bought car which turns out to be unroadworthy

[DrTabbert]

motor trade professional is not a Car Sales Man. They don't need any qualifications. And many are complete sharks!

[DrTabbert]

Seems you are a bit of a shark too. Read the thread. This young woman seems to be having difficulties. We Scotmen tend to treat women with some respect. There seems to be none from you!

[DrTabbert]

Let me sum this up.

 

Young woman asks for help to buy a car.

 

Gets told that this one is good to buy what appears to be dubious ex salesman.

 

Seems ad was declaring that it drove well?

 

Finds, once driving it that it is not safe.

 

Too scared to take car back she drives home and goes to a garage to get repaired.

 

Gets appraisal from garage that the car is dangerous.

 

Gets husband to ring up trader who refuses to take back car.

 

Comes on this site for advice. Bit irratic, but I would surmise that She is in shock.

Lot of badly typed information. Very obvious mistakes with sentences written in together.

Lots unclear due to hastily written information.

Obviously not helped by some responses I have read.

Very unfortunate.

I hope that she gets a good outcome.

[DrTabbert]

1.7 Above all else, use your common sense, be respectful and reasonable to people and companies.

I think popeyethesailortam needs to read these again!

[heliosuk]

I've watched this posting with much amusement. We see them all the time here. It has though raised some interesting questions especially on the actions of some of the site team as Mike has pointed out in relation to posts being removed/edited etc. I have in mind a particular post in relation to a DPF issue when it was pointed out that he/she would lose was totally removed after the OP did in fact lose big time.

 

Now in this case, removing all the noise surrounding it, it comes down to an interpretation of the law and the definition of what is unroadworthy and what is not. SOGA clearly states that the car should be roadworthy but it also states that it should be commensurate with age and mileage and it should be expected that an older cheaper car will not be perfect.

 

Now the question is how do you determine this?

 

The car had a valid MOT and the advisories from the last MOT were made known to the buyer. The car was checked by an independent person as well.

 

On examination by another garage they pointed out faults which are not what I would consider as serious as individual items in their own right as are items showing wear commensurate with the age mileage and price. The only one I would say is a no no is the drop link not secured. Bring all of these together and you have a car that will not indeed handle well. However the statement drives well is open to interpretation. The problem is the MOT. At the time of test, the testers interpretation of what he/she saw at the time was that in their opinion it would need changing before the next MOT. The seller is not obliged to do this work prior to sale as he has an official statement that the car will last until the next MOT safely. The seller's responsibility is to ensure it complies in terms of tyre tread etc which he has done.

 

I cannot see that dealer has done anything wrong here other than comply and the OP is trying to take the **** thinking she gets a brand new car for £800 and even has the audacity to try and claim for the fuel she has put in and the routine maintenance required to get a cheap car to the required standard.

 

As Scania has pointed out.....if you don't know ...get an expert to check.

 

Overall, for a few quid spent on what is routine maintenance, which is commensurate with the price paid and age plus mileage, despite the battle scars, she might actually have a good car.

[popeyethesailortam]

I've watched this posting with much amusement. We see them all the time here. It has though raised some interesting questions especially on the actions of some of the site team as Mike has pointed out in relation to posts being removed/edited etc. I have in mind a particular post in relation to a DPF issue when it was pointed out that he/she would lose was totally removed after the OP did in fact lose big time.

 

Now in this case, removing all the noise surrounding it, it comes down to an interpretation of the law and the definition of what is unroadworthy and what is not. SOGA clearly states that the car should be roadworthy but it also states that it should be commensurate with age and mileage and it should be expected that an older cheaper car will not be perfect.

 

Now the question is how do you determine this?

 

The car had a valid MOT and the advisories from the last MOT were made known to the buyer. The car was checked by an independent person as well.

 

On examination by another garage they pointed out faults which are not what I would consider as serious as individual items in their own right as are items showing wear commensurate with the age mileage and price. The only one I would say is a no no is the drop link not secured. Bring all of these together and you have a car that will not indeed handle well. However the statement drives well is open to interpretation. The problem is the MOT. At the time of test, the testers interpretation of what he/she saw at the time was that in their opinion it would need changing before the next MOT. The seller is not obliged to do this work prior to sale as he has an official statement that the car will last until the next MOT safely. The seller's responsibility is to ensure it complies in terms of tyre tread etc which he has done.

 

I cannot see that dealer has done anything wrong here other than comply and the OP is trying to take the **** thinking she gets a brand new car for £800 and even has the audacity to try and claim for the fuel she has put in and the routine maintenance required to get a cheap car to the required standard.

 

As Scania has pointed out.....if you don't know ...get an expert to check.

