Car Rejection thoughts

[moonie6041]

Good afternoon everyone, I bought an Audi Q7 from a garage a few weeks ago and have found that it has a number of faults. The Aircon is not working, pads and discs need changing, missing a service although it was stated as having FSH, 2x tyres need changing as they only have 2mm of tread on (I should have checked I know), new wipers front and rear and a few other small defects. This car was described as being in excellant condition. The garage doesnt want anything more to do with it so I`m going through the legal route. Opinions please.

[rebel11]

Hi moonie

 

Welcome to CAG

 

If you are going to take legal action, don't forget the Letter Before Action, so you can show the court, that you've done everything to resolve the matter. Send Letters Recorded.

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-buying-second-hand-cars/

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/cars_buying_a_car_e/cars_buying_a_secondhand_car_e.htm

 

Here's some info :- http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

 

Please let us know how your problem has been resolved, it could help fellow Caggers.

[moonie6041]

I`ve already sent a letter off to the Garage and he replied saying that I had known about the faults when buying the car. I only wish I could name and shame this rip off merchant. Does anyone know if I claim through my credit card do the credit card company the money back from the dealer as I want this dealer to know he cant treat customers this way and get away with it.

[rebel11]

Hi moonie

 

Scroll down to:-

If you bought your second hand car on credit

 

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-buying-second-hand-cars/second-hand-cars-your-rights/

 

I`ve already sent a letter off to the Garage and he replied saying that I had known about the faults when buying the car. I only wish I could name and shame this rip off merchant. Does anyone know if I claim through my credit card do the credit card company the money back from the dealer as I want this dealer to know he cant treat customers this way and get away with it.

[moonie6041]

Hi Rebel, yes I knew that the credit card company is jointly liable but I was wondering if they purue the dealer to reimburse them if they pay out a claim.

[heliosuk]

You need to state price paid, age and mileage. Going down the rejection route is fraught with problems and you haven't got a leg to stand on at the moment. SOGA is not clear cut and is even worse on used cars as is subjective. It's hard enough on new cars. I take it you have given them the three opportunities to put right the issues you raise. By definition, it's a used car. It seemsyou might be expecting a new one?

 

Used cars are not perfect. Tyres do wear, so for get that one. So do wiper blades, forget that one.

 

So you have only got the air con issue.

 

Hardly enough to reject.

[afcwben]

You need to state price paid, age and mileage. Going down the rejection route is fraught with problems and you haven't got a leg to stand on at the moment. SOGA is not clear cut and is even worse on used cars as is subjective. It's hard enough on new cars. I take it you have given them the three opportunities to put right the issues you raise. By definition, it's a used car. It seemsyou might be expecting a new one?

 

Used cars are not perfect. Tyres do wear, so for get that one. So do wiper blades, forget that one.

 

So you have only got the air con issue.

 

Hardly enough to reject.

 

and FSH

[moonie6041]

I paid £17000 for the car and noticed things were not as they should be two days later , I approached the garage straight away with my concerns. He said he would sort out a couple of small issue`s with the car and stamp the service book to give it a full history, that statement alone sent alarm bells ringing so I booked the car into Audi to have a health chech done (this is free). It came back with approx £2500 work of work being needed to make as described as in excellant condition. I informed the dealer this and he said he would fix the wipers and re-gas the aircon but thats all. He then told me I knew the condition of the vehicle when I bought it and he was not at fault. I have printed out the advert and kept it for my records and have printed out all emails that were sent. I can acceppt that I missed the tyres but when I asked if the car was as described in the advert and was assured that it had no faults I feel that it was mis advertised. Heliosuk I`m not hoping for the condition to match a new car but I like many others would expect a decent car when spending £17000 on it. Its not just the aircon unit but Pads and Disc`s and a knocking noise in the rear brake drum (which according to the garage is the movement in the electronic parking brake, which Q7`s dont have) Missing service etc etc.

[moonie6041]

Does anybody know if the credit card company would pursue the garage in the event that they refund me ?

