Consumer rights - used car......

mrscb

Wig wrote: »

It most likely wouldn't have happened if the dealer had taken the car out and tested it before putting it on sale, maybe they did, and knew the car had a fault, and just hoped it wouldnt show for a couple of weeks. In which case the dealer deserves to have a customer as picky as this.

The dealer may have driven 200 miles to check it out...there is still a chance that a fault could happen at 205 miles...how far are dealers expected to drive the cars?:rolleyes:

Inactive

harveybobbles wrote: »

We test all our cars over about 100 miles to make sure we find and fix and problems before offering them for sale. Certain cars need lots of driving depending on what the fault is.

That is to be commended, sadly, as well you know, many dealers do not check their vehicles properly before selling them.

Kilty_2

Had a phone call from the dealer this morning - they acknowledge that there is a problem with the vehicle and I'm going back on Thursday to have the full amount refunded to my payment card.

:T:T

Wig

Great news.

And I would consider all his other cars for your next purchase, I know he wasn't 100% behind the refund to begin with but in he did have a point (in law aswell) that used cars may have minor faults at time of purchase that do not render them unsatisfactory. Just make sure you test drive the next one thoroughly.

Even where a vehicle is new there are decisions which indicate that some defects are not such as to make the vehicle unmerchantable. In Leaves v Wadham Stringer the vehicle supplied had:

• a leaking boot
• a defective bonnet light
• a loose door
• some rust
• a defective fanbelt.

The vehicle was nevertheless held merchantable. This was however before 1994 "merchantable" was used, not "satisfactory".

Luton v Saville Tractors, the judge said
"that if the vehicle was an older model, with higher mileage, sold at a lower price and did not create expectations of high performance, defects of the kind detected would not have rendered it unmerchantable."

Kilty_2

Thanks Wig - you've been most helpful.

I'll definitely be a bit more scrutinising of future cars (going to look at at least one tomorrow, probably two )

LibbyR26

Wig wrote: »

I only know about SOGA England & Wales, so if you know different by all means do what you want, but I would assume that even in Scotland -land of the brave- you can only reject if it is not fit for purpose, so far, you have NOT shown that this is the case.

A used car will be more likely to have faults. The courts have agreed to this. But as with everything, it is all relative. The make. model, and price of car, the mileage, the nature of the faults and (in certain circumstances) the re-appearance of the same fault continuosly after repair attempts, everything is taken into account to determine if the car is fit for purpose.


Your summary above perfectly explains how the SoGA would be applied in Scotland.