 

Overall, for a few quid spent on what is routine maintenance, which is commensurate with the price paid and age plus mileage, despite the battle scars, she might actually have a good car.

 

VERY well put!

[Conniff]

....it should be commensurate with age and mileage ....

 

Indeed it should, but it matters not if the car is a 100 year old banger for £1 or a gold plated Rolls at a £million, if it is advertised as roadworthy, (nice runner with MoT), then that is what it should be. It must also be fit for purpose and of satisfacory quality.

 

If the former makes it as far as the end of the road and goes to meet his maker, then that is the responsibility of the dealer. The buyer is entitled to reject the car and get a full refund.

[heliosuk]

Indeed it should, but it matters not if the car is a 100 year old banger for £1 or a gold plated Rolls at a £million, if it is advertised as roadworthy, (nice runner with MoT), then that is what it should be. It must also be fit for purpose and of satisfacory quality.

 

If the former makes it as far as the end of the road and goes to meet his maker, then that is the responsibility of the dealer. The buyer is entitled to reject the car and get a full refund.

 

To use one of your recently quoted terms Conniff "CODSWALLOP"

 

If the former makes gets to the end of the road and meets his maker is no way the responsibility of the dealer. That's a daft statement to make but I understand what you are trying to point out.

 

The buyer was given a list of advisories from the previous MOT along with a valid certificate and the price paid reflected the condition of the car. The fact that MOT advisories existed probably was reflected in the price. Further, the legal position as regards what is road worthy and what is not is determined by the MOT which is a flawed process in it's own right.

 

The question is therefore, was the car of satisfactory quality...probably as reflected in the price. Is it fit for purpose....well possibly not but again reflected in the price.

 

Let's also not forget that the OP also took a friend along and gave it a good to go thumbs up!

[Conniff]

I have no idea what planet your live on Heliosuk, as far as you are concerned there is no responsibility by the seller for anything. Well sorry to burst your bubble but the Sale of Goods Act does exist and covers all goods no matter how old or low priced they are.

 

It does not say anywhere that it was for spares or repairs,

or that it was dangerous to drive.

 

Any faults with the car should be pointed out to the buyer at the time of sale. Any that are not but found within the first six months are assumed to have been there at the time of purchase.

 

You are saying very plainly that the shirt you bought in a sale greatly reduced but turns out to have no collar you would happily say 'ah well, you can't win them all' and chuck it in the duster bin or in fact anything else you bought that wasn't brand new you would not take it back should it have a problem within 24 hours. No point in answering that because we know the answer will be 'yes of course I would take it back', well the same goes with used cars, they are no different to any other 'consumer bought' item.

 

My advice would be to get the faults that make the car unroadworthy listed on company headed notepaper and present it to the seller asking him to either repair them, replace the car with another or give a full refund. I would also get all the transport departments involved as well as local newspapers and magazines and shout the name of the dealer from the mountaintops.

[Mike_hawk]

To use one of your recently quoted terms Conniff "CODSWALLOP"

 

If the former makes gets to the end of the road and meets his maker is no way the responsibility of the dealer. That's a daft statement to make but I understand what you are trying to point out.

 

The buyer was given a list of advisories from the previous MOT along with a valid certificate and the price paid reflected the condition of the car. The fact that MOT advisories existed probably was reflected in the price. Further, the legal position as regards what is road worthy and what is not is determined by the MOT which is a flawed process in it's own right.

 

The question is therefore, was the car of satisfactory quality...probably as reflected in the price. Is it fit for purpose....well possibly not but again reflected in the price.

 

Let's also not forget that the OP also took a friend along and gave it a good to go thumbs up!

 

 

I think the OP's long gone so the question is probably irrelevant now in this case, but out of interest is the roadworthy 'test' not subject to RTA S.75..... Vehicles not to be sold etc etc.

 

I seem to remember a case in Hitchin at the back end of last year where a trader was prosecuted for similar issues [and value] of that which the OP initially reported in this thread.

[heliosuk]

Conniff, I think you are missing the point. Lets use your shirt analogy.

 

You buy a USED shirt for 50p when a NEW one is £15.00. A good USED one is £5.00. When you bought the shirt wifey looked at it and pointed out it had some faults. At the point of sale the seller gave you a list of things they knew to be wrong with it. So you wear the shirt for the first time and find it uncomfortable. You then take it to Jermyn Street and the shirt maker tells you it's the worst example he has seen in 40 years and needs a considerable amount of repair work to make it comfortable to wear. So you go and ask for your money back and the seller kicks off.

 

 

Now guidelines exist under SOGA with respect to cars as you well know:

 

1. be of satisfactory quality (taking into account its age and mileage)

2. meet any description given to you when you were buying it ( whether in the advert or in discussions prior to sale)

3. be fit for the purpose (for example, to get you from A to B safely)

 

In this case the car could be deemed to be of satisfactory quality as faults the OP was complaining about appear to have been declared and it was checked by a third party of the OP's.

