Advice on rejecting a used car.

stugib

pgilc1 wrote: »

There is no onus on the supplying dealer to instantly offer a full refund for ANY fault happening in the first six months.

Within 24 hours of picking it up as in the OP's case there would be, if the fault was serious enough to warrant rejection. Where the time for inspection and acceptance ends is debatable.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

To be fair the industry needs cleaning up. There are a lot of unscrupulous car dealers out there, as there are in all businesses, problem is with high value purchases people are quicker to complain. I think that the stereotype is fully justified, I can't think of people I would trust less than a second hand car dealer.

the OFT cleaned up this by giving definitive detailed guids to customers and traders and dealers back in 2010. in 2003 the SOGA was updated.

the rules differ from brand new to used vehicles. set out in this guidance this is what you can expect from a dealer or trader http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/OFT1152con.pdf

if we were talking about a brand new VW, the dealer would have a different approach such as a replacement vehicle and sent that VW back to the warehouse because it has the hall marks of a faulty production i.e snapped mount point on short block.
because it is used, the SOGA stipulates that problem is ASSUMED to be there at point of sale within the first 6 months the dealer has obligations to either REPAIR, REPLACE if a repair is not economical or REFUND when the two other obligation have fallen through or not feasable, yes some dealers can be a nightmare for not honouring this but that is usually down to the customer being unfair, when these type of scenario's get to court its all about WHO ACTED FAIRLY, an at court you might not get what you expected, like no refund but a judgment to have the vehicle repaired at no cost to the customer but the customer facing court costs, because the customer did not act fairly towards the dealer, i.e demanding full refund without with an offer of repair on the table, or turned down a replacement vehicle.

the trouble with todays society is vehicles are looked upon as disposable white goods. if it dont work just throw it away get a new one when that arrives faulty send it back get your money back.
weve become a nation of untollerating P""""S who want everything done now and expect BRAND new in USED and sellers to just roll over do as we say without being patient enough to listen to what is being offered.
there are dealers out there who will go to the ends of the earth to sort a problem out with the vehicle they sold to a customer, and theres supermarket dealers and franchises who have lost the british way who focus more on training staff in maximising profit rather than customer relationship.

when i bought my car from a trusted small garage, the first thing he did when handing over the keys was tell ANY PROBLEMS COME TO ME he listed out all his garges he uses for repairs of different things and if i couldnt get hold of him just take it to one of those garages for inspection the garage will contact him and tell him whats wrong.

i had a throttle body problem, i took it to him he sorted out a proper fault code read, he cleaned it out, and i had it back to have another problem with the throttle, i called him and he said he would pay for an independant specialist to take care of the problem and apologised profusely about what has happened i did so the garage contacted him after i gave them details and he paid over the phone straight away, when i got home i had a curtesy call from him to see if the problem was sorted once and for all wich it was, and he said anything else just call he'll look after me. that is what it used to be like in his fathers day and that is what he's like with his customers and thats how it should be.

stugib

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

because it is used, the SOGA stipulates that problem is ASSUMED to be there at point of sale within the first 6 months the dealer has obligations to either REPAIR, REPLACE if a repair is not economical or REFUND when the two other obligation have fallen through or not feasable

...once the car has been accepted. Within a (undefined) period after the sale the consumer can reject the car for a refund (8.14 in your link) if the fault is serious enough.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

stugib wrote: »

...once the car has been accepted. Within a (undefined) period after the sale the consumer can reject the car for a refund (8.14 in your link) if the fault is serious enough.

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.

cardinalbiggles

pgilc1 wrote: »

I dont think the stereotype is 'fully' justified. Not every car dealer is an unscrupulous weasel.

Yes I agree with that, unfortunately its the few that give a bad name to the many.

As for Trading Standards, they are there to protect the public and if you are acting within the law you have nothing to worry about. Consumer laws are there to protect the public, they are only seen as a nuisance to traders who think they are above the law.

motorguy

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.

+1

Well summarised.

mikey72

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

........As for Trading Standards, they are there to protect the public and if you are acting within the law you have nothing to worry about. Consumer laws are there to protect the public, they are only seen as a nuisance to traders who think they are above the law.

Exactly.

A lot of protests about contacting them from some people though.

motorguy

mikey72 wrote: »

Exactly.

A lot of protests about contacting them from some people though.

The SOGA is grey, poorly defined and opens up a whole can of worms for everyone involved. Trading standards may well say that a dealer is in breach of the SOGA however they cannot enforce that, leaving the buyer very often out of pocket and facing a lengthy court battle with no outcome guaranteed.

For example - if you buy a £500 used car, should you be entitled to the same rights as someone buying a £20,000 used car?

If your answer is 'YES', then how can any trader sell a £500 car yet be expected to warrant that a big end bearing doesnt fail 5.5 months later? The onus being on the supplying dealer to prove it wasnt? Is that not an unreasonable expectation?

If the answer is 'NO', then thats not clearly defined in the SOGA. As i said in one of my examples i had a guy bought a £500 car and was going to call the police, trading standards, the council(?) and accused me of putting a fraudulent MOT on the car, all because his mechanic put the wind up him over a slight wheel bearing play (which couldnt be heard and wasnt an issue for MOT) - and again over here in NI MOT's are done by government bodies so he was making a massive accusation by saying that.

Far better - would you not agree - to get agreement with the dealer on what can be done to resolve in the first instance, rather than doing as you say by being Johnny-Big-Balls and DEMANDING your money back?

stugib

pgilc1 wrote: »

For example - if you buy a £500 used car, should you be entitled to the same rights as someone buying a £20,000 used car?

If your answer is 'YES', then how can any trader sell a £500 car yet be expected to warrant that a big end bearing doesnt fail 5.5 months later? The onus being on the supplying dealer to prove it wasnt? Is that not an unreasonable expectation?

I don't understand why you keep referring to the 6 month time period? Regardless of whether it's reasonable to demand a main dealer repair be paid for, the OP is entitled to reject. It was within 24 hours! Different rules apply pre-acceptance and post-acceptance.

For such a 'grey area' there's been some very black and white statements from those in the trade in the earlier posts in this thread telling the OP they have no right to their money back and the supplier MUST be given an opportunity to repair.

motorguy

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Yes I agree with that, unfortunately its the few that give a bad name to the many.

Hence why we shouldnt revert to stereotypes as per what Mikey72 was saying and what i objected to.

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

As for Trading Standards, they are there to protect the public and if you are acting within the law you have nothing to worry about. Consumer laws are there to protect the public, they are only seen as a nuisance to traders who think they are above the law.

True,

However what S B, myself and others have been saying is that to be using the threat of trading standards AND / OR misusing or misquoting or misinterpreting the SOGA does noone any favours and merely entrenches people. Far better to approach the situation in a calm and structure manner, would you not agree?

Also, its worth noting that with regards to unreasonable customers, trading standards have seen it all before, so involving trading standards is not necessarily the trump card that a lot of people seem to think it is.