Car Rejection thoughts

[oddjobbob]

@ Sam

 

No am not at all suggesting the op just rolls over, merely that he shuodl be wary of the possible difference between expected and actual outcme of rejection under SOGA and that it could get expensive for him.

 

IMO (which is only MO) the OP should get whatever is posssible back from the dealer eg aircon, wipers, set of pads possibly? then move on.

[rebel11]

I have to agree with Sam, 'Excellent Condition' means exactly that, it should be as described, it wasn't. It should of been described as 'Good Condition, but you need to fix the following Air Con etc'

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

[sailor sam]

@ Sam

 

No am not at all suggesting the op just rolls over, merely that he shuodl be wary of the possible difference between expected and actual outcme of rejection under SOGA and that it could get expensive for him.

 

IMO (which is only MO) the OP should get whatever is posssible back from the dealer eg aircon, wipers, set of pads possibly? then move on.

 

Well so far Bob, the seller seems to be saying he will only re-gas the air-con and fix the wipers and that's all. Set of brake pads are pretty useless if the discs are knackered. Also there is the question of the car being advertised as having FULL service history when according to the OP it dosn't. So what do you suggest Bob?

 

If the seller was to make good all gthe issues then I would tend to agree with you. But here we have yet again, a dealer who is only interested in flogging cars without any 'after sales' service.

[oddjobbob]

Sam

 

You seem to take offence that I should disagree with your view. It's a forum, that's what a forum is for, an expression of views, some of which will differ from yours.

 

You really need to take it on the chin sometimes and move on.

 

The facts are as you state, no problem with that.

 

The car has a missing seervice, n/w aircon and we dont know yet whether or not the discs and pads were just wor or worn beyond permitted tolerances.

 

The problem for the OP is that rejecting the car under the sale of goods act involves his not using the car at all until the case is heard.

 

If the dealer gets the aircon working, replaces the wiper blades and contributes towards pads / discs if they are actually worn beyond factory tolerances then I personaly think that's a satisfactory (but not totally right, although as good as it gets) outcome for the buyer.

 

The alternative is having a car on his driveway for 2 years if the dealer wants to be relly awkward.

 

The OP has a choice, he has my point of view, he has yuors, he has others, it's his call not ours.

 

But please refrain from taking my comments as a personal affront to your opinion, neither of us will be right all the time, it's not personal, it's advice from different persepectives, and it's up to the OP what he does, not us.

[sailor sam]

Not taking any offence at all Bob, me old china. But I am struggling to understand why the style of your posting always seems to put the seller(s) into a more favorable position. The OP here hints that another Cagger in this thread is doing exactly the same.

 

Unfortunately I am not the kind of person who gives in too easily and when I smell a rogue dealer, I will advise accordingly. The SOGA is there for a very good reason and is there to be used by consumers who have been ripped off. One of it's main purposes is to tackle traders who are exaggerating the condition of the cars they are selling. It is wrong to mislead consumers by trying to entice them into buying a car when they possibly wouldn't if they knew things about it that the trader has conveniently forgotten to mention in his advertising.

 

I try and offer an avenue to explore for the OP if the seller is putting up brick walls and attempting to extinguish a consumer's statutory rights. THAT I believe is what this forum is all about rather than always pouring cold water on what chances the OP has got. However, If I do see a problem with a situation, I will point it out. I agree that the tyres in this case are an item which the OP should of (and could of) easily of checked. But the other problems were not so obvious and it is expected that a trader selling a car in 'excellent condition' would be qualified enough to make such a statement.

 

Obviously it is up to the OP what action he takes at the end of the day. But perhaps you can give some constructed advice for a change instead of robustly pointing out all the pitfalls. You give the impression that you are fighting the car dealers corner most of the time. I'm sure that most people coming on here for advice are intelligent enough to know that our legal system is sometimes complicated and has it's failings. But its all down to evidence and if a consumer has the evidence that his car has been miss-sold or is a pile of scrap, then the legal route is there to be used. At the end of the day, what else is there... going round with a few mates armed with base ball bats?

