We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Advice on rejecting a used car.
Comments
-
soga.
Customer certainly has the right to reject.
The customer has no obligation to let the dealer do a major fix it within the first 24 hours.
The laws are there because consumers fought for them.
No problem putting the record straight.
I think most people would agree on a 10/90 split on honest car dealers as well.
What was that someone just said about you having a chip on your shoulder and quoting stuff out of context?
You'll note i said 'current'. We believed at that stage work had commenced.
You seem to be trying to claim some sort of moral 'win' here, and i really dont know why.
Your approach was DEMAND a refund, everyone elses approach was stay calm and see what the dealer has to say.
Can you remind us which one the O/P opted for and how that worked out?
RE: your 90/10 split, I guess just 10% of dealers at least has moved you away from the 'all dealers are theives' stereotype you had earlier on.
Good to see we're winning you over.
0 -
You're going to have to quote where I said DEMAND a refund.
Throughout this thread you have stated the op has no right to a refund, and they must let the garage attempt repair as the first option.
I said you were incorrect under the soga, and put the record straight as to what the true options were.
As you were.
So, now as you're saying I said DEMAND a refund, quote me.
Either yet more misinformation from you, or it's in here.0 -
sheared bolts are not a serious problem if the head of the bolt has sheared, no matter how tight it was, once the head has sheared off, what was making it tight is gone and the thread can often be removed with a screwdriver or at worse a stud extractor, the thread is never tight, only the head of the bolt against the stop end.
Sorry, but that really is a serious problem. The OP has already told us that the block has dropped.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
You need to let the supplying dealer fix the car.
You have no current grounds for rejecting the car.
Cars develop faults. Faults can be repaired. That doesnt mean you were sold an unroadworthy car.
The OP does have grounds for rejecting the car. This happened twenty-four hours after the sale of the car. The SOGA gives him the right to reject.
Yes, cars develop faults, but this is a major fault, twenty-four hours after the sale.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
I dont think he is. He seems to think that in some way TS will come in, beat the supplying dealer with a stick and the O/P will have their money back by lunchtime tomorrow.
Having actually had experience with TS (as opposed to mickey who has just read about it on the internet) they WILL look at both sides of the issue and also on what the supplying dealer has done / is doing to resolve this.
Even IF they say the supplying dealer should refund (which they wont) all that does is, as you say, open up a world of pain, going through solicitors, courts, etc.
The mature and sensible approach is as you say to allow the work to be done to a preagreed standard and confirm its been done that way subsequently.
Seems it didn't end well for you then.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »correct and this hasnt been my argument about demanding full refund nor has it been pgilc1's argument that a refund is NOT justified, the argument here is a snapped engine mount (wear and tear item BTW) has caused a failure to the short block or other way round, and the dealer is being willing to repair, the repair will be in the time frame to still reject the vehicle if that repair fails.
what the argument here is NO ONE these days are patient enough to listen to negotiation and DEMAND from the get go.
the point i'm making here is the OP not being fair as to demand a MAIN DEALER repair or REJECT THE CAR with the current seller.
had the OP gone to the seller and said hey look this car has damage to its engine, i want my cash back seller may have said OK because the seller is obligated to do so, but the CUSTOMER entered into a AGREEMENT of a repair wich is fair on both sides and gives the seller a chance to redeem some brownie points and future custom from the customer, and the customer gets what he wanted THAT CAR.
im sure if this seller is willing to repair if that failes offere like for like or a refund and sincere apologies.
i come back to negotiating, patience and listening doing things right in a calm mannor, not DEMAND THIS AND DEMAND THAT and put black clouds in a sales office to cause logger heads because this is whats causing court appearances.
This not wear and tear after twenty-four hours; despite it being a used car.
And it has most certainly been pgilc1's argument that a refubnnd is not justified.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
harveybobbles wrote: »Problem is, there are also lots of private folk out there who sell/px "brilliant" cars to dealers...
Back to the OP though, they notified the seller of a fault, was invited to call in for them to look at, but decided they'd get it looked at else where, fell for scare tactics (think Kwik Fit) and now wants to reject the car.
The seller has agreed to repair the car, so can't see any Trading Standards being interested to be honest.
OP "Hello, my car is faulty and I'd like to reject it"
TS "OK yes that is something that can be done under SOGA. What was the fault and how many times has the dealer attempted to fix the fault...?"
OP" Erm, they said they'd fix it as soon as I seported the problem."
TS "Erm..... ok. Thanks for calling..."
That's being very presumptuous.
How about the telephone conversation going:
OP, "hello, the engine is falling out of my car, twenty-four hours after buying it, can I reject it?"
TS, "yes."
If they do ask your question, "how many times has the dealer attempted to fix the fault?"
OP, "As it appears they have already removed and replaced the engine and susequently caused this to happen, I have no confidence in them being able to have enough skill to do the work competently."
TS, "Okay then."The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »when are people going to get it into their thick skulls here that the OP's right have not been breached in anyway.
That has not been the issue. The Issue is that some people seem to think that the OP doesn't have the right to reject the car.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Again, i was talking about the SOGA in a general context, rather than specific - i've already said that? Did you miss it?
And yet you continue to specifically insist the OP has no right to reject, when the Sales of Goods act seems to disagree with you.As they have already left the car in to be repaired, then they have agreed to that, so at the moment they have no right to reject.
As they have already left the car in to be repaired, then they have agreed to that, so at the moment they have no right to reject.
As they have already left the car in to be repaired, then they have agreed to that, so at the moment they have no right to reject.
They have every right to reject until the point of acceptance has passed. Having the car repaired is not acceptance.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Hows it underhanded to offer to repair the car??
If the repair isnt done to an acceptable standard, then the customer can reject it at that point. Whats the issue with that?
What's the issue with rejecting before the repair?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards