Second hand car purchase

[Aliced100]

Please help, on 11 June I purchased a second hand car at the cost of £5,000 (some of which I paid on credit card).

On the day that I brought it, I drove it round the block with the dealer, and the passenger wheel was making a strange noise. When I questioned him about this, he got out did something and said it was a stone stuck in the wheel.

Earlier this week, the same wheel began making the most horrendous noise, so I took it to a mechanic who says that the brake pads have gone and as they went quite sometime ago, the discs are now broken (or whatever the discs do) and it is going to cost around £200 pounds to fix it!

I do not now much about cars, but on average I drive around 20 miles a day and can not believe that in just under 3 months, it is possible to have caused such damage. But if anyone knows about these things and it is, please let me know.

As I got the car on a credit card is there anything that I can do. The fellow who sold me the car is a real bully. The first time I accidently opened the window about a month after buying it, it got stuck when I took it back to the dealer he said the motor had gone and that counts as wear and tear so I had to pay for it. When I explained that that it was the first time I had opened it, he started shouting at me and saying well I won’t fix it then. As it was raining so hard, I had no choice but to pay him.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do.

Thank you

[maroondevo52]

Hello and Welcome,

 

I've moved this thread to the appropriate Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[huggys boss]

I assume you have some sort of printed Bill Of Sale? My son-in-law bought what can only be described as a death trap recently, and the paper work we have is headed "Used Car Invoice" and the small print at the bottom states "I/we the seller of the above motor vehicle have given the buyer every opportunity to examine and test the vehicle and they are completely satisfied with its condition and understand that as soon as it is taken from our premises no claims to any work/parts etc are the responsibility of the above Seller and no claims whatsoever will be paid out by the seller".

His car came with 12 months MOT. As soon as he drove it off the forecourt the speedo stopped working and for the past 3 weeks there have been numerous other faults. The final straw was 2 days ago when it started surging forward. Today we have scrapped the car as it was unsafe.

 

What I am saying is check the small print on your paperwork. If it reads as "sold as seen", there may be nothing you can do unfortunately.

[Sidewinder]

I assume you have some sort of printed Bill Of Sale? My son-in-law bought what can only be described as a death trap recently, and the paper work we have is headed "Used Car Invoice" and the small print at the bottom states "I/we the seller of the above motor vehicle have given the buyer every opportunity to examine and test the vehicle and they are completely satisfied with its condition and understand that as soon as it is taken from our premises no claims to any work/parts etc are the responsibility of the above Seller and no claims whatsoever will be paid out by the seller".

His car came with 12 months MOT. As soon as he drove it off the forecourt the speedo stopped working and for the past 3 weeks there have been numerous other faults. The final straw was 2 days ago when it started surging forward. Today we have scrapped the car as it was unsafe.

 

What I am saying is check the small print on your paperwork. If it reads as "sold as seen", there may be nothing you can do unfortunately.

 

Appreciate that theory and practice are two completely different things, but when buying a used car from a motor trader, he cannot simply opt out of legal obligations by stating 'sold as seen'

 

There would be allowances for age and mileage of a car being bought, but irrespective of that the car must be fit for purpose. In the case of an unsafe vehicle (although that description may be subjective) there are legal remedies available should the dealer not be willing to fix the fault.

[crem]

and the small print at the bottom states "I/we the seller of the above motor vehicle have given the buyer every opportunity to examine and test the vehicle and they are completely satisfied with its condition and understand that as soon as it is taken from our premises no claims to any work/parts etc are the responsibility of the above Seller and no claims whatsoever will be paid out by the seller".

 

 

Such a statement by a trader isn't worth the paper it is written on. Your SOGA rights trump anything he may wish to "claim" on his sales invoice and you should have insisted he fixed the fault or refunded your money.

[afcwben]

have a look around the forum, there is plenty of guidance as to what your legal rights are as Crem rightly states when buying a car fro a dealer "sold as seen" is not a get out clause and SOGA is your friend

[sailor sam]

In addition to Crem's comments, SOGA states that any defect which occurs within the first 6 months of purchase would be assumed to be present at the point of sale. It is for the seller to prove otherwise. In respect of the window motor, this is not considered a wear and tear item because it is a component which is designed to last the lifetime of the car. Wear and tear items would be tyres, battery, clutch brake pads/shoes ect. In the OPs case, it seems that the pads were already 'gone' at the time of purchase so the repairs shold be the responsiblity of the seller, especially if the milesge since purchase is low. However, the seller must be given the opportunity to inspect and rectify before taking matters further. I suggest that the OP writes to the seller induicating that an independent inspection has revealed that the discs require replacement due to the pads being worn and it is the garage's opinion that they have been worn out for some time. Also mention the milegae you have done since purchase and ask for his intentions. As far as Huugy's comments; it is illegal to attempt to reduce a consumer's statutory rights under the SOGA so such clauses as 'sold as seen' have no legal status what so ever.

