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
-
So, you do agree the op had a right to a refund all along then, and didn't need to let the dealer attempt a repair first.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
You agree I never said to demand the refund, and I was just ensuring the rights were expressed correctly.
As the supplying dealer knew this, and didn't try to convince the op otherwise, I agree, no need to have those rights enforced. But nice to know what they actually where up front, before they were weakened by letting a repair be attempted.
You'll have to remind us again of which questions you asked me, which I didn't answer, to enable you to respond correctly to this post? You don't appear to have mentioned this before. If I missed anything that would have helped you answer correctly, please quote them for us.
I don't have an axe to grind either way.
I just quote soga as it's written, my first post was to take independent advice, so the op knew what they could ask for if needed. You advised them to listen to you, as you where in the trade. Personally, I can't see any harm in taking independent advice. If I was wrong, I'd be happy if an unbiased view backed that up.
The op would still know what their rights were.
Better than listening to two totally unknowns squabbling on an internet forum.
If you think you have come over as a good and fair dealer, put the link to your business in your home page, it may bring in a few more customers for you. It's not against the rules.0 -
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.
Nonsense. The OP came with a simple question: do I have a legal right to reject the car. The answer was a simple yes. Legitimate advice would be to talk to the supplier, but that wasn't the question.
Those in the trade were the ones muddying the waters by giving misinformation that the retailer had a right to repair first.0 -
Nonsense. The OP came with a simple question: do I have a legal right to reject the car. The answer was a simple yes. Legitimate advice would be to talk to the supplier, but that wasn't the question.
Those in the trade were the ones muddying the waters by giving misinformation that the retailer had a right to repair first.
Absolutely.
I dont think one trader responded by saying get a refund you are entitled! which as you say was the question, that of course suggests that those same traders would not have refunded if they had been in the same position.0 -
Absolutely.
I dont think one trader responded by saying get a refund you are entitled! which as you say was the question, that of course suggests that those same traders would not have refunded if they had been in the same position.
im no trader, but i also dont agree with smashing upfront the attitude some would suggest the OP would have done with the advise and that reiterate soga at the first point.
negatiation, calmness, fairness. theres no harm in knowing your rights, but i firmly believe that SOGA should be used when all else fails, not from the get go.0 -
I never suggested attacking the dealer with soga,
I advised that the op knew their rights.
Nothing more.
As some dealers on here deliberately misled them, I also suggested contacting trading standards to get an independent, definitive answer, as I expected even when caught out, some people would insist the dealer has the right to attempt repairs first. Again, this upset certain people, who then insisted that going in all guns blazing would upset the dealer.
Again a deliberate distortion to try to put the op on the backfoot when negotiating a fair outcome.
The op had the right to a refund, if insisting on it upset the dealer, that shouldn't stop them from applying their rights.
I must admit, I assumed the op could manage negotiations when provided with a truthful answer as to what their rights were, and didn't advise them on anything else, unlike others who consistently advised them they must accept a repair, not mention soga, not upset the dealer etc, and simply answered the question they asked with a truthful answer.
And indeed, it came to a fair, and in reality, the only possible outcome.0 -
atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »im no trader, but i also dont agree with smashing upfront the attitude some would suggest the OP would have done with the advise and that reiterate soga at the first point.
negatiation, calmness, fairness. theres no harm in knowing your rights, but i firmly believe that SOGA should be used when all else fails, not from the get go.
Nobody suggested that (I dont think anyway)
The OP just asked his rights
As per the above post, read it after replying
Did any dealer on here respond by saying go and get your money back as is your right? or did they say give the dealer a chance to repair fist?0 -
-
worse still, the consensus among the dealers was that the buyer HAD to let the dealer repair it
Indeed, they were writing along the lines tha the OP had no rights at all to request a refund. If I remember rightly, one of them wrote that the OP had no grounds at all, 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 -
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