Used car has just been confirmed unroadworthy after 32 days of purchase!

[consumerseven]

Hi,

 

I've read through a lot of posts on here regarding used cars but a lot seems to b dependant on make model and issue with car.

 

I bought an 03 Megane 1.4 16v 32 days ago for £1300, which seemed like decent value.

 

Having had problems with the breaks two weeks later i began to grow uneasy but continued on, later thebreaks just shut out completely whilst i wa driving and nearly caused a severe crash. So i took it to a garage an the mechanic nearly collapsed after an inspection and begged me not to drive it home again.

 

He said the car needed £1700 of work...the following needed repaired:

 

3 tyres

2 front springs (pos) shocks

Catalytic Converter

Rear Discs and Pads

PSR Cal

Power Steering Belt (which was actually completely snapped when inspected)

Front discs and Pads

PS/DS strap broken

Wheel alignment

Alt Vent Broken

 

I nearly cried on the spot, as the car is worth less than the work needed. Do I have a leg to stand on as the car as obviously unroadworthy when sold and the mechanic (a very nice fella) said he would stand up for that, basically I just want to reject the purchase and get my money back but when i rang the dealer (recorded phone call) he told me I bought it at for good value for its age and it basic wear and tear! Do I hav a leg to stand on, this dealer advertises all cars on his website as 'in good condition throughout'...does the 'soga' cover me?

 

Has anyone had a similar problem?

 

Thanks and I appreciate any help possible.

[gazhodge1981]

When was it MOT'd?

[raydetinu]

suggest you ask for your money back, nobody can sell a car that is unroadworthy, unless told it is at the time of purchase.

Cliam under SOGA, mis described and unroadworthy.

Speak to trading standards and/consumer direct.

If he wont play ball take him to court.

Dont get any work done on it.

[heliosuk]

Hi,

 

I've read through a lot of posts on here regarding used cars but a lot seems to b dependant on make model and issue with car.

 

I bought an 03 Megane 1.4 16v 32 days ago for £1300, which seemed like decent value.

 

Having had problems with the breaks two weeks later i began to grow uneasy but continued on, later thebreaks just shut out completely whilst i wa driving and nearly caused a severe crash. So i took it to a garage an the mechanic nearly collapsed after an inspection and begged me not to drive it home again.

 

He said the car needed £1700 of work...the following needed repaired:

 

3 tyres

2 front springs (pos) shocks

Catalytic Converter

Rear Discs and Pads

PSR Cal

Power Steering Belt (which was actually completely snapped when inspected)

Front discs and Pads

PS/DS strap broken

Wheel alignment

Alt Vent Broken

 

I nearly cried on the spot, as the car is worth less than the work needed. Do I have a leg to stand on as the car as obviously unroadworthy when sold and the mechanic (a very nice fella) said he would stand up for that, basically I just want to reject the purchase and get my money back but when i rang the dealer (recorded phone call) he told me I bought it at for good value for its age and it basic wear and tear! Do I hav a leg to stand on, this dealer advertises all cars on his website as 'in good condition throughout'...does the 'soga' cover me?

 

Has anyone had a similar problem?

 

Thanks and I appreciate any help possible.

 

Not surprised he nearly collapsed on the spot.........probably through laughing if you believe it. No way is this £1700 worth of work though it probably would be through a main dealer.

 

Some of this will be down to you, some of it is not detrimental to the car, some of it is stringing you along by the mechanic.

 

Essentially what the dealer has told you is true but the cars brakes should not have failed in that time. However you do not detail the type of failure which sounds like a normal wear item having worn out.

 

I would not believe the mechanics report on a car of this age and value.

[raydetinu]

Take it to a VOSA test station and get it checked out and then armed with failure rport contact dealer.

[heliosuk]

Forget that.........an mot is not worth the paper it is written on even a day after it is issued. Meaningless and a waste of time and money.

 

3 tyres (Your responsibility to check though they should have been legal. They don't have to be anywhere near brand new.)

2 front springs (pos) shocks ( unless springs are broken or excessively corroded, which is difficult to determine) then concurrent with age and mileage of car.Also is a subjective assesment.)

Catalytic Converter ( Not mentioned in OP's original post however testing the cat needs to be done at specific temps and conditions. No mention of warning light either so " so called mechanic" probably does not know what he is doing.)