 

Come back and let us know how you get on.

 

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.

 

[grahamengineering]

Some good advice there and some not so good. The 6 month claim that sailor sam gives is nonsense. SOGA is incredibly complex regarding used cars. A trader can reasonably attribute most failures on an older used car to wear and tear.

 

In all fairness yes he should really of fixed the window in that short of time. Sams statement of a window regulator lasting the lifetime of a car is tosh. Using renault as an example I have known them to need replacing within 2 years.

 

But a car that has covered 120 miles a week for just days short of 3 months (Thats roughly 1800 miles) and you expect the brakes done for nothing? All the car needed to be was of the required MOT standard re braking at the time of sale.

[sailor sam]

Some good advice there and some not so good. The 6 month claim that sailor sam gives is nonsense. SOGA is incredibly complex regarding used cars. A trader can reasonably attribute most failures on an older used car to wear and tear.

 

In all fairness yes he should really of fixed the window in that short of time. Sams statement of a window regulator lasting the lifetime of a car is tosh. Using renault as an example I have known them to need replacing within 2 years.

 

But a car that has covered 120 miles a week for just days short of 3 months (Thats roughly 1800 miles) and you expect the brakes done for nothing? All the car needed to be was of the required MOT standard re braking at the time of sale.

 

Usual drivel. Why don't you actually read the SOGA yourself? You will find;

 

The Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, is derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003. This reverses the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

 

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.

 

[markmont]

Hello there,

 

Did you get any sort of guarantee from the dealer? I reckon that when you pay £5000 you expect a minimum standard of reliability.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

[grahamengineering]

Sam we all know you aren't capable of fully reading and understanding the laws you just quoted. If you did and delved deeper into it it clearly tells you that age, price, market value and several other factors put your statement out the window. If you have any doubts on it get in touch with Citizens advice or trading standards. They will put you right. Believe it or not decent car traders keep in contact with trading standards to keep up to date with current legislation and clarify the laws position in problem cases.

[heliosuk]

Hold on guys, whilst you are both correct on the 6th month assumption i.e. it is assumed that the fault existed at the time and that it is based on age mileage and price and service history believe it or not ( which is frequently forgotten by many posters), reading the original post, the op complained of a noise at the time of test which the dealer put down to stone trapping. Feasible yes but then the brakes fail due to pad lining with what could be consequential damage.

 

Sorry but this is firmly in the dealers hands and his responsibility as the car has to be safe to use and the dealer should ensure there is at least 6 months wear under average operating conditions left.

 

Now in the case of the window operating mechanism what is not known is the age and mileage of the car. So the op can base it on the following which is reasonable.

 

The window mechanism is designed for the life of the car. There is an industry standard for this which is 150,000 miles or 10 years whichever occurs first. What needs to be pointed out is that the buyer is not entitled to new parts in that first six months, only that the fault is fixed. If the fault is fixed with new parts then the seller would be entitled to a contribution based on "betterment" i.e. they have the additional benefit of the mileage they did not use upto the point of failure for the design life of the part.

 

The problem with SOGA is that it was added to statute by a bunch of civil servants with little or no knowledge of motor vehicles or has become as a result of some old fahrt of a judge laying down a ruling which then becomes precident across the board as a result of a fault of a washing machine or something.

 

SOGA is too easily defended on used cars, is often misinterpreted and often misrepresented as some OP's on this site have found to their cost however there are some clear cut cases.

[sailor sam]

Sam we all know you aren't capable of fully reading and understanding the laws you just quoted. If you did and delved deeper into it it clearly tells you that age, price, market value and several other factors put your statement out the window. If you have any doubts on it get in touch with Citizens advice or trading standards. They will put you right. Believe it or not decent car traders keep in contact with trading standards to keep up to date with current legislation and clarify the laws position in problem cases.

 

You clearly stated that my '6 month claim is nonsence' which in itself is complete drivel. I've provided the relevant regs in post #9 to show that the 6 month rule exists. Frankly, i'm getting fed up of you following me around and throwing assumptions about my 'understandings' of consumer law when you have no idea what-so-ever what you are talking about. IMHO, you are a reincarnation of a member who was 'excluded' a few months ago for acting in a very similar way. I actually know consumer law and have used it in court on more than one occasion, winnning each case. I am fully aware what is considered to be of 'satisfactory quality' and 'fit for the purpose' and what equates to comparing matters involving age, value and mileage ect.

