Consumer rights after buying a faulty used car from a dealer- small claims court now!

Flyboy152

pgilc1 wrote: »

The age and price of the car DOES come in to play. This car is 17 years old. It is unreasonable to expect it to be defect free.

Things that will also be taken into account are advertised price, compared to sale price and the wording on the invoice.

It is by no means a cut and dried case if it goes to court.

I am well aware of that, but all defects must be made clear to the purchaser. The sale price was one thousand five hundred pounds. Any car for that money would be expected to last longer than two weeks.

motorguy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I am well aware of that, but all defects must be made clear to the purchaser. The sale price was one thousand five hundred pounds. Any car for that money would be expected to last longer than two weeks.

The car failed initially due to a flat battery - which would be a wear and tear item. The extended periods of non-use could have caused this.

As for the other bits and pieces its a seventeen - year - old car. Minor electrical fault causing the interior light to come on and a minor central locking problem.

If this was a 17 year old Uno then noone would flinch.

Did the O/P really expect to buy a 17 year old car and it would be perfect?

They *may well* get some satisfaction from the dealer now as they have asked to inspect the car HOWEVER if it goes to court, it is by no means a dead cert they will win - AND they could be out a lot of money.

Flyboy152

pgilc1 wrote: »

The car failed initially due to a flat battery - which would be a wear and tear item. The extended periods of non-use could have caused this.

As for the other bits and pieces its a seventeen - year - old car. Minor electrical fault causing the interior light to come on and a minor central locking problem.

If this was a 17 year old Uno then noone would flinch.

Did the O/P really expect to buy a 17 year old car and it would be perfect?

They *may well* get some satisfaction from the dealer now as they have asked to inspect the car HOWEVER if it goes to court, it is by no means a dead cert they will win - AND they could be out a lot of money.

I suppose you missed the part about the gearbox and four wheel drive unit and leaking roof bit?

motorguy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I suppose you missed the part about the gearbox and four wheel drive unit and leaking roof bit?

No i saw that - i did put 'They *may well* get some satisfaction from the dealer'. Merely pointing out that it certainly wont be cut and dried in court.

minibbb

Thankyou for the replies

I wasnt as naive to think a 16 year old car would be perfect, I did however want its basic functions to work such a starting up when required and switching into 4wd (after all, thats primarily why i purchased it!)

Having water dripping on my leg from the leaky roof was an unexpected feature also, another example clearing showing that the car simply isnt fit for purpose.

If the seller had immediately offered to sort out the necessary repairs I would have probably been happy with that. Instead its taken weeks and several letters/phone calls to get to this stage. After all, they refused to even speak to me and referred me directly to their legal company! Sounds like a guilty conscience to me!

The ONLY reason they've now offered to inspect the car is because they know im planning on taking them to court- not for any other reason. The chance to repair the car has long gone and I want a refund, end of story now!

I'll keep the thread updated with how I get on, I picked up the necessary paperwork from the court today which I will be submitting tomorrow.

Hintza

minibbb wrote: »

-battery goes flat due to faulty interior light

take out the bulb

-2wd/4wd selection rarely works

this is mechanical and a bit of lubrication might sort that out

-central locking doesnt work/spot lights not working

lock the door with the keys

-the roof leaks in the rain creating a foul smell in the car from what must be the head lining rotting!

get some silicon onto the problem

. .

Flyboy152

Hintza wrote: »

take out the bulb


this is mechanical and a bit of lubrication might sort that out


lock the door with the keys


get some silicon onto the problem

Or....alternately get the seller to honour their responsibilities.

I really don't see what your problem is. The OP has been sold a car with several faults present at the time of purchase and wants redress, why should he expect anything less? Anyone would think you had some interest in encouraging him not to. Or that you got screwed, did nothing about it and are now bitter and jealous.

Hintza

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Anyone would think you had some interest in encouraging him not to. Or that you got screwed, did nothing about it and are now bitter and jealous.

Your just not getting it are you. The OP is free to do as they wish as I and some others are trying to point this is not an open and shut case.

Non torsii subligarium!

fred7777

The CAB website has a good guide to SOGA and used cars here:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/c_secondhand_cars.pdf

It says the car must match it's description but it doesn't say he must list all the faults.

It says the car must be in reasonable condition, considering its age and make, its past history and the price paid and most people would expect a few problems with a 17 year old car. So I'm not sure how successful claims for leaking roofs and faulty remote locking would be.

It also says the vehicle must be fit for purpose. This looks like the most important one for this case. The OP told the dealer he wanted a 4wd and 4wd isn't reliably available so the car isn't fit for the purpose it was sold for.

minibbb

Thought i'd update the thread as its been a while now!!

The Jeep is still sat on my driveway doing nothing!

The small claims process is by no means a quick fix, its been going on for about 9 weeks now.

I was sent an allocation questionaire by the court about a month ago along with a copy of the defendant's defence. My theory was was that the garage were trying to scare me into not proceeding with the matter.

Anyway, I had to pay a further £40 (on top of the £80 I'd already paid) and the paperwork was back with the court on the 9th April. Ive not heard anything since!!

Hoping that either the defendant will come back with an offer to allow me to recoup some of my costs or a court date will be allocated.

Im hoping that the ever growing lists of faults with the car and the garage's complete failure to abide by the sales of goods act will go in my favour and allow this to be sorted once and for all!!

Ill keep the thead updated with the result as im sure this will be useful to others in the same boat as me!