[oddjobbob]

I tend to concur with helios here... I'm not saying the 'dealer' is right, far from it, but yuo DO have to give him reasonable opportunity to fix the car, and the tyres, wiper blades will NOT be covered, as they should be obvious.

 

Also, if the car stops as it should to MOT standards then the fact that the dsics and pads are worn is immaterial. If the item in question is good enough to pass an MOT, then it is good enuogh to be sold.

 

Also, a 'free' healthcheck finds £2500 of work?

 

That is REALLY surprising. Whatever did you expect? It's their JOB to pull the car apart!

 

Wath out here OP, you could well come a cropper... hope you dont!

[oddjobbob]

BTW The CC company won't 'pursue' the garage as such... if they refund you then they' ldeduct it from his bank account.

 

If he causes lots of chargebacks then in the end they'll drop him.

 

But they are unlikely to refund you while you stil lhave the car in yuor possesssion.

[sailor sam]

If the car was advertised as being in 'Excellent' condition and you have proof of this, then in my opinion you have a case.

 

BUT as others have pointed out, under the SOGA, you should request that the seller rectifies all the issues which would make it in 'excellent' condition in writing even if he has refused. If you have done this in your letter, then you could either have the work done and persue him for the costs or formally reject the car. If you choose the latter, you cannot drive it after posting the letter. Both options seems to lead to court going by the seller's attitude and initially will be costly. But if you have a detailed report from the Audi dealer and copy of the seller's advert stating that the car was in 'excellent condition', then I think you have a good case. You can also claim your costs back from the seller plus interest.

 

If you choose to reject, the small claims route will not be available as the car was purchased for more than £5k but if you choose to persue for repair then you could go small claims.

 

I would suggest that you contact CAB (which is now the route to Trading Standards) for further advice. They may guide you through the CC co's obligations and see if there is a possibility of doing a charge back.

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/your_world/consumer_affairs/cars_buying_a_secondhand_car_e.htm#you_bought_the_vehicle_from_a_dealer

[heliosuk]

How do you define excellant Sam? I have a car with 250K on the clock and it is excellant and in everyday use. This is the problem with SOGA. £17000 is not a lot these days and the OP has not stated age and mileage. What if the car has same miles as mine...........would you take the same view? A London based car can knock out a set of pads and discs in 30K miles. It's all relevant

.

This is the problem with this area of the CAG site. It reacts to little bits of information in a big way which misleads posters.

 

People who want to reject should be made aware that you cannot just reject once you have bought a car and that the law is on your side. There are consequences such price, age and mileage, plus the three attempts to rectify what is a subjective reasonable complaint and then the car has to be off the road.

[sailor sam]

Its not how I define 'excellent' but how a judge would. Using such terms by a dealer to sell a car are obviously intended to lure a potential buyer into purchasing a car when he may not if he/she knows about underlying issues such as worn disc brakes. I think a judge would consider a car being described as being in 'excellent' condition costing £17k would not have the issues the OP states. I further think that using an exaggerated term would be considered by a judge as miss-selling.

 

The OP is asking for opinions, this is mine.

[moonie6041]

Thanks Sam, as I said all along I was looking at buying a car not a new one but one that matched its description. I asked about the car before I paid a deposit which as it was around 250 miles away was all I could do. I was arrured that the car was as described so a deal was made and I arranged to pick it up the following week (during which time the garage said it would undergo a full health and safety check). It is five years old and has covered 65000 miles so I like others would expect the car to be in good condition and as it had these checks done it would show up any faults or concerns such as tyres, brakes etc. If Mr Average was to buy a car this way I`m sure he would not expect to have to fork out so much money in the first week or so, WOULD YOU ?

[heliosuk]

Hold on now!

 

So you buy a car blind, 250 miles away and part with £17K?

 

Not exactly a wise thing is it? Would you do it with a House? I think not.

 

You don't state the age of the car either. What if it was one year old?

 

As Mr Average myself there is no way I would part with £17K without having it checked first. Fortunately I know what I am looking at but conversely, I dont part with £250K for a house which I am no expert at.

 

Sorry but I can't see you have anywhere to go with this. The car is over 50% of it's expected mileage.