 

Clearly you are a trader or someone batting for the used car industry who is hell bent on trying to convince people who come her for advice that there is little or no hope in acheiving their statutory rights when things go wrong. I agree with Helio that SOGA is far from 'cut and dried' but at the end of the day, most cases can be tested when dealing with traders. In this particular case, I stand firmly by my advice that I have given to the OP in post #7. Components like window mechanisms are supposed to last the lifetime of the car. You of course, would say that this is 'tosh' being a trader along with anything else similar on a car I suppose. Clearly your 'expertise' on this is not as extensive as Helio's because he has hit the nail on the head in his post (#12). As for the brakes, the OP reports that there was a grinding noise at the time of purchase which was explained away by the seller as being a stone. Then less than 2000 miles later, we now hear that the discs are shot due to severley warn pads. The opinion of the garage is that this must of happened over a period of time. Bit of coincidence wouldn't you say?

 

Unlike you, I am firmly on the OPs side and will advise him to initially approach the seller and if necessary use the SOGA to resolve the issues rather than shoot down in flames the possibility of persuing a result like you seem to do. Of course the proof in the pudding will always be what the judge decides... not you or I. But if I think the OP has a reasonable argument and has been badly treated by a 'rouge trader', I will always advise them to not roll over and accept it.

 

Unless you can back up what I advise is wrong, I suggest that you refrain from this persitance in attacking me with inaccuracies such as suggesting that the 6 month clause under SOGA does not exist. Alternatively, I will ask the site team to look into my advice (of which you can report at anytime if you think it is that inaccurate) to see what they have to say. Or you can simply DO ONE!!!

 

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.

 

[BrazilianCCK]

Sorry Sam, but I'm going to dive in here as well, if only from the point of view that you obviously spend alot of time trying to help people but to do so in a way that may mislead is no good for anyone.Firstly the six month clause - the SOGA is was written PRIMARILY for the sale and supply of NEW goods, hence the six month clause - the add - ons that relate to the supply of used goods are necessarily vague as they need to cover the supply of a massively wide range of goods, and as such their validity in relation to used goods where there are many caveats in relation to the age, condition and price paid for the goods initially decrease as the six month limit is reached.The advice that you frequently offer may indeed work against business sellers who themselves are not up with the law, but any seller that is anyway competent with dealing with customer complaints will tear what you say to shredsLets go through this case in detailThe brakes - the customer has taken the car for a test drive, despite under their own admission (the discs are now broken (or whatever the discs do)) that they have little or no knowledge of cars themselves - now this is not a crime, but under the SOGA the dealer is not liable for faults that the customer themselves should have noticed on examination of the vehicle - by taking it on a test drive, briinging a mechanic friend along etc, you are stating that you are competent in the examination of motor vehicles and should notice any defects that are within the capabilities of a reasonable person or in the case of your mechanic friend within reasonable professional judgement - the lesson ?If buying from a business seller, and you want the maxiumum protection of the law, then don't examine or test the vehcile in any way - just walk onto the forecourt (or equivalent) and say "I want that one" , pay for it and drive away - that way the maxiumum onus is upon the seller.On the test drive, the car exhibited a fault, which was a noise from the passenger front wheel which two months later returns - in the end that is all the infiormation we have. The custiomer has failed under their obligations to the SOGA by not returning the vehcile to the seller for diagnosis and rectification of the fault - the mechanic they have gone to has diagnosed it as pads and disks but that is not relevant if you are sticking strictly to the law - so that's the brakes issue done under SOGA.For the window motor, the customer has acted correctly and is entitled to the repair under SOGA - the choice the customer has to make is whether they accept a repair at no cost with a 2nd hand window motor/mechanism or whether they opt for new parts and pay a proportion of the additional cost. That advice of course is subject to the caveat that the customer here is telling the truth and that the mechanism faiiled on first use and that in fact they don't have five children who constantly play with the window or any similar such circumstance that may lead to early failure and can be identified as such by the seller.Can you see what I'm getting at Sam - you come at this from the point of view that all the customers that come here for advice are angels and are telling the truth and that all the business sellers are trying to avoid their responsibilities - I bet if you got into the facts of the complaints, there is probably a chain of events that has led to a breakdown of communication or trust that may or may not be the sellers fault that leads to a posting on here.What you could and should look at closely if you wish to advise people is the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which contains many pitfalls for the less than professional business seller many of which are about what you fail to tell the customer rather than what you do - so for instance here, with the brakes issue, unless the seller can produce a mechanical inspection sheet to say that the vehicle was inspected before being placed on sale, then that piece of legislation may well assist.I guess what I am getting at Sam is less of the "sword and shield of the SOGA" approach and more balanced analysis is the way to go - as I said up front, your contributions are extermely valuable and I don't like to see postings like your last oine where you are clearly riled.

[Aliced100]

Hi All,

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my questions. Unfortunately as the brakes were so bad, when I took it in to find out what was wrong with it, the fellow said not to drive it anymore as it was just causing damage, so I had no choice but to have him fix it.

