Help! Sold a dud car!

lee678

mikey72 wrote: »

You've had it explained enough times how the SOGA works if you're a trader.

But yes, I could you imagine telling a customer they're being pickey, when a car you sold them lasts just 3 months.
But that's probably what you expect most people to have out of your cars, reading other posts from you.
So seriously, I can understand if that's what you work to normally.

As to trading standards, the op can tell us that hopefully.

Is it a full time job for you this judging other peoples business?
do you not understand the words consistent with age mileage and price ?

motorguy

mikey72 wrote: »

But yes, I could you imagine telling a customer they're being pickey, when a car you sold them lasts just 3 months.

The car hasnt 'just lasted' 3 months. It needs some maintenance to get it through MOT.

I really think you need to wake up and smell the coffee here, rather than raise an expectation with them that cannot be met.

motorguy

mikey72 wrote: »

As to trading standards, the op can tell us that hopefully.

You also need to appreciate that TS look at both sides of the story - they dont automatically jump on the trader.

Joe_Horner

lee678 wrote: »

there is no mention by the op that the car was purchased in a unroadworthy condition.
the seller didnt tell the buyer it was unroadworthy at point of sale.

please read the full thread before responding with S.75 of the Road Traffic Act.

I had read the whole thread and I fully realise that we have incomplete information about the condition of the car (both now, and at the time of sale).

However, it's likely that the rust problems needing repair are the "common" ones for this model and age - including suspension tops and bulkhead, both of which make the car unroadworthy. Neither of these areas rot out overnight and it's very unlikely that they did so in the 3 months the OP has owned it.

So, pending any further information, it's probable that the trader sold the car in an unroadworthy condition which is an offence. The way to get extra information (to decide one way or the other) is to approach the experts in such things, in this case Trading Standards.

Because traders should have expert knowledge of their stock they're expected to be aware of more in-depth problems like corrosion. If he bought it in (or traded it) with corrosion problems then that's his problem and he's breaking the law by passing it out cheap to a consumer who has an absolute legal right to assume that the car is basically safe at the point of sale unless specifically told it isn't.

It's absolutely not acceptable for a trader to say "it's cheap so I don't give a stuff" where basic safety matters are concerned, any more than it's acceptable for owners to drive from one MOT to the next without making sure their tyres, brakes, lights etc are still ok.

bungle4by4

18yr old cars need maintenance and part of that is repairing corrosion. to think that a car this old, and cheap will be perfect for years is hopeful at best. you have 200 quids worth of scrap and have had months of driving for very little money. a newer car will have lost this in depreciation the second you moved it off the dealers forecourt. im afraid if you want a car which will last longer, you need to buy a younger one. To even consider contacting trading standards is, frankly pathetic.

s_b

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I had read the whole thread and I fully realise that we have incomplete information about the condition of the car (both now, and at the time of sale).

However, it's likely that the rust problems needing repair are the "common" ones for this model and age - including suspension tops and bulkhead, both of which make the car unroadworthy. Neither of these areas rot out overnight and it's very unlikely that they did so in the 3 months the OP has owned it.

So, pending any further information, it's probable that the trader sold the car in an unroadworthy condition which is an offence. The way to get extra information (to decide one way or the other) is to approach the experts in such things, in this case Trading Standards.

Because traders should have expert knowledge of their stock they're expected to be aware of more in-depth problems like corrosion. If he bought it in (or traded it) with corrosion problems then that's his problem and he's breaking the law by passing it out cheap to a consumer who has an absolute legal right to assume that the car is basically safe at the point of sale unless specifically told it isn't.

It's absolutely not acceptable for a trader to say "it's cheap so I don't give a stuff" where basic safety matters are concerned, any more than it's acceptable for owners to drive from one MOT to the next without making sure their tyres, brakes, lights etc are still ok.

well you need to read it again then because it was me suggesting bulkhead and towers not the OP
the op says some holes at the front and under the fuel pipe

mikey72

Who knows.

Well trading standards.
We don't.

Maybe they'll side with the op, maybe they'll consider three months a good enough time for a car bought from a trader to last, before needing welding, or scrapping.

The only thing to do is let the op speak to them on Monday, then come back and tell us what they say.

At least we all agree there's no point in second guessing them then?
Unless some of you think the op shouldn't even dare to speak to trading standards for some reason?
If you think there's no case, wouldn't trading standards back that up, and the op can tell you you're right, and I'm wrong?

Joe_Horner

s_b wrote: »

well you need to read it again then because it was me suggesting bulkhead and towers not the OP
the op says some holes at the front and under the fuel pipe

No I don't. She said "lots of holes in it, front and passenger side". Last I heard, the n/s turrets are on the passenger side so could well fit that description? As could this doozy of a hole "on the passenger side":




And this (behind the brake servo / master cylinder) could reasonably be described as "at the front". Wouldn't want to hit the pedal hard in an emergency with that as it's support!





She also reports that the mechanic (who has seen the car) said that (obviously in his opinion) the trader must have known it would fail.

An MOT doesn't prove roadworthiness but being unable to pass DOES prove unroadworthiness (by definition).

Simply put, if a trader knows (or suspects) that a car isn't in a condition to pass an MOT without any work at the time of sale then he must warn the seller that it's not roadworthy. If he doesn't he's breaking the law, end of!

s_b

Joe Horner im afraid to say that if you do know anything about corrosion you will know that it can just come on which is why we have an mot]
One of my trucks does 3000 miles a year so is parked up more than used it gets inspected by me 4 times a year and even i was surprised last pre mot check i did the amount of welding it would need on the rear spring hanger and i can categorically say this vehicle is maintained to an inch of its life and its 15 years old
your first picture is of a suspension component by the way not bodywork
your second picture although i cant make out what or where it is taken looks like some dismantling has taken place to get to take the photograph
i really do not see what relevance they have to the OPs car as i have already said that corsas go on the bulkhead under the servo but you would only know if you had the car on a ramp and looked directly up at the back of the engine so even most mot testers would be unaware of a hole unless they had seen one previously because it is covered with a very large rubber grommet to help drain away water
ive also mentioned as has the OP has holes near the fuel pipes which are inaccesible unless up on a ramp and bradolled

if you were in the motor trade you would realise these things rather than typing from an armchair and taking pictures off the internet

trading standards can do nothing because there is nothing they can do
i am not trying to back the trader who sold the car by the way never have i am telling it as it is as a trader and how everything works in the real world

if some of you people worked in the real world rather than your cyberspace world maybe this country wouldnt be in the mess its in always wanting to blame someone else for your own failings even the OP moans after the event that her mechanic said it shouldnt be on the road apparently according to you (i missed it) but where was he when he was needed at purchase time
where is he now? waiting to relieve OP of her wonga of course and lets get this right main dealers dont do welding anymore so this car has been to a back street garage for the welding quote
the kind of place members on here are slating but when push comes to shove most of them go to, to get their clapped out ex middle class vw's through another mot

mikey72

s_b wrote: »

..................her mechanic said it shouldnt be on the road apparently according to you (i missed it)........................

That's when happens when your car fails the mot.
When the current one runs out, it shouldn't be on the road.

s_b wrote: »

..................main dealers dont do welding anymore so this car has been to a back street garage for the welding quote..........

No, any reputable garage will use a decent mobile welder that'll come in and do a proper job.

Not everyone sends their car to a dodgy backstreet garage to be patched up and given a fresh coat of underseal to hide all the spatter and blow through.