The Car Perry's Sold Us

jeannieblue

Excuse me?

You bought a car - it was already tinted "how you wanted it to be" - you thought that was a 'bonus'......

You then get pulled up and nicked for it. You would've got 'nicked' for it in the end as you intended to get it tinted that way anyhow!

Get a job and earn some money rather than going on the 'I'm gonna sue' train.

This country is getting ridiculously litigious.

goldspanners

op,as a driver you are responsible for your vehicle being roadworthy and legal.
fitting any modification to any vehicle requires a bit of research,as you were already thinking about doing it to your new car you should have known it was illegal.
most of the tinting companies have a "legal" area on thier websites,this would suggest there to be some kind of law behind it.

Rolandtheroadie

ashandton wrote: »

We were driving around in a car that would have had void insurance had we had an accident - we have been told it would have been void due to the car having 'modifications to the windows' and the windows being illegal.

You never declared any modifications to your insurer (modifications to the windows) so if the tints had been the right percentage, you'd still have been uninsured?

Here's the advice. Put it down to experience.

Sirbendy

hang on...hang on..

Yes, I agree on "inform the insurers" as the tint is a post factory modification..but I DISAGREE with people saying the OP is at fault because of buying the car with the tints preapplied.

If the tints were not legal, then the garage should not have touted the vehicle as legal either..regardless of the OPs intent to tint, if *i'd* bought a car and found that it was in some way illegal and it was like that from the day I bought it despite being inspected, I'd be mightily annoyed.

I have to say I'd lay the blame with the garage for selling a regulation-breaking vehicle TBQH.

If I popped my bonnet to find my 3 week old Astra had a 2 litre engine in place of it's 1.6, or any other type of modification that would render it dubious in the eyes of the law, I'd have taken it right back and dropped in on their doorstep. Caveat emptor mayhaps, but the garage should know better and has a duty of care towards the customer. Customers should NOT be up to date on everything, or be aware of every technicality/legality of every trifling thing. Garages are supposed to inspect a vehicle to ensure it's fine at time of purchase.

This one was not. Yes, there are legalities on tints..but until you've read up on them, you may not know them. That's not your fault. You shouldn't expect to buy a vehicle that's been inspected etc that's in contravention of them!

As to the plod..they're just doing their job. I've had runins with tinted lamps before.."excuse me sir, those are illegal". "How so?", "well, they're black sir". "Only until I turn the lights on, see?". I always find being nice to them the best way..I know some people DO render their cars illegal doing daft things..which is why if I'm ever in doubt, I ask a reputable MOT garage or similar for an opinion.

goldspanners

Sirbendy wrote: »

hang on...hang on..

Yes, I agree on "inform the insurers" as the tint is a post factory modification..but I DISAGREE with people saying the OP is at fault because of buying the car with the tints preapplied.

If the tints were not legal, then the garage should not have touted the vehicle as legal either..regardless of the OPs intent to tint, if *i'd* bought a car and found that it was in some way illegal and it was like that from the day I bought it despite being inspected, I'd be mightily annoyed.

I have to say I'd lay the blame with the garage for selling a regulation-breaking vehicle TBQH.

If I popped my bonnet to find my 3 week old Astra had a 2 litre engine in place of it's 1.6, or any other type of modification that would render it dubious in the eyes of the law, I'd have taken it right back and dropped in on their doorstep. Caveat emptor mayhaps, but the garage should know better and has a duty of care towards the customer. Customers should NOT be up to date on everything, or be aware of every technicality/legality of every trifling thing. Garages are supposed to inspect a vehicle to ensure it's fine at time of purchase.

This one was not. Yes, there are legalities on tints..but until you've read up on them, you may not know them. That's not your fault. You shouldn't expect to buy a vehicle that's been inspected etc that's in contravention of them!

As to the plod..they're just doing their job. I've had runins with tinted lamps before.."excuse me sir, those are illegal". "How so?", "well, they're black sir". "Only until I turn the lights on, see?". I always find being nice to them the best way..I know some people DO render their cars illegal doing daft things..which is why if I'm ever in doubt, I ask a reputable MOT garage or similar for an opinion.

with regards to the 2 litre in place of the 1.6 you should have done all your checks before buying the vehicle,checking all engine numbers and vin numbers all correspond properly,so you would have found it was fitted with the wrong engine.

the op was already considering getting tints done so i feel they should be up to date on every technicality and legality regarding them.

Inactive

Take it up with Network Q, Perrys clearly breached their conditions for resale checks.

A NewtworkQ vehicle must undergo an agreed list of safety checks, this one clearly didn't.

Bowdyjan18

Own fault simple as move on and forget about it.

MrSmartprice

What some people seem to have ignored is that the vehicle was sold in an unroadworthy condition, which is a criminal offence. I would take that fact on board and consult your local Trading Standards Department. They should investigate the matter in that light. They will also give you advice on obtaining the compensation to which you are clearly entitled.

I am no lover of pointless litigation. Nor do I approve of cars being driven with blacked-out windows. But there is a clear legal issue here which you need to address.

Chippy_Minton_2

To quote VOSA on tinted windows

"If you're selling a vehicle with extra tinting applied to the windscreen or front side windows-
-The vehicle may now have glass which is darker than permitted by the Construction & Use Regulations, in which case the vehicle should not be sold."


However as to compensation...........................well for what the OP only had to peel it off.

michaelvintner

uktyler wrote: »

I have a personal dislike for the compensation culture that is becoming a part of British life, however I do feel in this case compensation is justified.

I would be looking at getting the fine back, the costs of removing the tints from the windows, and money for loss of earnings for anything directly related to the incident.

Calculate what you think is fair, and write recorded delivery to the manager detailing how much you think should be paid, and for what.

Got to admit, i completely agree with the above statement. The compensation culture drives me nuts. Why can't some people do some reseach and take some responsibility for a change. However in this case I think the original poster has a point. The car should have been sold roadworthy and in a legal state to drive. They should have noticed the tints and checked them before they sold the car.

Joe public is not a motor trader or car mechanic. It is not unreasonable to expect a car from a big dealer to be road legal. Slagheap autos under the railway arches in scum street on the other hand you would be surprised if the car was ropadworthy at all.

They have already admitted their mistake. You have a copy of the letter, then reply to it pointing out all the inconvience it has caused you and that you believe that some kind of offer in the way of inconvience should at least be considered.