new engine is required. Say engine has been "worked on" recently. I am awaiting the written report from them. Cost circa £2,000+

 

 

25th July: 11.00am Contact Dealer Billy Findlay via phone to explain that I didn't think the car was "fit for purpose" and he responded by saying that he is covered by the clause (that I signed) saying the vehicle was sold as "spares and repairs"

 

 

My next move is to get the written report and send it recorded delivery to the seller asking for Repair or Refund and if it is ignored, try the Small Claims court...

 

 

Do I have any comeback at all? I'm wondering if the Sale of Goods act applies here, as not fit for purpose? Or misleading advertising?

 

I have had many people offering differing advice, varying from "you don't have a chance" to "you have a good case for redress"

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

D

[Dusty321]

That's really bad news, never nice getting tucked up

 

Why have the garage said a new engine, do you have bottom end rattle? How long did you run the motor before the knock started.. is there any excess smoke from the exhaust, have you got a oil/water mix in the expansion tank, what does the engine oil look like, clean, dirty, strong smell of derv etc...

 

I don't understand why it's a replacement engine jobbie for just a crank unless the head has cracked causing a derv/oil mix which will invariably reduce the viscosity of the engine oil causing all sorts of problems...

[raydetinu]

Defo covered by SOGA, they cannot subvert your statutory rights no matter what it says on the receipt.

Ask for your money back as not fit, major engine problem. Take the m to court if no success.

report to trading standards.

how did you pay, if by Credit card/ visa debit then you can do a charge back if no luck with dealer.

[WeeRascal]

That's really bad news, never nice getting tucked up

 

Why have the garage said a new engine, do you have bottom end rattle? How long did you run the motor before the knock started.. is there any excess smoke from the exhaust, have you got a oil/water mix in the expansion tank, what does the engine oil look like, clean, dirty, strong smell of derv etc...

 

I don't understand why it's a replacement engine jobbie for just a crank unless the head has cracked causing a derv/oil mix which will invariably reduce the viscosity of the engine oil causing all sorts of problems...

 

There's more to it than just the crank. Apparently the head is cracked and there are numerous other faults that are too extensive to fix.

[WeeRascal]

Defo covered by SOGA, they cannot subvert your statutory rights no matter what it says on the receipt.

Ask for your money back as not fit, major engine problem. Take the m to court if no success.

report to trading standards.

how did you pay, if by Credit card/ visa debit then you can do a charge back if no luck with dealer.

 

Thanks. Paid cash. Full asking amount.

[Dusty321]

There's more to it than just the crank. Apparently the head is cracked and there are numerous other faults that are too extensive to fix.

 

Oh sh*t!!!

[ashmk]

Thanks. Paid cash. Full asking amount.

 

Of to court you go then.

[WeeRascal]

Of to court you go then.

 

Court may be inevitable. My query was based around how successful I'm likely to be, though.

[perplexity]

The implied term of being fit for purpose [defined by subsection (2) of s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act] does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made.

 

Read the Act if you don't believe it. That is what it says.

 

"I am fully aware that this vehicle should not be used on a public road until it has been made roadworthy" proves that this was drawn to the buyer's attention. Like it or not, a judge may not be so keen to sympathise with an idiot who did not so much as bother to read the terms he signed his name to, if that is the gist of the tale.

 

Your better bet is to pursue a prosecution because of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, according to which it is a strict liability criminal offence, for the misleading action of a trader to cause or "be likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise, taking account of its factual context and of all its features and circumstances."

 

When the offender is convicted, the judge may make an order to compensate a victim.