Advice on rejecting a used car.

Flyboy152

fivetide wrote: »

Quite right I'd say.

Most people would look to swap a car before big bills arrive. There may well be something wrong with it that they haven't told the dealer about. Dealers don't generally get a nice test drive to find out what they've been left with do they?

Clearly mikey you have issues but the way phil and s b have responded to your constant out of context passive aggressive niggling through this thread is a credit to them both.

5t.

If they don't, that's their own fault. If they want to buy a car without doing a thorough inspection (let's face it, it's not as if they don;t have the qualified staff to do it), they only have themselves to blame.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

micky never at any point in this thread said demand your money back to the OP.

this situation is done and dusted the OP had a refund without troubles or qualms because there was fairness on both sides and calmness to the approach.

in all fairness trading standards would advised the op on his rights but not involve themselfs with this situation at no point did the seller revoke deliberatly the OP's rights, if they did involve themselfs they would have approached with a veiw to see what the seller has offered, and see if thats fair for both party's.

consumer direct would have done the same. see whos being fair, see whats being offered,and more importantly see if rights were being deliberatly revoked mediated between the two if possible if communication had broken down at that point. but nothing of the sort accured, theres nothing wrong in getting advice from either of them.

my poit through the whole thing was lets see whats going to happen not jump ahead and assume the worse is going to happen.

hi fly late night?

Flyboy152

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

micky never at any point in this thread said demand your money back to the OP.

this situation is done and dusted the OP had a refund without troubles or qualms because there was fairness on both sides and calmness to the approach.

in all fairness trading standards would advised the op on his rights but not involve themselfs with this situation at no point did the seller revoke deliberatly the OP's rights, if they did involve themselfs they would have approached with a veiw to see what the seller has offered, and see if thats fair for both party's.

consumer direct would have done the same. see whos being fair, see whats being offered,and more importantly see if rights were being deliberatly revoked mediated between the two if possible if communication had broken down at that point. but nothing of the sort accured, theres nothing wrong in getting advice from either of them.

my poit through the whole thing was lets see whats going to happen not jump ahead and assume the worse is going to happen.

I think it was the assumption and insistence by some people that the OP had no right of rejection in the first place.

hi fly late night?

Not for me where I am.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I think it was the assumption and insistence by some people that the OP had no right of rejection in the first place.



Not for me where I am.

oh nice!.........................................

Flyboy152

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

oh nice!.........................................

Not really!

De Moines is not the nicest of stop overs.

motorguy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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.

Maybe you should read the entire thread before picking out points that have since been covered off many times.

motorguy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Seems it didn't end well for you then.

It did, thanks!

motorguy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

And it has most certainly been pgilc1's argument that a refubnnd is not justified.

"at that point"

This is getting tiring now.

motorguy

mikey72 wrote: »

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.

Your whole attitude has been around forcing your rights up front (and as others have said, not answering questions directed at you, labouring a point, quoting out of context and clearly having some sort of "issues"). Those with a bit of common sense from page 1 were saying stay calm, dont worry at this stage, go and meet the supplying dealer and see what they say. The whole 'get onto trading standards and get the whole situation entrenched' was unwise and unnecessary.

As i said, you seem to be trying to claim some moral win for yourself here. I guess if thats how you get your kicks - by deluding yourself on an internet forum - then go right ahead.

The real 'win' here is for the o/p - by staying calm and meeting with the dealer they got the outcome they wanted.

Well, unless there is any more contructive input, i'm not going to reply to these silly taunts and posturing - other than to say the outcome that the O/P wanted was done without making any 'demands' OR by involving Trading Standards OR by waving a copy of the SOGA about.

A result for common sense and car dealers.

:T

funkycoldribena

pgilc1 wrote: »

As i said, you seem to be trying to claim some moral win for yourself here. I guess if thats how you get your kicks - by deluding yourself on an internet forum - then go right ahead.

.[/I][/B]

A result for common sense and car dealers.

:T

It is a result for the little man, against endless threads on here of pain in the butt dealers who wont play ball fairly.