 

So, am I right in thinking I can not do anything about the breaks now as I did not take it back to him, (and do not have the old disks as the fellow that fixed it said the scrap man had taken them) but could maybe get my money back for the window as I did take it back to him and he bullied me into paying for another one.

 

To be honest I am quite cross that the man has sold me a car that has these faults and the reason I did not want to go back to him is that I did not want to give him anymore of my money and he starts shouting when I point out that I have not had the car long and that surely it should not be giving me problems already.

 

Anyway, this is the plan. I am going to call him up and explain that I was entitled to the repair under SOGA and that he should refund me for the window at least. Am I within my rights to at least get that money back?

 

Thanks once again you have all been very kind

 

A

[sailor sam]

I suggest that you send a copy of the invoice to repair the brakes and send it to the seller to see if he will contribute. Unfortunately, you would need to prove that the brakes were sub-standard when you purchased to have a strong case under the SOGA. The written opinion of the garage that did the repair may help. If the seller refuses point blank to consider a contribution, my next step would be to consult your local trading standards. Although you have provided an argument for the seller not to pay for the full repair by not giving him the opportunity to repair it himself, that does not stop you persuing him in court for some of your costs.

 

As for the window problem, this is more cut and dried. In your letter, request that the seller rectifies this fault (as advised in my post #7). Give him 7 days to respond.

 

Let us know what response you get.

 

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.

 

[BrazilianCCK]

Just to put another view, I don't think you have a leg to stand on about the brakes, but do have a good case for the window - don't call the seller, as telephone conversations are deniable, but put your demand in writing as you then have a clear correspondence trail - make sure you quote the law you are using to get your money and don't be afraid to piut a strict but realistic timeframe for a response - 10 working days is a fair amount. If you don't get a response within the timeframe, make sure you are ready with a follow up letter which can basically be the same demand but just play about with the wording and have it in the sellers doorstep the day after the first deadline has passed - keep the pressure on!Trading standards will not be interested unless they have a number of complaints about the same seller, but it is something worth considering if the direct approach doesn't work.Good luck !

[grahamengineering]

Sam you appear to have some issues with paranoia there. I am not following you around at all. I have both an interest and experience with the motor trade and consumer law pertaining to it. Hence why these are the forums I am more likely to read.

 

Whether you agree or not, you have been giving incorrect advice to some users. I have corrected it in the same threads.

 

But lets give you the benifit of the doubt. If as you say many components should last the lifetime of the car, why then are the manufacturers not held liable for their failure? Personally I have found that most parts are of a far lower quality than even 10 years ago.

 

This may sound harsh but this

'I know what I'm talking about and have used it in court'

nonsense makes you sound childish as does '

I'm going to run and tell on you if you don't agree with what I say'.

Please as other have pointed out to you accept you are incorrect with the 6 month law you keep quoting.

 

OP I hope you manage to get a refund on the window as I feel it should be down to the seller. The brakes I'm afraid are just part and parcel of motoring.

[scaniaman]

As Jeremy says, Well well, well. This post has certainly caused a bit of heat, so here is my tupence worth.

SOGA is there to protect retail customers as is CPUTR. The main problem i have with them is that TS will not act to bring defaulting traders to book. TS either don't want conflict especially with large car retailers or their escape route is in the interpretation of the laws.

CPUTR is one of the few clearly written Govt. regulations, especially in regards to the with holding of information and ensuring that the customer is in a position to make an informed purchasing decision, so i just can't see how TS have a problem with it's interpretation.

There's no point in having good consumer regulations if no one in authority is prepared to enforce them.

[Conniff]

grahamengineering.

 

Since you have joined your post have given little in coroborative advice, we are now reaching a point where your posting is verging on those of a troll.

 

If you wish to dismiss another posters advice, then back it up by giving a link to the regulation instead of posting derogatory comments intended belittle or to 'flame' others posters.

 

I am now monitoring your comments and will not hesitate to edit or unapprove any that do not meet the standard expected of users.

 

Conniff

Site Team

[grahamengineering]

I'm sorry if you feel I've given the OP wrong advice conniff. I have actually said as have others who do seem well clued up that the OP could expect the window problem be repaired but the brakes are down to wear and tear.

 

The advice I give which contradicts sailor sams is found within consumer protection from unfair trading and the associated legislation within SOGA. The complexities of used car law do mean that a one size fits all approach, such as the 6 months and the fault was there to begin with quote, can almost never be applied.

 

Like scania, I'd like to see clear cut legislation saying what can be held accountable in after sales and what cannot.

[Aliced100]

Thanks again all,

 

I shall contact him with a stern letter and let you know how I get on.

 

Markmount: sorry I did not say in my previous response, yes he gave me a one years guarantee, but when I reminded him of this when I went back about the window, he said that it was not covered and the window motor breaking was wear and tear.