Advice regarding faulty used car

Muscle750

I know of one person who bought a newish motorbike had no end of troubles with it the company he bought it from changed hands/names twice in 3 months and every time he took it back it was "nothing to do with us" even thou most of the staff were the same as when he bought it.
One night it decided to find its way into the back of a van never to be seen again the insurance paid out £700 more than what he originally paid for it.

shauniebabe

Update: well the formal rejection letter has gone out recorded delivery and tomorrow I'm going in to collect the original report etc so no doctoring can be done. However I will be taking in a witness as I've been told the bloke who claims not to be the owner likes threatening people. Can't see him doing it to me seeing as I'm twice his size and can more than look after myself but seeing as I'm not stupid enough to be getting accused of anything or being in a position to have to defend myself.

They also want us to collect the car, does anyone know whether I can leave it their seeing as I've rejected it? Otherwise they can deliver it 5 mins around the corner to my parents house.

shauniebabe

So with us formally rejecting the car does anyone know whether we can leave it at the dealers or have to collect it?

cally71_2

You can leave it back with them or have them collect it, need to have all paperwork and items given at time of sale, the can offer you less than you paid, time and use youve had the car for and market value when rejected, I think? check out gov direct or the like?

shauniebabe

*further update*

Well I'm fast lOsing the will to live and any faith I have in trading standards. I'm also fuming.

Since my last letter to him we got a phonecall the day before the deadline ran out saying they had been in touch with trading standards and were rejecting any claim we made but would pay a small % towards any repair as a good will gesture. I asked why they had come to this decision and he told me the senior t/s officer told him he was well within his rights and that I had been advised wrongly. I told him I thought he was wrong because I'd taken advise from 2 party's consumer direct and the cab but he said he had a letter stating this which he would send me a copy. The copy came 3 days later. Prior to this I got on the phone to consumer direct who told me to ring back once I had the letter and they would go through it with me but it was probably differing story's.

Reading the letter from t/s The background stated on it is completely wrong. Then going into the legal position she states the onus is on the customer to prove not only that the faults are not due to fair wear and tear but also that they are not due to the acts, omission or negligence of the third party and or not due to or been excerbarated by the fact the car was continued to be driven against profesional advice. There were a few other points and the offer for me to speak to her, which I did.


I firstly pointed out that the background was wrong on the letter and point by point was making her aware of what was wrong when she told me she knew the full history as the garage had a full and detailed file but. That the letter was a abridged version, she wouldn't accept it was technically wrong. I then asked why she was saying the advice given to me by 2 different bodies was incorrect, she stated it wasn't legally wrong but wasn't the full advice. I asked whether she had any previous dealings with the company and she said she wasn't willing to discuss that. She then said she would advise me if I chose to continue to get a further independant report and better legal advice.

Continued shortly!

shauniebabe

Sorry for taking so long but it continues:

Included with the letter was a copy of their report which consisted of a piece of paper with the vin number and car details which finished halfway down then a seperate piece stating that the car did give out excessive noise when started but without further investigations the problem couldn't be identified and that the car shouldn't be moved. Then another few lines stating what a oil pressure problem means. No company/mechanic name just a squiggle and no headed paper. To be honest I think theres either something missing or it's a basic report which they waited 7-10 days for which I doubt they would pay out for. But that's speculation so let's just stick to facts.

I then contacted consumer direct again and they asked me to read out the letter then send them a copy as they couldnt believe what was in it. They told me to send a second letter stating that we had acted amicably, state the facts and timeline point by point and to repeat we were rejecting the car and wanted a refund otherwise we would be going to the small claims court and claim for consiqential costs. The also advised us to point out the reverse burden of proof and what it means. I decided to do this but also get further information from a soliciter.

They agreed with the advice given and took a look at the reports. Well it certainly was worth it because they spotted that the rac report didn't mark that the vehicle couldn't be moved and neither did the independant review in fact the first report stating it can't be moved is the one by them and that it's been with them and not moved by us since then. Letter sent recorded delivery.

Exactly 4 days later the garage phones and told us its been going on too long And we need to move the car. I pointed out I had sent a letter and he should of had it. He said the mail was due and would be back in touch. I checked the recorded delivery and it had been signed for that day so I gave them 7 days which took us to this Tuesday.

Tuesday morning the phone goes and he's asking for a bit more time whilst he gets some advice. Tuesday afternoon he rings back saying he's willing to go 50/50 on the repairs which is what trading standards say is all he has to offer. I felt during the conversation he was trying to trip me up with technical speak so I asked him to put it all in a letter and send it to me with the advice recieved from t/s. he tried saying it was the work advised by my friend, I asked who he meant and he said the mechanic that did your report. I told him I didn't know him just professionally and he said that wasn't the impression he had been given. I quickly pointed out I only knew him from my fil taking cars to the garage for ten years and this was the first time I had met him, again I felt he was trying to trip me up in some way. He said the car needed £650 worth of repairs estimated minimum.

Continued below....

shauniebabe

Today I recieved the letter from him, one from trading standards and a estimate of costs.

His letter states : that he has offered a 50% contribution towards repair costs as discussed. The sum of £600-£700 plus vat is the estimated repair costs put together on the grounds of (name withheld but the independant report I got done) report and the we feel this offer is fair without proof of liability. We have also noted you have paid £130 plus a further £30 for the service and report and for this reason we are willing to repair the intermittent fault as stated in your report (a problem with the ecu light) as good will but without admission of liability.

The estimated costs break down as : oil pump £116 plus vat, timing chain £35.50 plus vat, hydraulic adjust 71.50 plus vat, slider and clamp rail £20.90 plus vat total 244.10 plus vat gaskets and oil filters poa plus labour at £300-£350.

The trading standards letter says there is little more advice than what I have already given you. Whilst the advice given to (myself)is legally correct it does not stand on its own and he is relying on one piece of incomplete advice to pursue a claim. I accept that under the reverse burden of proof it's accepted the fault was there at the time of sale, this is not in dispute, what is in dispute is whether the fault is something you would expect on a 12 year old vehicle.

It then goes on to say that without evidence to prove its not something you would expect the offer of 50/50 repairs is reasonable as is not a breach of legal rights under the sale of goods act as stated by the customer.

The final paragraph states: I also note the customer is claiming rejection of the vehicle. His legal claim, once he has supporting evidence, is for the cost of repairs, not rejection. In law, because the vehicle is 12 years old, a court is likely to require the customer to contribute to repair costs, for that reason, as stated above your offer to share repair costs at the present time without proof of liability, is reasonable in the circumstances.

For starters surely she is contridicting herself in saying there's no dispute the problem was already there. Secondly where do I stand as per rejection? And lastly she is going against every other organisation and legal advice I've been given!

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated!

shauniebabe

Any further advice?