 

£17k is a lot of money and I for one wouldn't go down without a fight. In my opinion, the seller in this case should put the car in the condition it was advertised as.

[oddjobbob]

Sam

 

Glad no offence taken, none this end either, its a forum, thats what they're for.

 

I'm not trying to put selelrs in a more favourrable position at all.

 

I was in the car trade for many years and I can tell you there are some outright ROGUES in it that would sell a deathtrap to their mother. I was not one of them, we dealt with our customers fairly and openly and i'm pleased to say I was never taken to court, or even close.

 

In this particular case though I really don't fee there's enough wrong to reject the car under the sale of goods act. There MIGHT be, we don't know, but the OP shoud be made aware of the pitfalls that can ensue, as already indicated, such as being unable to use the car for a long time with no guarantee of success (indeed I woud say a failure of the case is more likely) at the end.

 

You may disagree with this, and you're allowed to, this is England, we're allowed to speak freely.

 

The OP just needs to bear the many hurdles he will have to jump in order to (very possibly) fail to win the race at the end of it.

 

The sale of goods act is far from being the all encompassing remedy it is often alluded to be on here - we ony have to look at the Arnold Clark case on here to know this - 3 years and the buyer LOST.

 

Time and money are at stake here and yes, £17k is a shedload of money, but resolution by getting working aircon and whatever else can be clawed back from the dealer is, in my opinion, the best way forward.

 

A missing service, especially if it ws in the middle, is not a dealbreaker for this car... I know the dealer put FSH, and should have but 'loads of history' or whatever, but the OP did it wronmg by parting with a telephone deposit and not checking the tyres, wiper blades, service book and aircon before he drove away. He now has to dela in the best way possible with those errors.

 

This forum is all about a variance of opinions and it is only right they should take place.

 

I don't think the sale of goods act is the OP's best way forward, and you do.

 

That's fine!

 

It's up to the buyer how he resolves it.

[heliosuk]

The OP here hints that another Cagger in this thread is doing exactly the same.

 

This is probably directed at me Sam and I don't have any problem with it. Where I have a problem is that there is an over reliance on SOGA which is often quoted by people who should know better. No case is alike and I believe that where the OP thinks he has a case, probably based on ill advised actions read on here, some of us have a different opinion.

 

I personally have not said he does not have a case, merely pointed out that the reliance with what he/she says is weak, is fundamentally flawed and unlikey to succeed let alone the time line.

 

Unfortunately the big Mazda case, which incidently I pointed out would not succeed and was subsequently proven right, and of whicha whole host of other regular posters were a staunch supporters of has subsequently been removed. This case is a classic example of how not to do it.

 

Very few rejection cases actually succeed. They take lots of time and money for all concernerd.

 

The best course of action is to enter into a dialouge between the dealer and wake up to the realities that a used car is not all it seems and that SOGA is not a tool for buyers ignorance or that it is there as a money back guarantee which is the way it is portrayed on this site and is frequently promoted as such.

 

I must say though that whilst you and I frequently cross swords on your interpretation of the act, I think you are wrong as others are in this case, but on balance you give good advice which should not at any cost be ignored.

 

As Bob and I point out, neither of us are on the side of the sellar but deal in the realities of what has gone wrong and what actually happens in reality if action is taken.

 

I think to take this particular case further it would be great if the OP could supply the details of what the Audi dealer found for the £2.5K bill.

[popeyethesailortam]

Long time lurker, First time poster.

 

I've spent more years than I care to think about in various roles within the motor trade. In that time I have seen good & bad trade practices. So I can speak with some authority when I say trading standards, or consumer direct as they are sometimes known, are most often toothless entities with very little powers.

 

As some of the more prolific and sensible members have pointed out. Going down a car rejection route is one fraught with difficulties. Not least that you MUST stop using the car immediately. If court does become the only option, this can take years and can still result in you losing.

