accident repaired car sold by company

[khoshtip_uk]

Hi,

I bought a used car from a garage (called xxx company). I have paid £4,000 for the car. Based on RAC and parkers.co.uk website the value of this car is £3900 only if its in good condition and bought from a car dealer.

Today after 5 days it has came to my attention that car has been involved in an accident I had 2 car mechanic and 1 body workshop specialist had looked at the car and all agreed that it has been involved in an accident and has been repaired recently, I went back to the garage today morning and I was told that car didn’t had an accident and they are not willing to offer me refund or different car (I was told to go away and see legal advice by none educated car mechanic, when I bought the car the other guy did the paper work for me this guy was cleaning and fixing car at that time but now I have to talk to him to resolve this issue!).

I showed the car to another body workshop owner and went back to them with more prove then they said the car is (2002) 5 years old its normal to have 1 accident! ..

I have checked RAC car data check there was no record of accident or insurance write off, I think no one will buy this car of me for more than £2300 even if I sell it today!!

I really want to get my money back because I took out loan and can’t afford any thing like this. Can someone please advice me on what to do? Do I have enough evidence to go to the court?

[khoshtip_uk]

if I get a prove from garage or advertise the car and find out that no one will buy it of me for more than £2000 etc, will this be enough evidence to prove to the court that car was sold with unsatisfactory price ?

[miniconverter]

If the car is not recorded any body damage would be regarded as a normal repair and if carried out correctly should not effect the value of the car.

 

If you had owned the car at the time of the accident and it had been repaired at the insurance company's cost you would have been happy and would not have expected to get the normal price for it at resale.

 

If the repairs are not satisfactory I suggest you point out to the garage that sold it you the vehicale is not of merchantable quality and possibly not fit for the purpose intended if unsafe or likely to cause a failure in use.

[khoshtip_uk]

repairs are satisfactory, but if no one is going to buy the car of me for more than £2300 because of accident/repair would this be a satisfactory deal? and good for purpose?

[khoshtip_uk]

I was told by a car body specialist (who worked for insurance company for 6 years), that the car most have been recorded as write off and if its not then it could appear on the list 3 month down the line, its not minor accident based on the comments which i get from other car mechanics.

[miniconverter]

If repairs are satisfactory why is it only worth £2000 who has told you this or did you just pay to much for it in the first place.

 

If cat A B C or D information is entered when original owner is paid by insurance company. Cat A and B cannot be re-registered if cat C or D new V5 is not issued till a VIC has been done and it is then noted on the V5.

 

What car (make and exact model) is it what year and how many miles let me know and I will give you an indication of value

[MrShed]

If the car has been repaired satisfactorily, then the car clearly is within the SOGA. I can see no basis for any kind of refund - this is the type of thing that, if it is going to concern you, you should get checked out prior to buying. You cannot revoke the contract for it being an "unsatisfactory deal".

 

What exactly has been repaired?

[khoshtip_uk]

Its Peugeot 206, 3dr LX, 52000 miles, 02, based on what I know so far the car had an accident from the front and front bomber, lights, radiator and the other parts around this area have either been repaired or replaced, accident had also an effect on the driver side door. And the part of the car body, which sets on the front wheel has been repaired. (I don’t know more about the accident and what has been replaced or fixed at this stage but its something that I will look into fully before taking legal action).

 

When I went to buy this car it was Saturday and I was told that its not possible to test drive or either buy today but if I come back on Monday and let them know 1 hour in advance this would be fine and I could test drive,buy and drive away on the same day!! When I went back to them on Monday I was told that I could buy today but have to leave the car for 2 days so they can do the MOT and paper work!!! (I knew that I need car ASAP so I can get back to work and such thing might happen that’s why I asked them but here you go) Then because The car had 7 month MOT already they agreed for me to driveway but come back on Saturday to do the MOT, at this stage I wasn’t aware of the accident but I knew that exhaust is making noise and LCD screen is not working (which they verbally agreed to repair them once I come back for MOT.

 

By Saturday which was yesterday it came to my attention hat car has been involved in an accident and realised that there are more faults with car like:

 

CD player is not working(agreed to be replaced)

The little metal which holds driver door to the car frame was welded but is broken again (the other door makes big noise when trying to open it, which could have been the result of accident)

The car is very rusty underneath and front lent has to be replaced(nt discussed yet)

Exhaust is leaking and car is drinking extra petrol(agreed to be fixed)

There is a noise when Turing steering (agreed to be looked into)

 

They agreed to repair the fault at part of MOT but there is no guarantee whether they will replace exhaust for example or fix it temporary …

 

even thou contract between me and them has been signed they are still lieing about the accident why would they do this ?

 

 

 

I could have bought a car with this much trouble privately why would i buy from a company ?

[MrShed]

In what way are they "lying" about the accident? What EXACTLY have they said about it?

