We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Problem with 2nd hand car hours after buying. HELP!
Options
Comments
-
Your link says:-The Act of Parliament which sets out the right of consumers to reject new cars which are faulty or not of 'satisfactory quality'. Consumers have around two weeks in which to reject a car. If you think your new car isn't up to scratch, write to the dealer at the earliest opportunity and arrange for it to be returned. ..........It is not a new car!
Err I beg to differ afterall, present thinking would suggest that if the OP buys a car and he didn't previously own that car then that car must be by definition 'new'at least it would be to the OP would it not. A recent purchase of a vehicle would conclude you have a 'new' vehicle.
Any further clarification would need the assistance of a judge. As I am sure you realise.
HTHIt could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.0 -
Err I beg to differ afterall, present thinking would suggest that if the OP buys a car and he didn't previously own that car then that car must be by definition 'new'
at least it would be to the OP would it not. A recent purchase of a vehicle would conclude you have a 'new' vehicle.
Any further clarification would need the assistance of a judge. As I am sure you realise.
HTH
Present thinking....what is that?, stop digging!.......you are so clutching at straws! As far as I remember the OP subject heading was about a 2nd hand car they had purchased....not a new to them one!0 -
Present thinking....what is that?, stop digging!.......you are so clutching at straws! As far as I remember the OP subject heading was about a 2nd hand car they had purchased....not a new to them one!
Ah we're heading back to where we started. Then might I suggest you stop trying to muddy the waters, the OP knows what he wants you sitting there trying to cast doubt or trying to convince him otherwise isn't helping him is it.
He purchased a car, a car that should have been at the least roadworthy and at most NOT dangerous. The vendor failed to meet those two minimum requirements, the OP has now decided to reject the car as is his right and to get his money back. YOU may not like it, but then YOU do NOT have to drive around in a previously unsafe vehicle! If you would choose to do so, I am sure that if you forwarded your details onto the OP, then he might then pass those details onto the vendor who I am certain will give you a call just as soon as he has provided the OP with restitution.
Of course, if you don't want to buy the car, I am sure we'll all understand. You can then sit here and argue semantics all day long.
HTHIt could have been worse. At least source code's not combustible, or you can bet somebody at McAfee would have lit it.0 -
You are the one muddying the waters and dealing in semantics, a 5 year old car is not new! The OP described it as 2nd hand.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards