Bought a car - garage states unroadworthy. Concerns about validity of trade dealer

[AllAdviceWelcome]

This is a long story so I'll try to keep it brief as I feel stupid enough already. Bought a Cat C car with all the proper checks and paperwork i.e. HPI, valid MOT, VIC check, independent engineers report and so on. Took it to my local garage and there's lots more wrong with it including bits that would make it fail its MOT plus there were many lies in the original car advert which have since been discovered by the garage.

 

I spoke with Consumer Direct, sent the 14 day refund notice letter under SOGA as to fix this car would run into thousands, and am awaiting a response. My biggest concern is how flaky the dealer is as they seem to work with/under 3 different names which aren't Limited companies so aren't on Companies House. If they disappeared then I honestly wouldn't have anything decent to track them with. I'm just very scared that this guy can shut up shop and disappear and am trying all I can think of to find out what I can in the meantime.

 

Is there anything anyone can recommend or suggest please? I feel so stupid but lesson learned at least and now I just need to try and come out of this with the money I put in.

 

Thanks

[Conniff]

Do you have a name and address for the man?

 

Are you certain he is trading and this isn't a private sale?

[BrazilianCCK]

Was the engineers report one that you instigated or one that was provided with the car?

[AllAdviceWelcome]

I have the name and bank details of the man, plus mobile and email address, but not his address but have figured out what it should be from internet research (the business one anyway).

 

The independent engineers report was something required by the insurers (as well as a recommendation when getting a Cat C car I read) and I checked he had it before going to see the car and he said he had one which is what I now have in hard copy. I've talked to the IAEA people, found a garage who can provide such a report and they are happy to do another report to 'contradict' the one that exists if required but obviously that's more costs of around £150-£250+.

[AllAdviceWelcome]

PS He appeared to be trading with lots of cars inside his premises but doesn't have a 'set up showroom' as such. He's registered on Autotrader as trade seller and the whole impression is trade (much as that's not worth the effort taken to type it in a legal situation I guess) with lots of cars on Autotrader too.

[BrazilianCCK]

As much as you may not want to hear it, it could be that you were actually sold the car in good faith - it sounds as though the dealer has done everything right and he will have a high degree of protection provided by the engineers report that has already been done. If a further report brings up issues that were not picked up by the first report, then the dealer should recify the issues and then claim off whoever did the original report who must have some form of indemnity insurance, but I would be pretty sure that the dealer (and probably the original inspecting engineer) will take issue with the new report. As far as the advert goes, then that may be your best angle - can you detail what you see as the lies in the advert?

[Bookworm]

As much as you may not want to hear it, it could be that you were actually sold the car in good faith - it sounds as though the dealer has done everything right and he will have a high degree of protection provided by the engineers report that has already been done. If a further report brings up issues that were not picked up by the first report, then the dealer should recify the issues and then claim off whoever did the original report who must have some form of indemnity insurance, but I would be pretty sure that the dealer (and probably the original inspecting engineer) will take issue with the new report. As far as the advert goes, then that may be your best angle - can you detail what you see as the lies in the advert?

Sorry, that's quite incorrect. if the buyer discovers goods are not of satisfactory quality/not fit for purpose/not as describe, then whether the dealer acted in good faith or not is completely irrelevant, and the buyer can claim a full refund, doesn't have to accept a repair either.

 

AAW, what you haven't stated is the time lapsed between car purchase and realisation the goods were not compliant. Since you say you sent a 14 days CD letter, am I to understand that the letter in question was a letter to reject the car under SOGA? When did you send it, and have you had any response yet?

 

the reality is that if the guy were to decide to fold his trade, there's not a lot you could do about it, but without a crystal ball, no-one can really tell whether that's what he'll do or not, so little point in worrying about that right now. You never know, he might take this one on the chin and not fight it too hard once he realises you won't be pushed around. Here's hoping anyway.

[BrazilianCCK]

Sorry, but I disagree with bookworms advice - the dealer is not liable for any faults highlighted by the original engineers report (which is why dealers love customers who have AA/RAC reports done) as faults advised to the customer before the completion of sale are not subject to claims under the SOGA and in terms of procedure appears to have done everything correctly hence the good faith comment- the fact that another inspecting engineer is disagreeing with the original report is something that needs to be proven, and does not provide the basis for an automatic repair or rejection claim under SOGA as you are into the realms of one experts opinion against another.

[Bookworm]

Sorry, but I disagree with bookworms advice - the dealer is not liable for any faults highlighted by the original engineers report (which is why dealers love customers who have AA/RAC reports done) as faults advised to the customer before the completion of sale are not subject to claims under the SOGA and in terms of procedure appears to have done everything correctly hence the good faith comment- the fact that another inspecting engineer is disagreeing with the original report is something that needs to be proven, and does not provide the basis for an automatic repair or rejection claim under SOGA as you are into the realms of one experts opinion against another.

 

Re: the highlighted part, please re-read #1: "there's lots more wrong with it", which indicates that these faults were NOT pointed out to the buyer, therefore SOGA applies.

 

Even if seller acted in good faith, if faults are there which were not visible/showing on report/would not necessarily be found until car was actually driven, you don't get SOGA bonus points for acting in good faith: Either the goods are compliant or they're not. If they're not, then right to reject applies.

 

Secondly, if the dealer disagrees, then the onus will be on him to prove that the goods ARE compliant, since they are deemed inherently faulty for the 1st 6 months. A lot of chasing around, and ultimately, he is likely to lose, as on probability, let's face it, it's more likely that a dealer would hide faults than a buyer making out there are faults where there aren't.

[BrazilianCCK]

Bookworm , you are making the assumption that the original engineers report is not worth the paper it is written on whilst the second (and yet to be completed) report is somehow written by the guru of vehicle engineering - as you state it is down to the dealer to prove any faults are not there at the point of sale, at which points the dealer waves the original engineers report and says here's my proof. This has court case written all over it unless, as we have both stated, the dealer agrees with the second report and repairs/refunds and then claims off the first engineer. Chances of that happening given that it sounds like the original engineers report was commisioned by the insurers is pretty darned slim as you can't even claim it was the dealers pet inspecting engineer. Hence I would go back to a previous post, and clarify what lies are suspected in the original advert as that is a better angle

[Bookworm]

Nope, not assuming anything as such, but if OP took car to garage, there is ONE assumption and that is that he had a reason to? Or do people take a car to the garage and pay for an inspection for the hell of it these days?

 

If garage picked up on a fault which not present in the original report and/or description of the goods, then right to reject applies.

 

For the record, I definitely do NOT agree with your "as we have both stated, the dealer agrees with the second report and repairs/refunds and then claims off the first engineer". I have stated no such thing and wouldn't. If OP decides to reject the car, he doesn't have to accept a repair. If the dealer takes back the car and ends up out of pocket because of the 1st engineer 's mistake, then that is for the dealer to deal with and nothing to do with us on here, unless he comes and asks us for advice too!

[BrazilianCCK]

"Nope, not assuming anything as such, but if OP took car to garage, there is ONE assumption and that is that he had a reason to? Or do people take a car to the garage and pay for an inspection for the hell of it these days?"

 

Yes. absolutely they do - we had a case recently where we sold a car that was inspected by us, work undertaken and then MOT'd the day before the sale, but because we are assumed to be nasty car dealers who must be selling a pup then they took it to their ever so trusted local garage the next day who came up with a list of faults amounting to around |£650.00 worth of work according to them including MOT items. The customer did not contact us, but went to VOSA who accepted their story and decided to do a new MOT on the car - the first we knew about the problem was when the MOT station advised that they were being inspected on one of our cars which is not something anyone takes lightly - anyway, the long and short was that the car was absolutely fine, had been prepared and MOT'd correctly and the customer was told case closed and sent away £55 worse off and much to our amusement with an MOT fail as the customer had presented the car with a sat nav stuck to the screen which is a failure item. Conclusion - we and the MOT station were put through alot of stress and hassle because the "trusted" garage thought they had found a way to make some money off their long standing customer.

 

"If garage picked up on a fault which not present in the original report and/or description of the goods, then right to reject applies"

 

Assuning the second garage is correct, but as stated the dealer has a strong defence and would I imagine dispute it as is his right. However, the description is a different beast but not enough info on that one yet

 

"For the record, I definitely do NOT agree with your "as we have both stated, the dealer agrees with the second report and repairs/refunds and then claims off the first engineer". I have stated no such thing and wouldn't. If OP decides to reject the car, he doesn't have to accept a repair. If the dealer takes back the car and ends up out of pocket because of the 1st engineer 's mistake, then that is for the dealer to deal with and nothing to do with us on here, unless he comes and asks us for advice too!"

 

Yes, sorry to lump you in with that one, what I was trying to say that the dealer may take on board the second opinion and repair/refund depending on the OPs wishes, but given what is known so far the only way I see that happening is if he claims off the 1st engineer, otherwise I would expect him to defend the claim for repair or refund based purely on the 2nd report

 

Anyway, OP about the advert?

Edited September 9, 2010 by BrazilianCCK