 

As oddjob points out, it is very easy to run up a £2.5K bill in a main dealer, that is what they do as are paid to sell repairs. Sam know this as well as I do. The question is are the repairs necessary and given that it is a used car purchase would they as a dealer have repaired same such items if they were selling. I think not.

 

Apart from the obvious may I suggest you get it checked by Mr Sensible and come back and post what he found? At least then you might have something solid to go on.

 

For example, is the brake disc thickness below the limit, on the limit or above the limit and the pads are low?

 

If you nwant to challenge the sale you need to do your homework not listen or take note that you can automatically reject the car.

 

Sometimes it's cheaper to just get the car to spec which does happen with used cars.

[rebel11]

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_cars_and_other_vehicles_e/consumer_problems_with_the_car_you_bought_e/consumer_the_vehicle_you_bought_doesnt_match_its_description_e/the_vehicle_you_bought_doesnt_match_its_description.htm

[moonie6041]

Helios, it states in my post that the car is 5 years old just in case you missed it. Yes I did buy a car 250 miles away but did not send him a payment of 17k I paid a deposit of £500 and when the garage tells you the car is in excellent condition why not believe them. I have approached the garage at least five times now to try and resolve this matter and they don't want to know. Also I'm sure that you would hope most garages would sort out or at least inform potential buyers of any faults that would occur within the first week or so of ownership. Thanks for the advice Helios although it wasn't really advice it was more a case of fighting for the dealer or stealer.

[sailor sam]

I'm sticking to my advice in post #12. From what the OP states, I think the advert was deliberately miss-leading and as such, the OP has a case under the SOGA.

[oddjobbob]

Well, I wish the OP all the best in his quest to get his money back, truly.

 

But the fact remains that the dealer has affered to fix the aircon and wiper blades.

 

Apart from that if the discs and pads were / are capable of passing an mot test then they are, by definition, safe: and that's all they need to be on a 2nd hand car, safe.. NOT unworn.

 

The tyres, similarly, need only be capable of passing an mot test.

 

If the general appearance of the car is 'excellent' and the tyres and brakes are legally good enough to be eeemed safe by a government agency, and the seller has offered to fix the aircon and wipers? (cant remember) then I think the rejection route will be a long and arduous one.

 

NB I am NOT saying the dealer is right but i don't think the car is bad enough to reject.

 

SOGA is far from a 'fix all' solution, there was another thread on here somewhere where it took someone about 3 years to get Arnold Clark to court over a virtually new car and Arnod Clark won.

 

So whoever it was that happened to had a car sat on their drive that they couldn't use due to the pending court case and after nearly 3 years that's STILL all they had.

 

Except of course it was now worth only 40% of what they'd paid for it.

 

If simialr happens to this poster, he will be looking at a £7500 Audi with 65k on the clock in 2015 - and will have blown nearly 10k in cold blood and not even turned a wheel on the car in the meantime.

 

So, best of luck OP, but tread warily is my take on it.

[sailor sam]

Well, I wish the OP all the best in his quest to get his money back, truly.

 

But the fact remains that the dealer has affered to fix the aircon and wiper blades.

 

Dealer has offered to RE-GAS the air-con and 'thats all'. Re-gassing may not cure the problem. What if it's the condenser?

 

Apart from that if the discs and pads were / are capable of passing an mot test then they are, by definition, safe: and that's all they need to be on a 2nd hand car, safe.. NOT unworn.

 

The tyres, similarly, need only be capable of passing an mot test.

 

No real argument there but hardly consitues the car being in 'excellent' condition.

 

If the general appearance of the car is 'excellent' and the tyres and brakes are legally good enough to be eeemed safe by a government agency, and the seller has offered to fix the aircon and wipers? (cant remember) then I think the rejection route will be a long and arduous one.

 

NB I am NOT saying the dealer is right but i don't think the car is bad enough to reject.

 

See above Bob... and what about the 'full service history'?

 

SOGA is far from a 'fix all' solution, there was another thread on here somewhere where it took someone about 3 years to get Arnold Clark to court over a virtually new car and Arnod Clark won.

