£30k car purchase - is faulty and not as described - mega urgent help!

s_b

One would have thought that people spending 30g on a s/h car would insist on a pre mechanical inspection no matter what selling dealer says

Flyboy152

Perhaps, but by not doing so does not absolve the dealer from their statutory duties under the SOGA.

alant1000

neilmcl wrote: »

OP, can you posts the exact wording of the advert please?

hi, here's the actual advert, but i quote:

"The car is supplied with an extensive pre delivery inspection, extendable 6 months warranty and full porsche service history."

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2884393.htm

Please dont quote the dealer name in this thread anyone incase he googles himself! dont want to get the site into trouble.

neilmcl

Well I would tend to agree that the advert would lead you to believe that there is a full manufacturer's service history, not simply a PDI stamp and then independant servicing thereafter. I would say this has indeed been mis-sold.

Time to write an LBA demanding a full refund as the vehicle was sold not "as described".

alant1000

neilmcl wrote: »

Well I would tend to agree that the advert would lead you to believe that there is a full manufacturer's service history, not simply a PDI stamp and then independant servicing thereafter. I would say this has indeed been mis-sold.

Time to write an LBA demanding a full refund as the vehicle was sold not "as described".

he also has the same advert and wording on his own website, and i have saved screen grabs of each advert just in case.

Sorry LBA?? Not up on my TLA's

thanks for your help

visidigi

LBA = Letter Before Action

See here for info : http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41583298&postcount=6

fthl

Some stuff that might help:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/267679/rejecting_a_new_or_used_car.html

Clegg v Olle Andersson T/A Nordic Marine [2003] EWCA Civ 32
Abuyer cannot be compelled to accept repair. Lady Justice Hale stated:
"I agree and would only add that at times the argument before us seemed to lose sight of the real issues in the English law of sale of goods. These are not whether either party has behaved reasonably. The defendant may well feel that he and the manufacturers Malo did their best to put right what had gone wrong and that the claimant purchaser should have taken up one of the options which they advised. If it is established that the seller is in breach of a condition of the contract, however, the choice does not lie with him."


David Douglas v Glenvarigill Company Limited [2010] CSOH (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH14.html)

This is a Scottish case in which the Court of Session held that a consumer was not entitled to reject a car for a latent defect 15 months after he had purchased it.

Mr Douglas bought an expensive Audi which was delivered in February 2005. it developed fault after fault, with the first major problem occurring about a year after delivery. Despite lengthy periods in the garage, the faults were not fixed and eventually Mr Douglas purported to reject the car. Scottish law is the same as English law in relation to the right of rejection.


http://www.aaronandpartners.com/public/control.php?_command=/DISPLAY/45/203&_layout=233


And the risks...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1002.html



The Judge reviewed many English and Scottish cases on rejection and found that a common theme was that defects appeared fairly soon after delivery and complaint was made soon after that, in which event the buyer was entitled to reject. He found that the period for ejection of goods with a latent defect (as here) started on the date of delivery, not the date on which the defect first appears. The fact that the defect is latent is relevant to the period to which rejection may be made. With regret, the Judge held that 15 months was simply too long a period for rejection. He said that “rejection is a relatively short term remedy and is simply not available when a latent defect manifests itself for the first time more than a year after delivery”.

alant1000

fthl wrote: »

Some stuff that might help:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/267679/rejecting_a_new_or_used_car.html

Clegg v Olle Andersson T/A Nordic Marine [2003] EWCA Civ 32
Abuyer cannot be compelled to accept repair. Lady Justice Hale stated:
"I agree and would only add that at times the argument before us seemed to lose sight of the real issues in the English law of sale of goods. These are not whether either party has behaved reasonably. The defendant may well feel that he and the manufacturers Malo did their best to put right what had gone wrong and that the claimant purchaser should have taken up one of the options which they advised. If it is established that the seller is in breach of a condition of the contract, however, the choice does not lie with him."


David Douglas v Glenvarigill Company Limited [2010] CSOH (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH14.html)

This is a Scottish case in which the Court of Session held that a consumer was not entitled to reject a car for a latent defect 15 months after he had purchased it.

Mr Douglas bought an expensive Audi which was delivered in February 2005. it developed fault after fault, with the first major problem occurring about a year after delivery. Despite lengthy periods in the garage, the faults were not fixed and eventually Mr Douglas purported to reject the car. Scottish law is the same as English law in relation to the right of rejection.


http://www.aaronandpartners.com/public/control.php?_command=/DISPLAY/45/203&_layout=233


And the risks...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1002.html



The Judge reviewed many English and Scottish cases on rejection and found that a common theme was that defects appeared fairly soon after delivery and complaint was made soon after that, in which event the buyer was entitled to reject. He found that the period for ejection of goods with a latent defect (as here) started on the date of delivery, not the date on which the defect first appears. The fact that the defect is latent is relevant to the period to which rejection may be made. With regret, the Judge held that 15 months was simply too long a period for rejection. He said that “rejection is a relatively short term remedy and is simply not available when a latent defect manifests itself for the first time more than a year after delivery”.

thanks, a useful read.

In my case i took the car back the same day and they insisted they didnt have to offer a refund, and that in law it states he has to have the chance to repair first (SOGA says this is correct for cars over 6 month after purchse) so he is wrong.

He is also telling me in writing that i CANNOT reject the car for not having a full porsche service history as advertised, and effectively he'll see me in court. I've only had the car 5 days, so i think i have acted as fast as could be expected!

shaun_from_Africa

Is it a fairly big & well established place?
The reason I ask is that simply winning in court doesn't guarantee that you will get anything back from them and you may well have to take further action to get the damaged enforced.
If it was a small (A,Daley esq) type setup, they well just decide to fold up the business instead of paying out, but if far less likely to happen with a well established business.

Do you know if the car is an import? as it seems very strange to have an almost new, very expensive car like that without any maunfacturers service stamps. Most people would get at least the 1st service done by them in order to ensure that the warranty was honoured.

neilmcl

Depends, who was the first owner, private individual or lease/finance co.