Any rights after buying a dodgy second hand vehicle?

Becles

My MIL went and bought a second hand Landrover Freelander from a garage. She was alone and believed everything she was told about the vehicle. At the time of purchase she was not made aware of any faults with the Landrover or told about it's history. She therefore assumed she was buying a roadworthy vehicle.

She has owned it for a couple of weeks, and only used it to make local journeys for work, shopping - the usual stuff!

The Landrover wasn't running right, so she has taken it to the local garage for them to have a look at it. It's a local garage that she has used for years, so she trusts the people running it.

The Landrover has a number of major faults on it which are going to cost £1200 to make the vehicle roadworthy. I'm not sure exactly what is wrong. She has also been told that the vehicle has previously been in an accident, and has a replacement bonnet and other bodywork done to the front end.

The vehicle was advertised as coming with a 12 month MOT, but when MIL has checked the paperwork, she has realised it is only MOT'd until April.

Does MIL have any comeback against the garage where she purchase the vehicle from?

She did not have any checks done as she trusted the information she was given at the time of purchase.

balsingh

If she bought the car from a trader, by law she is entitled to a 3 month warranty. She should get a repair quote from her local garage and go back to the seller and demand that they repair the fault. If they get awkward, advise them that you will contact Trading Standards. With regards to the 12 month MOT, if you can prove the car was advertised with a 12 month MOt (eg. an advert etc), they are obliged to put a full 12 month MOT on the car at their own cost.

Hope that helps.

Grizzly_Bear_2

Forgive me it has taken me about 30 minutes to get back to your question.

If you bought from a trader you are covered by Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by Sale and Supply of goods to consumer regs 2002). The item purchased has to be satisfactory quality (with vehicles taking into account age, mileage and price paid), fit for the purpose, and as described. If it was described as coming with 12 month mot then it should. Send letter to trader rejecting vehicle because not as described. Any other issues regarding quality may also come into question, and rights to full refund may depend on how long since purchase, ring Consumer Direct giving date of purchase, make of vehicle etc, and price paid or look at their website https://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk, there are some template letters on there rejecting faulty items purchased, providing it was paid for up front, slightly different if bought on hire purchase. A breach of contract by trader would generally give you right to reject and request full refund for faulty goods (if major fault) or replacement vehicle, or partial refund to allow for faults.

zappahey

balsingh wrote:

If she bought the car from a trader, by law she is entitled to a 3 month warranty.

Do you have a reference for this?

hamletcigars

I was wondering the same thing,I've seen many a car being sold by traders with the words "no warranty" on them

Grizzly_Bear_2

zappahey wrote:

Do you have a reference for this?

If she bought the car from a trader, by law she is entitled to a 3 month warranty

DavidHM

If she bought the car from a trader she is not entitled to a three month warranty of any description whatsoever.

What she is entitled to is:-

i. The car must be fit for purpose - i.e., it should be possible to use the car on the road legally and safely - it is not;

ii. The car must be of satisfactory quality - i.e., given the price paid, the car must be reasonably fee from faults and should remain so for a reasonably long period of time - i.e., wear and tear parts should not be about to wear out even if they are barely safe now unless this is reflected in the price paid. From your description, it is not.

iii. The car must be as described - i.e., if they say it has a 12-month MoT, it should have one.


None of that is the same as a warranty in the sense of an insurance policy that pays for any parts to be repaired. Nor is there a 3-month time limit on reporting and fixing any faults. What there is however is a provision under the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 is a provision that any fault that appears within the first six months of sale of a car (or any other product) is deemed to have been present at the time of sale, unless the dealer can provide evidence otherwise.

So your mother absolutely has rights to get a car that meets the three criteria above. If it needs £1,200 worth of work to get it through an MoT then it clearly doesn't and she should either reject the car (but not waste time deciding whether or not to do so) or demand that the car be repaired. Personally, given the Freelander's appalling reliability record, I'd want shot of it immediately.

Incidentally the fact that it's been repaired following an accident doesn't mean it's not of satisfactory quality; however if the standard of the repairs is poor, that would have that effect.

saintjanet

As others have said you are not given a warranty by law but you are entitled to a roadworthy vehicle.

Why did she not return the vehicle to the original garage when the faults became a problem,instead of involving another garage,i would have given them the chance to put it right before involving anyone else. Trading standards will help if the original garage refuse to do anything.

Becles

The original garage is 40 miles from home, and the one she had look at it is close to home. It was just for convenience and to save the travel time and costs.

If it was something minor to repair she would have just had the garage close to home fix it and not bothered complaining. It was only when she realised the extent of the problem that she wants to complain to the original garage.

She emailed the original garage last night, but they have ignored it. Will tell her to put it in writing by recorded delivery if they don't reply tomorrow.

saintjanet

Becles wrote: »

The original garage is 40 miles from home, and the one she had look at it is close to home. It was just for convenience and to save the travel time and costs.

If it was something minor to repair she would have just had the garage close to home fix it and not bothered complaining. It was only when she realised the extent of the problem that she wants to complain to the original garage.

She emailed the original garage last night, but they have ignored it. Will tell her to put it in writing by recorded delivery if they don't reply tomorrow.

I do understand now why she went to the other garage.The problem is that sometimes this can cause bad feeling,with one contradicting the other.

I always prefer to buy my cars from a local garage,rather than travel miles to save money,an odd thing to say on this site i know!!However, i have had no trouble with local garages and knowing the reputation of most of them helps when you are ready to buy,just a thought for others thiking of buying at the moment.Good luck with your problem by the way.