 

So whoever it was that happened to had a car sat on their drive that they couldn't use due to the pending court case and after nearly 3 years that's STILL all they had.

 

Except of course it was now worth only 40% of what they'd paid for it.

 

If simialr happens to this poster, he will be looking at a £7500 Audi with 65k on the clock in 2015 - and will have blown nearly 10k in cold blood and not even turned a wheel on the car in the meantime.

 

So, best of luck OP, but tread warily is my take on it.

 

Well most of that is irrelevant Bob. The fact is the car has probably been miss-advertised as it was supposed to have FULL service history and been in 'excellent' condition. It can be argued that the seller used These terms to persuade a potential buyer to buy the car who may not have done had it not had working air-con, missing FULL service history and iffy brake discs.

 

It will be down to the judge at the end of the day but I maintain from the OPs info, he has a good case.

[oddjobbob]

Sam

 

I'm on the same side as you.

 

I sincerely hope the OP can get it all sorted satisfactorily.

 

Personally I don't think there's enough there to reject the car uner the SOGA... but I would like to be proved wrong.

 

All i'm pointing out for the op's sake i that it is NOT clear cut and that if he decides to g odwon that route the car remains on his drive, depreciating daily, and all he can do is look at it, not even alloweed to drive it due to a pending court case.

 

The last bit is hardly irrelevant is it? It's irrelevant to me, I've still got my money in my pocket and not sitting on my drive in £17000 worth of Aud with 2mm on the tyres no air con and thin pads / discs.

 

But its not irrevelant to the OP, if he loses - and he might, this does not appear nearly as watertight to me as the failed and famed Arnold Calrk case on the forum - then he stands to lose nearly £10000 and has no usable car in the meantime. Far from irrelevant.

 

All I'm saying to the OP is that opinions vary. You think he has a case, I don't.

 

We are allowed to differ, that's why its called a forum.

[heliosuk]

Exactly oddjob!! This is the bit a lot of people don't realise!

 

Unfortunately the disaster cases where it's pointed out that the case has no probability of succeeding but has been egged on by a reliance of ambiguous interpretation of SOGA by members of the forum are usually deleted.

 

You raise some interesting and very valid points that the sue grabbit and run brigade seem to forget. Interestingly, the good news is that one of the moderators seems to have toned down the "soga is your friend" attitude and "go get em" response.

 

The reallity is the SOGA is a right, but is subjective and far from definitive and posters need to remember it. It's an easily defended rule which does no favours to the consumer.

 

I've looked at a lot of the cases posted here and started to try to analyse them from a statisical point of view. Though the results are not valid as there is oft no feed back,those that have gone to court have failed.

[sailor sam]

Incredible isn't it? We have 2 Caggers actively and robustly pouring cold water over the OP's chances but I can't see any real advice or suggestions coming through. Both seem to be missing the fact that the car was possibly miss-sold as neither has commented on that. For a start the car was advertised as having FULL service history when it hasn't. It was advertised as being in 'Excellent condition' when the air-con is'nt working and the brake discs are worn out. And the seller is saying all he is prepared to do is re-gass the air-con.

 

Sorry guys, after the OP has paid £17k for the car, you will have to do better than that. The OP has come here for advice, not to have possible solutions shot down in flames. At least I suggested that the OP takes some advice from CAB/trading Standards. What are you suggesting... that the OP rolls over or something?

[Conniff]

A drop more cold water I'm afraid Sam.

 

The tyres will definately come under the 'faults a buyer can reasonably expect to have noticed', and they are legal. That is the sort of thing negotiated at time of purchase.

Wipers, ok, any decent garage would give you those.

Aircon the best way to check for faults on that is to regas and see how it goes.

 

a knocking noise in the rear brake drum (which according to the garage is the movement in the electronic parking brake, which Q7`s dont have) Missing service etc etc.

 

If they haven't got them, then doesn't that tell you something about the Audi dealer who done the inspection? OPads and discs worn, maybe, but worn enough to be dangerous or worn but still in spec.

 

I can't see there being grounds to reject, but I hope I'm wrong. Have you issued in the court yet??