Meet any description....well this is VERY subjective isn't it ?

Be fit for purpose....as I point out probably not.

 

So Mikes point is very interesting re RTA S.75

 

For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

 

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

 

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

 

F1(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[F2(b)it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person

 

And this is the bit where it gets difficult. Apart from the MOT test at the time of the test there is NO legal standard that defines what that condition should be is there?

[Conniff]

OSF Anti Roll Bar link, top mount unattached (nut missing)

 

He didn't declare that and it's not an advisory. He declared things (if you want to put it that way) that was advisories at the last MoT, not how the car is now.

 

I would suggest the OP takes it for an MoT to get written proof of all the faults that were present at the time of sale.

 

[this car is nice, it has new discs and pads] So it did last year, but has done 25,000 miles since and then sat in a flooded street for 3 months, does that make it ok.

[heliosuk]

Where does it say it sat in a flooded street?

 

Being pedantic as well, one ARB drop link securing nut missing but the link in place depending on whether it's a taper fit or not would not necessarily make the car unroadworthy...

...but it wouldn't help.

 

Of more concern would be the fact that despite a bolt being there, there is movement in the pin connecting the LCA to knuckle interface.

And here's another bit of information.

 

Front tracking has no effect on the vehicles pull drift, it's the castor/camber angle that does that!

 

Of course it would make good sense to take it to a local council testing centre who would truly be independent to get a bench mark opinion.

Edited January 11, 2014 by heliosuk
Forgot to add last sentance

[Mike_hawk]

Conniff, I think you are missing the point. Lets use your shirt analogy.

 

You buy a USED shirt for 50p when a NEW one is £15.00. A good USED one is £5.00. When you bought the shirt wifey looked at it and pointed out it had some faults. At the point of sale the seller gave you a list of things they knew to be wrong with it. So you wear the shirt for the first time and find it uncomfortable. You then take it to Jermyn Street and the shirt maker tells you it's the worst example he has seen in 40 years and needs a considerable amount of repair work to make it comfortable to wear. So you go and ask for your money back and the seller kicks off.

 

 

Now guidelines exist under SOGA with respect to cars as you well know:

 

1. be of satisfactory quality (taking into account its age and mileage)

2. meet any description given to you when you were buying it ( whether in the advert or in discussions prior to sale)

3. be fit for the purpose (for example, to get you from A to B safely)

 

In this case the car could be deemed to be of satisfactory quality as faults the OP was complaining about appear to have been declared and it was checked by a third party of the OP's.

Meet any description....well this is VERY subjective isn't it ?

Be fit for purpose....as I point out probably not.

 

So Mikes point is very interesting re RTA S.75

 

For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

 

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

 

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

 

F1(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[F2(b)it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person

 

And this is the bit where it gets difficult. Apart from the MOT test at the time of the test there is NO legal standard that defines what that condition should be is there?

 

 

Having taken a brief look at the question of roadworthy, it appears that the prosecution I referred to earlier was subject to s41A, the burden on compliance being s45.

[George Carman]

Car Dealer

I will the post the the reply sent to the customer

[George Carman]

Dear Customer

The value of the car was bottom book £800 , a 2005 Citroen Picasso Diesel with similar mileage in good condition would be value at £2500

Research on the web for a 2005 Citroen Picasso Diesel with similar mileage for £800 will get you a non runner or accident damaged vehicle .

 

On you first viewing of the car you brought a friend and you both inspected the vehicle and test drove the vehicle on return you remarked the steering need attention , I leave all customers to inspect vehicles in their own time , after your test drive you approached me in my office stating you were still interested in making a purchase , remarking that it would need mechanical attention , you informed me that you would like to send a trusted experienced car expert , this reassured me that you were taking the correct action in seeking a professional to check out the vehicle prior to purchasing the vehicle .

 

Your professional dully arrived and proceeded to carry out an inspection and road test , he informed me of the play in the steering and needed rectifying before further use and would recommend that you make the purchase and advising the repairs be carried out before use .Which totally reassured me that you knew what you were entering into .

 

 

I was possibly wrong to describe as drives well , but after your first viewing you should have rejected the vehicle instead you choose to proceed with the purchase in the knowledge of the steering problems . Even after your professional advised you of the problem you still wanted to complete the purchase , even informing me you had booked the vehicle into a garage for repairs .

 

I can assure you the vehicle never moved from my yard other than for the 2 test drives , the mileage in the advert is the mileage recorded when I collect the vehicle from my source which could possibly add 30 miles to the advertised amount .