[LondonPam]

Did they know about the accident ?

[khoshtip_uk]

They told me that the car didn’t have any accident in first place (note this was 5days after the date which I purchased the car, i never asked them on the day which i purchased the car.)! But 2 hours later I went back to them with more proof/signs of accidents, then he said the car is 5 years old so it’s normal to have 1 accident in every 5 years.

 

Anyway, today I went to another garage for the MOT and also spoke to the trading standard they told me to do MOT and if car fails for any reason related to safety (which makes it dangerous and not roadworthy then they will become involved).

I have listed the MOT refusal results: could someone please tell me whether my car is safe and should I still drive it to work or not / and whether any of those failure makes the car dangerous to drive.

 

Measurements:

Brakes Failures: RBT front brake Imbalance: 29%

 

Reason for refusal of Test Certificate

• Nearside rear stop lamp not working [1.3.21]
  
• Nearside front suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated resulting in excessive movement [2.4.g.3]
  
• Offside front suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated resulting in excessive movement [2.4.g.3]
  
• Nearside front anti-roll bar linkage has excessive play in a pin/bush [2.4.g.3]
  
• Offside front anti-roll bar linkage has excessive play in a pin/bush [2.4.g.3]
  
• Front brake pad less than 1.5 mm thick [3.5.1f]
  
• Exhaust system has major leak of exhaust gases [7.1.2a]
  
• Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle excessive [7.3.2b]
  
• Brakes imbalanced [3.7.a.2e]

[MrShed]

I have never ever heard of a car failing its MOT on the thickness of a brake pad, and this for me would be a major cause for concern with the safety of driving the car. That said, brake pads are effectively a "consumable", and so not sure if that would change the opinion of trading standards. The suspension arms and anti roll bars probably make the car unroadworthy also. The emissions and lamp do not.

[miniconverter]

I have never ever heard of a car failing its MOT on the thickness of a brake pad, and this for me would be a major cause for concern with the safety of driving the car. That said, brake pads are effectively a "consumable", and so not sure if that would change the opinion of trading standards. The suspension arms and anti roll bars probably make the car unroadworthy also. The emissions and lamp do not.

 

If the brake pads are visable without removing the wheel or wheel trim a car can and will fail if there is less than 1.5mm left on any brake pad.

[khoshtip_uk]

spoke to the standards trading today , they told me the garage has broken the law(Sale of Goods Act), car is not fit for purpose and satisfactory on the MOT bases and i should write to them asap/+not to use the car, also made garage aware of whats going on , they told me why have I rang standards trading I should go back they will repair it for me. car has been sold and they will not refund my money back.

will write to them now.

[LondonPam]

The MOT isn't actually due yet so I'm not sure how they can state it's not satisfactory as far as an MOT is concerned!

[khoshtip_uk]

most garages provide 12 month MOT that means they do the MOT same day as you buy it, but this guy didnt do that (he assumed that the car is at least roadworthy and will be ok to drive for a week at least !, or didnt want to loose the customer,because I wasnt sure whether i was going to wit 2 days for the MOT ),

the current MOT is from previous owner, whenever a trade buys /sells cars its their responsibility to ensure that the car which they are selling is roadworthy and meets certain standards.

[rodenal]

Nothing on your MOT refusal certificate is a major fix, and could be present in any car. Would cost a relatively small amount to put right

 

Get the pads changed wont cost you much.

 

The garage should also have to repair the other items if your vehicle came with a warranty.

 

With regards to the accident damage, if the car is HPI clear then it is realistic for the garage not to know about it, not all damaged vehicles are claimed through insurance, therfore bygoing the Register(they also may have fixed it themselves and be lying).

 

I have to ask why you bought a car, then went and had it checked out, rather than bringing a mechanic with you. I would also advise you to never agree a test drive time as it gives the garage time to warm the car up - most faults are apparent when cold. If a dealer wont let you drive it there and then, walk away(i know this isnt useful right now, but if you're refunded bear it in mind for your next car.)

[khoshtip_uk]

I could have simply paid £30 to my mechanic to check the car for me (any car), but I thought buying from company and paying that extra couple of hundred £££s cash will give me peace of mind, I didnt know buying from garage could be this much trouble, I could have bought such a car with less problems privately or from auction.

 

the reason why I took it to mechanic later on was that because there were some problems already with the car like exhaust ,cd player ,steering noise, + door (which made me think suspicious about the car).

I thought its might not be a bad idea to take it to my friends mechanic to have quick look( i didnt pay anything to him to check and diagnose the car ... )

[LancerQRL]

door check straps groaning on pugs are far from unusual even when they are under warrenty and suspension wear is a known concern- bottom arms can need replacing at the first mot, most of the area you describe in the accident is in fact plastic- the only metal ares really are the lower crossmember the radiator sits on and headlamp panels in all honesty lets not forget it is 5 years old after all

[rosiecotton]

The accident itself isn't really something you can do much about if the damage has been repaired to a satisfactory standard. They have not misrepresented the car to you before sale, so you can't pursue them on this. If they had told you before the sale that the car had not been in an accident it would be different, as they will have misrepresented the car, but this is not the case.