 

In this particular case I don't believe you have sufficient problems or that the car is misdescribed to warrant rejection. Bear in mind that although you spent £16k OP, the car you bought would of originally been in the region of £40k. The law uses a common sense approach and allows a degree of use to be evident in what is a used product.

[sailor sam]

Long time lurker, First time poster.

 

I've spent more years than I care to think about in various roles within the motor trade. In that time I have seen good & bad trade practices. So I can speak with some authority when I say trading standards, or consumer direct as they are sometimes known, are most often toothless entities with very little powers.

 

As some of the more prolific and sensible members have pointed out. Going down a car rejection route is one fraught with difficulties. Not least that you MUST stop using the car immediately. If court does become the only option, this can take years and can still result in you losing.

 

In this particular case I don't believe you have sufficient problems or that the car is misdescribed to warrant rejection. Bear in mind that although you spent £16k OP, the car you bought would of originally been in the region of £40k. The law uses a common sense approach and allows a degree of use to be evident in what is a used product.

 

Bearing in mind the car was advertised as being in excellent condition, your advice is....

[heliosuk]

Bearing in mind the car was advertised as being in excellent condition, your advice is....

 

...........it probably is overall

[popeyethesailortam]

Bearing in mind the car was advertised as being in excellent condition, your advice is....

 

This is where many people fall over where the SOGA is concerned when used items are being discussed. Excellent would mean what the average person would consider right bearing in mind the age, miles, price paid, the price of it new & various other factors.

 

Things that would be apparent to the purchaser at the time of sale or wear and tear items that still fulfill their requirements although worn (eg brakes) do not stop the item from being excellent condition as it is used.

[sailor sam]

This is where many people fall over where the SOGA is concerned when used items are being discussed. Excellent would mean what the average person would consider right bearing in mind the age, miles, price paid, the price of it new & various other factors.

 

Things that would be apparent to the purchaser at the time of sale or wear and tear items that still fulfill their requirements although worn (eg brakes) do not stop the item from being excellent condition as it is used.

 

Still can't see any advice to help the OP.

[popeyethesailortam]

Still can't see any advice to help the OP.

 

 

Don't see any need for you to be so rude or confrontational sailorsam.

 

If you read my original post on the subject you will find it does indeed give good advice to the OP. This is based on knowledge I have learnt through the years within the motor trade.

 

Without wishing to cause upset on the forum. But perhaps admin could be keeping an eye on sailorsams posts. He does seem to get rather angry and upset if anyone contradicts his advice.

[sailor sam]

Don't see any need for you to be so rude or confrontational sailorsam.

 

Perhaps you can point out where I have been rude or confrontational to you?

 

If you read my original post on the subject you will find it does indeed give good advice to the OP. This is based on knowledge I have learnt through the years within the motor trade.

 

No, sorry I couldn't find it. All I could see is you saying what little hope the OP has in obtaining help. To me that isn't advice.

 

Without wishing to cause upset on the forum. But perhaps admin could be keeping an eye on sailorsams posts. He does seem to get rather angry and upset if anyone contradicts his advice.

 

If you feel that is necessary, please feel free to ask the admin team to do just that by clicking on the black triangle in the bottom left corner of this post. I can assure you that i am neither angry or upset.

[oddjobbob]

Hang on... this is forum.

 

WE ARE ALLOWED TO DISAGREE.

 

It's up to the OP what he does.

 

Personally I think the case for rejection is weak and if he goes down that route he will ultimayely fail. The description ''excellent condition'' can be argued as referring to the appearance of the car, and we are STILL unaware of whether the pads and dsics were merely 'worn' or ''worn out''. There is a difference... the fact that Audi did a 'free' check of the car and found £2500 worth of work is just par for the course - they are almost cetain to do this, and want ot make it into a new car.

 

However the above does NOT mean I am correct.

 

But it doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

 

Sam has a diiferent opinion from this, he might be right, he might be wrong, same as me.