 

When the deposit was paid you informed me completion would take 7 to 10 days , completion took 24 days

 

On the day of completion I advised that I had a customer collecting at 1pm and to come at 1.15 , I had another appointment at 2pm , you arrived at 1.45pm and proceeded to unwrap bundles of money into crumpled heaps , I offered to assist to which you rebuffed me in a surly manner , my patience with your manner and time keeping was beginning to wear .

 

You had 24 days in which to cancel this deal , you and your professional adviser took the vehicle away from my premises in full knowledge that the steering needed attention .

 

Yours faithfully George Carman

[borderreiver4]

Wasn't there a post here from the vehicle seller that has just disappeared? Seems to be far too much of that happening on this forum if you are a member of the motor trade.

[scaniaman]

Reference post16. The recurrent theme is the way the salesman spoke and the scary drive in an unroadworthy car. If i took a car on the road and deemed it unsafe i would return it immediately.

Whilst i have never suffered migrane, i worked beside a man who did. When an attack came on he had to be driven home because of the state he was in.

It begs the question "Was the OP in any fit state to be driving any vehicle at all that day"?

Which caused most danger to road users---car or driver?

[Conniff]

 

... you informed me that you would like to send a trusted experienced car expert , this reassured me that you were taking the correct action in seeking a professional to check out the vehicle prior to purchasing the vehicle .

 

Your professional dully arrived and proceeded to carry out an inspection and road test , he informed me of the play in the steering and needed rectifying before further use and would recommend that you make the purchase and advising the repairs be carried out before use .Which totally reassured me that you knew what you were entering into .

 

This is the problem we have with a lot of threads, we don't get the full story. Nowhere in the original post does it say that an 'expert' examined the car, only a friend.

 

An 'expert' examined the car and decided that it was value for the price paid. Did this expert notice the drop link, it's not mentioned until after purchase.

 

I gave my reaction on the basis that the original post was complete.

[George Carman]

This is the problem we have with a lot of threads, we don't get the full story. Nowhere in the original post does it say that an 'expert' examined the car, only a friend.

 

An 'expert' examined the car and decided that it was value for the price paid. Did this expert notice the drop link, it's not mentioned until after purchase.

 

I gave my reaction on the basis that the original post was complete.

 

The drop link was not mentioned , as far as I was concerned the vehicle was correctly assessed as requiring further investigation in the work shop , priced at £800 there was large scope for spending on the vehicle and still having a cheap vehicle .

[scaniaman]

Yes George, you appear to have been completely up front with the buyer. However, i rather think that the SOGA would be against you in that a car in this state should not have been sold retail

(OK trade).

Perhaps other members will correct me, but i think if you sell a car (irrespective of price) retail, and car needs immediate attention, then you must INSIST that the buyer transports the car away from your premises (trailer or recovery truck etc etc). Even if buyer just takes the car round the corner then decides to drive it, you are covered since the vehicle was "TRansported away" from your garage.

[George Carman]

The onus lies with the buyer to ensure they are legal when taking a vehicle on the road .

[heliosuk]

That's true George but the seller also has to ensure that the car is legal or is removed legally, i.e. on trade plates if the car is illegal. The problem in this case is that hypothetically the car is legal as it has a current MOT with 6 months to run, was brought at a knock down price with known faults declared. The actual issue is if the car was unroadworthy and the question is what is deemed to be unroadworthy. There appears to be no set bench mark apart from that which Mike has shown.

 

This is why I get fed up of the sue grabbit and run brigade who advocate SOGA as an instrument of recourse when in fact SOGA is far from clear cut on used cars and clearly states is commensurate with age, mileage and price paid, the price paid bit which often gets left out.

 

Personally, if the industry want's to clean up it's act then all second hand cars need to be sold with a new MOT 1 day prior to sale which is carried out at a government run test centre. The way vehicle testing is carried out in the UK is a farce, is open to and is consistently abused but if this was to happen it would dramatically cut the number of complaints on here, would dramatically cut the number of cases with trading standards and give a set standard to bench mark against.

 

At least then there would be a very thin grey line as opposed to the massive one that exists at the moment and would persuade traders to clean up a tarnished reputation. It shouldn't reduce the amount of work through workshops either, it would possibly increase it.

[Conniff]

The onus lies with the buyer to ensure they are legal when taking a vehicle on the road .

 

 

Sellers are 'always' responsible for the products they sell. You cannot sell a product in a dangerous condition and then say you should have checked it.

[sailor sam]

The onus lies with the buyer to ensure they are legal when taking a vehicle on the road .

 

I think you ought to read this George;

 

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

 

I think you will find that as Scaniaman points out, when selling to a normal retail customer, the trader is responsible to ensure it is fully road legal and roadworthy.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.