Help! Sold a dud car!

lee678

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You don't get it, do you, Lee? This is NOT the same as selling something with a bit of a smoky engine or the radio not working.

Selling a car in an unroadworthy condition is an offence under S.75 of the Road Traffic Act. That's nothing at all to do with the buyer, or the price paid, it's a matter of law which trading standards will (rightly) be interested in.

The presence of a valid MOT is NOT enough to protect a trader against that offence because it only proves roadworthiness at the time of the test. A trader is assumed in law to have expert knowledge of his product so claiming he "didn't know" is also not a defence. In fact, the ONLY defence is that he told the buyer it was unroadworthy and made sure they knew they mustn't drive it on road until fixed - not a good way of selling cars!

That's why decent traders (even back-street ones) will put a new MOT on a car - ANY car - before sale. If they know the car's safe then there's no problem doing that so it increases their costs by whatever their local MOT guy charges trade, and they can easily pass that cost on to the buyer because of the new ticket (most people will happily pay an extra 20 or 30 quid for a full MOT)

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.

mikey72

lee678 wrote: »

............................the seller didnt tell the buyer it was unroadworthy at point of sale..............

For once, I don't think anyone will disagree with you.
There appears to be a few things the seller didn't tell the buyer.

s_b

andygb wrote: »

Nothing like a good bit of generalisation is there?
Does this happen to all Carismas or just the odd one or two, because one of my mates has a petrol Carisma, bought brand new about twelve years ago. It has done over 160K miles with no problems.
I have owned four Alfas (another favourite for the "they always break down" mob), which had a combined mileage of nearly 600K miles, and none of them ever broke down on me.

For your information it is the reason they get scrapped. As i said it will pass an emissions test but they are undriveable because of the clogging as i mentioned, its therefore an ideal way of legging a mug punter into a heap albeit one with a full mot at an auction but when i post the dirty tricks i have done at auction 25 years ago and explain to people you can be bidding on a hand grenade with the pin removed i get it thrown back in my face and get called a dodgy car trader.
You only get good posts out of people willing to give their free time on internet sites if you treat them with respect and listen to the points they raise.
Ive also mentioned in all truth that i dont need any more custom fr because customers arent my problem but sourcing good retailable cars is as this last 3 years the standard of maintenance has gone to below expected standards.
I went to the trouble of logging on to the govt website on a few occasions to vote against the 4 2 2 mot regulations as i considered it to be a dangerous road to follow.
Now think why would a motor trader who could save himself money by not having to mot anything want to kill the proposals? and i wonder if any of you went to the trouble as i did to kill what is now a stopped programme.
you guys that keep trying to undermine my factual posts are doing yourselves no favours

lee678

mikey72 wrote: »

For once, I don't think anyone will disagree with you.
There appears to be a few things the seller didn't tell the buyer.

like its £650 and not new?

that in all probabilities it will need some work for its next mot ?

use some common sense man

mikey72

lee678 wrote: »

like its £650 and not new?

that in all probabilities it will need some work for its next mot ?

use some common sense man

With that and SOGA, we'll be fine.

s_b

mikey72 wrote: »

With that and SOGA, we'll be fine.

you have had explained that corrosion can appear within 3 months which is why vosa give you the 3 month window
the mot man probably gave the chassis a good bashing because he wanted the work and ive mentioned the towers are covered by a rubber gromit and the OP says the corrosion is above the fuel lines these are thick pipes and only a skilled motman would know to prod hard and deep here
its been mentioned theres holes in the sills these came as standard on the corsa and quite large they were too

you are just being picky mickey

s_b

mikey72 wrote: »

With that and SOGA, we'll be fine.

do you honestly believe trading standards are interested in a £650 car 3 months down the line that has had an mot failure because the vosa approved tester failed it?

seriously?
and i mean seriously?
do you think the local paper would be interested?
seriously?

mikey72

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.

s_b

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.

youve already been told i wouldnt sell a banger for this kind of money because there is no way you could sell it no faults for £650
no one can
not even sid working from his council house front garden with the hedge pulled up with growler barking all day as its tethered to his coal bunker
i would scrap it and claim a battery rather than have my name on such a thing
the OP bought at the bottom of the barrel and as ive told you countlessly now trading standards would not be interested

motorguy

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.

Like a true internet keyboard warrior, you're interpreting SOGA as purely black and white. It is a hugely grey area.

Whilst it is not unreasonable to expect say, a 1 year old car not to have rust, its entirely reasonable that a £650 car will.

You are then down to what level of rust is acceptable, and how long the seller should warrant the car for.

• Is it unreasonable for a car of this age to need some welding?
  
• Is it possible the mechanic sees an opportunity here by over-egging the work needing done?
  
• Does '£100's spent' really translate to say, £180 by getting someone cheaper to do the work?
  
• Is that £180 unreasonable on a very old car?
  
• Would the efforts being proposed here, which might involve taking the trader to court and potentially not winning, not be better spent on fixing the problem?

The O/P hasnt 'lost' £650, they just need to accept that old cars need maintenance - and thats not anybodys fault.