 

If there are other faults which you would not expect to be present on a car of that age and mileage, then you would have an argument that this vehicle is not of satisfactory quality and request a repair, which I understand they are doing.

 

Judging whether a car is of satisfactory quality is nothing to do with the MoT; the MoT is a statement of whether a car is safe to be driven on the day of the test. Normally a car would be deemed as not of satisfactory quality if the fault is unusual and unexpected in the car depending on its age, value and mileage.

[khoshtip_uk]

myAddres+phon nu

 

 

 

28/02/2007

 

company address

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)

 

On 19/02/2007, I bought a Peugeot car Registration: xxxx from your company for £3995. I have discovered it is faulty.

 

The problems are:

 

1. The Car has failed MOT test for 9 reason and those are as follows:

 

 

Measurements:

 

Brakes Failures: RBT front brake Imbalance: 29%

 

 

 

 

• Front brake pad less than 1.5 mm thick [3.5.1f]
  
• Exhaust system has major leak of exhaust gases [7.1.2a]
  
• Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle excessive [7.3.2b]
  
• Brakes imbalanced [3.7.a.2e]
  
• Nearside rear stop lamp not working [1.3.21]
  
• Nearside front suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated resulting in excessive movement [2.4.g.3]
  
• Offside front suspension arm rubber bush deteriorated resulting in excessive movement [2.4.g.3]
  
• Nearside front anti-roll bar linkage has excessive play in a pin/bush [2.4.g.3]
  
• Offside front anti-roll bar linkage has excessive play in a pin/bush [2.4.g.3]

2. CD player is not working

3. Driver side door is faulty

 

I complained about this to you on 24/02/2007.But you declined to either Replace the car or refund my money back. I wish to reject the car and claim a replacement/refund from you.

 

Please respond to my complaint within seven days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Xxx

 

Is everything is ok ?

What about this line ? Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) should I leave it as it is?

I will include copy of recipt + invoice

Im not driving the car anymore should I mention it ?

Do I need to send copy of MOT as well?

Im trying get refund if not possible thendiffrent car, should i cross the replacment?

 

"The Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 say that if you can show the goods to be faulty or misdescribed, you have "for a short time after purchase" a right to reject the goods and get a refund of the purchase price" is this is true even if the garage agrees to repair or fix the fault ???? I keep hearing difrent things from legal advisers etc.

[rosiecotton]

Bear in mind that you cannot claim for faults that would be considered normal wear and tear. MoT failures do not necessarily constitute the car not being of satisfactory quality. For example, the stop lamp - that would most definitely not be seen as a fault.

 

I'm no mechanic so cannot comment on the other faults - but beware, if these faults are the sort of things you might not be surprised to find on a car with that age and mileage, you may not have a claim.

 

I would seriously get a second opinion from someone with mechanical expertise before you start taking this further.

[khoshtip_uk]

the problem is that mechanics dont know about the law and lawyers and legal advicers dont know about mechanical faults , I got to try and fight for it, I have spoken to RAC legal advicers, consumerdirect advisers,standards trading advisers etc, everytime someone else picks the phone up and tell you diffrent story,its always 50%50 i guess

I know that the list contains some minor and major issue, but got to leave them there for the judge.

 

standards trading pple have list of the issues which I have written abowe and they are looking into criminal aspect of this(as I was told by them its criminal act for dealers to sell cars which are not roadworthy ...), will I have stronger case if the garage recieves warning or criminal record from standards trading?

 

PS: before doing the MOT I was told by standards trading that they can become involved and will become involved if I do the MOT and it fails on Safety bases(not any fault) which could make the car unroadworthy, but as I said they couldnt exactly tell me whether the issues which Im having with the car can make the car unroadworthy and garage has committed criminal.

[khoshtip_uk]

Trading Standards - Unroadworthy Vehicles

 

WHAT IS UNROADWORTHY?

 

A vehicle is unroadworthy if:

its brakes, steering, tyres, construction or equipment do not meet statutory standards; or

 

- its use on the road would present a danger of injury to any person; or

 

- it is dangerous due to structural corrosion.

 

 

HOW TO CHECK WHETHER A VEHICLE IS UNROADWORTHY

If you have any doubts about whether a vehicle is roadworthy, it must be examined by a competent person.

[rosiecotton]

Trading Standards can investigate cars that may have been sold as unsafe/unroadworthy provided the car is reported and examined soon after sale, I understand you did complain straight away so this may be a positive.

 

Any action under criminal legislation that they may take will not have a direct effect upon your civil case.