 

Personally, as stated I feel the case is weak and the OP's best bet is to get the aircon repaired and a contribution towards other items and move on, and LEARN from it never to give a telphone deposit ever again for a car until he's seen it.

 

That's what I think, anyone is welcome to disagree.

 

But nor in a personal way please.

[seanamarts]

Please lets keep this civil.

[heliosuk]

Like I pointed out very early on in this post, the crux of the matter will be how the use of the word "Excellant" should be interpreted. As Sam rightly points out, this will be for a judge to decide.

 

Because there is no legal interpretation and or definition where a precident is set and there probably can't be one by definition in relation to used cars, and due to the nature of the faults or even alleged faults, persuing a case using SOGA will be extreamley difficult. This has been pointed out on numerous occasions and is the advice given to the OP.

 

What is nice to see on this post is that the "sue grabbit and run brigade" seem to have taken their heads out of the sand and realised that perhaps SOGA is not all it is cracked up to be in realation to used cars!

[popeyethesailortam]

Thanks Sean.

 

Exactly helios, The word excellent would have different interpretations depending on what is being described. Of course a 6 month old £32k Q7 shouldn't have these faults. But it could be considered fair that one at £16k could as it has obviously had far more use.

[sailor sam]

Please lets keep this civil.

 

There is no problem from me unless you can show otherwise. My beef is simply that I am trying to give advice to the OP of what options there is available to him when others are merely giving negative opinions. The OP (as most others) come here for advice don't they?

 

So i a nut shell I don't see that I was being rude by asking what the other Cagger's advice is instead of just pulling the rug from under the OP.

[popeyethesailortam]

Surely though Sam, The advice I and other members have put is in the reponses. Just because the response is that going for rejection wouldn't be a good idea doesn't mean it isn't good advice.

[oddjobbob]

Exactly popeye.

 

The OP can try to reject the car

The OP can do nothing and just carry on

The OP can do anything in between these two extremes.

 

My advice has been quite clear, get the aircon + anytihng else you can sorted out by the dealer. The car, whilst not perfect, is 35% of what it cost new, and it's not as if its only fit for the rag and bone man, it actually sounds a resonable car, just needs the aircon sorting out, that ought to work @ £17k, we still dont know if the discs / pads are just 'worn' or 'worn out'.

 

Sam's advice has also been quite clear, which is to try and reject it under the sale of goods act.

 

But everything is up to the OP, not us.

 

It's quite right that there ought to be a variance of opinion on here, none of it means that ANY of us are right.

[sailor sam]

Exactly popeye.

 

The OP can try to reject the car

The OP can do nothing and just carry on

The OP can do anything in between these two extremes.

 

My advice has been quite clear, get the aircon + anytihng else you can sorted out by the dealer. The car, whilst not perfect, is 35% of what it cost new, and it's not as if its only fit for the rag and bone man, it actually sounds a resonable car, just needs the aircon sorting out, that ought to work @ £17k, we still dont know if the discs / pads are just 'worn' or 'worn out'.

 

Sam's advice has also been quite clear, which is to try and reject it under the sale of goods act.

 

But everything is up to the OP, not us.

 

It's quite right that there ought to be a variance of opinion on here, none of it means that ANY of us are right.

 

I think I also advised (as an alternative) that the seller should put the car into the condition it was advertised in.

[oddjobbob]

Did you? Sorry.

 

Thing is though until we know whether its 'worn' or 'worn out' for the discs / pads and exactly what Audi 'found' in their 'free' inspection we can go no further.

[oddjobbob]

Also sam can it be argued that 'excellent' applies solely to the appearance of the vehicle? I mean it shouldn't but it just might, i've no idea

[sailor sam]

Did you? Sorry.

 

Post #30 and apology unnecessary.

 

Thing is though until we know whether its 'worn' or 'worn out' for the discs / pads and exactly what Audi 'found' in their 'free' inspection we can go no further.

 

True but the OP hasn't come back to give us more. Probably been put off.