Rear Discs and Pads ( Most probable cause of brake failure due to worn out pads)

PSR Cal (Don't fully know what this is as not a generally used term in the industry but think it might be related to the below)

Power Steering Belt (which was actually completely snapped when inspected) Very much doubt this.......... as the car would be nigh on impossible to steer.

Front discs and Pads ( again general wear and tear..........what does one expect? Brand new brakes?)

PS/DS strap broken (Gawd knows what this means..........again not a term generally used so could be something as simple as a dodgy earth but does not show either way.

Wheel alignment ( Mechanic trying to scare you)

Alt Vent Broken ( if this aleternator vent then it has little or no effect in the UK)

 

Reallity is that this car has wear and tear concurrent with age, mileage and price paid according to the OP's description.

 

Sure the car can be rejected but the reality is that the faults described are concurrent with age and mileage. This though does not detract from the responsibility of the sellar.

 

First step should be to ask the dealer for a contribution to the brake failure which is probably due to the state of the rear brakes.

 

No doubt the SOGA brigade will be along soon.

 

When you buy a used car one should expect to start replacing items within 3 months. Apart from the rear brake issues I cannot see any right to reject and even that is open to question.

 

No doubt raydetinu will disagree but if you want to join the sue grabbit and run brigade without knowing what you are talking about .........then feel free.

[raydetinu]

I know these things are subjective, however a MOT report so soon after purchase would give a good indication of its condition and highlight any truly defective points if they put a danger notice on any items!

car being mis represesnted or misdescribed are grounds for rejection on there own!

[j66]

Why do you always place so much importance on a MOT being an indication of the cars condition? If you want a condition report get it professionally inspected.

 

A MOT may throw up the brake faults - if the tester can see the brakes and if the roller brake test shows some problems.

 

To illustrate what VOSA consider to be the minimum standard, have some brake disc pictures:

 

 

 

They look horrible, from a MOT point of view they are fine and it would be perfectly acceptable for the MOT to fit a new set of pads to those.

[heliosuk]

Exactly j66. Good post.

 

"car being mis represesnted or misdescribed are grounds for rejection on there own" true but I cannot see it here.

 

Getting a bit tired of people posting threads for issues that are not issues given the age and mileage of used cars. When one buys a used car it means exactly what it says..............used, and the price paid determines the condition or estimated longevity of the parts associated in making the car.

[consumerseven]

Owner of the company also owns are car garage and has accepted that the car shouldn't have been sold as "in good condition throughout'' when it wasnt in good condition! He has asked me to take the car over to his garage for further inspection and has assured me that he will do all he can to help with cost and repair! Which seems like a step in the right direction...will let you know the outcome and if he keeps his word!

[scaniaman]

Exactly j66. Good post.

 

"car being mis represesnted or misdescribed are grounds for rejection on there own" true but I cannot see it here.

 

Getting a bit tired of people posting threads for issues that are not issues given the age and mileage of used cars. When one buys a used car it means exactly what it says..............used, and the price paid determines the condition or estimated longevity of the parts associated in making the car.

You are probably right Heliosuk, but the perception that the public has is that a car being sold by a dealer should be "of servicable quality" and not need money being spent on routine service parts in the short term.

I have previously posted that people with limited car knowledge should have the intended purchase thoroughly checked out by a proper motor engineer prior to parting with any money.

Now, SOGA may or may not be any good, but let's assume they were super efficient against "rouge traders". We could Potentially have a situation where traders, to cover themselves, could advertise a car with all its good points then say " for sale as spares or repair and must be transported or towed away----Price £ thousands.

I bet they would still get punters if this type of advert became the norm.

[heliosuk]

Probably very true Scania however my interpretation of some of what we read and dealing with or having a major input into this sort of thing on a very regular basis from a professional point of view is that the publics perception is that what is descibed as being used by a dealer is interpreted as being new by the public and SOGA seems to reinforce this when it is fundamentally wrong. SOGA does not help here as it is vauge, too easily challenged and defended and for a major outlay of cash. Frankly it needs overhauling substantially.

 

However, this is drifting from the OP's request so we need to take the discussion out of here.

 

Hopefully the OP will get some sort of fair result as will the dealer.