We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Second hand car sale - do I have the right to demand a full refund?
shiphen
Posts: 82 Forumite
Hi
Do any of you know about how "Unfair Trading Regulations" and "the sale of goods act" work in the second hand car business, in practice ?
i.e. If I buy a car and I get an independant report stating that the car has a substantial fault, am I entitled to DEMAND a full refund of my money?
OR am I forced by law to give them a chance to fix the problem?
* * *
In my case, I have recently bought a used Mazda 6 (2.2D estate car) from a major car dealer and then on the very next day, when I obtained a "Health Check" from an authorised dealer, I was told in writing that the car had problems with both the tie rod and steering rack (that would cost over £2300 to fix i.e. by replacement of the steering rack alone...).
My question is: In practice, if I demand a full refund and if I also give a copy of the report to the seller, and how likely am I to receive that full refund?
And how long will is it likely to take?
Do I have to prove that the fault is actually dangerous - or is it enough that I was unaware of the fault at the time of purchase?
And what about expenses - such as the fee I was charged for producing the Health Test report?
DETAILS:
A new/refurbished steering rack plus replaced tie rod (and washer) and a 4 wheel alignment MIGHT well solve the problem. BUT I have lost faith in both the vehicle and in the trader outfit that sold me the car.
I don't want the car fixed by that bunch of cowboys - I dont trust them to do a good job.
But given that the car has a major fault, am I obliged in law to accept the trader's offer to fix the car?
The fault details are that:
- the steering wheel is "off center"
- the steering torque at idle is -0.2NM "which would require a new steering rack"
- the "N/S/F tie rod has play an will require replacing including a washer and 4 wheel alignment"
I was verbally advised that given that the tyres so not match left and right, it seems likely that the car was either in an accident or hit a major pot hole.
I was also advised that the only way to fix the steering torque was to "completely replace" the steering rack and that this was a problem that "can only get worse".
One issue is can I actually *prove* that I didnt hit a pothole my way to the Health Check with Mazda? I definitely didnt you understand, but I dont quite know how to actually prove that I didnt!
State of play:
I emailed the trader today with a scanned copy of the Health Report from the Mazda dealer, and I then immediately phoned them. They said that the relevant department wasnt open until Monday. They emailed me back yesterday saying that there was no sign of the incident on the servfice history. I then emailed them back and said that 16 tyre related expenses within 1 year was a LOT and moreover there appears to have been 3 actual punctures - so it looks likely that the car hit a major pothole at speed.
But what are my actual rights?
J
Do any of you know about how "Unfair Trading Regulations" and "the sale of goods act" work in the second hand car business, in practice ?
i.e. If I buy a car and I get an independant report stating that the car has a substantial fault, am I entitled to DEMAND a full refund of my money?
OR am I forced by law to give them a chance to fix the problem?
* * *
In my case, I have recently bought a used Mazda 6 (2.2D estate car) from a major car dealer and then on the very next day, when I obtained a "Health Check" from an authorised dealer, I was told in writing that the car had problems with both the tie rod and steering rack (that would cost over £2300 to fix i.e. by replacement of the steering rack alone...).
My question is: In practice, if I demand a full refund and if I also give a copy of the report to the seller, and how likely am I to receive that full refund?
And how long will is it likely to take?
Do I have to prove that the fault is actually dangerous - or is it enough that I was unaware of the fault at the time of purchase?
And what about expenses - such as the fee I was charged for producing the Health Test report?
DETAILS:
A new/refurbished steering rack plus replaced tie rod (and washer) and a 4 wheel alignment MIGHT well solve the problem. BUT I have lost faith in both the vehicle and in the trader outfit that sold me the car.
I don't want the car fixed by that bunch of cowboys - I dont trust them to do a good job.
But given that the car has a major fault, am I obliged in law to accept the trader's offer to fix the car?
The fault details are that:
- the steering wheel is "off center"
- the steering torque at idle is -0.2NM "which would require a new steering rack"
- the "N/S/F tie rod has play an will require replacing including a washer and 4 wheel alignment"
I was verbally advised that given that the tyres so not match left and right, it seems likely that the car was either in an accident or hit a major pot hole.
I was also advised that the only way to fix the steering torque was to "completely replace" the steering rack and that this was a problem that "can only get worse".
One issue is can I actually *prove* that I didnt hit a pothole my way to the Health Check with Mazda? I definitely didnt you understand, but I dont quite know how to actually prove that I didnt!
State of play:
I emailed the trader today with a scanned copy of the Health Report from the Mazda dealer, and I then immediately phoned them. They said that the relevant department wasnt open until Monday. They emailed me back yesterday saying that there was no sign of the incident on the servfice history. I then emailed them back and said that 16 tyre related expenses within 1 year was a LOT and moreover there appears to have been 3 actual punctures - so it looks likely that the car hit a major pothole at speed.
But what are my actual rights?
J
0
Comments
-
We have recently experienced something along similar lines. My onlyu suggestion is that you contact your local tardaing standards and ask their advice. At least that way your getting fact and not just opinion which amounts to liytlle when you are trying to recover monies.
My second and very important suggestion is that you log everything and ask that the dealer either email you or give you a hard copy of everything he suggests/claims/advises
Good LuckIf youcan lie down at night knowing in your heart that you just made someone’s day just a little bit better,you know you had a good day!!0 -
You have 'reasonable' time by law to reject goods that do not conform to contract for a full refund after which they effectively choose the remedy.
Although age, mileague & condition are also factored in when it comes to car sales. For example if you've bought a 10 year old car with 100k miles on the clock then there will be many issues that can be found - mostly issues that are the result of wear and tear though so you wouldn't necessarily have any rights to a repair.
That figure seems waaaaaaaay out to me....?!!!?tie rod and steering rack (that would cost over £2300 to fix i.e.
These don't seem like major issues to me!The fault details are that:
- the steering wheel is "off center"
- the steering torque at idle is -0.2NM "which would require a new steering rack"
- the "N/S/F tie rod has play an will require replacing including a washer and 4 wheel alignment"
Number 1 & 3 are pretty standard repairs. Probably even come in at < £100 including wheel alignment.
Number 2 not sure, but quick search shows the part to be between £80-£200. Probably less from a breakers.
Although, do they need replacing? ie actually faulty/not road worthy or just subjected to wear?I then emailed them back and said that 16 tyre related expenses within 1 year was a LOT and moreover there appears to have been 3 actual punctures - so it looks likely that the car hit a major pothole at speed.
This is in the service history? Why didn't you check this before buying? Not really grounds to obtain a refund though.0 -
Various points
A) The car had only done c 43,000 miles, not 100K.
The £2300 figure is simply what Mazda quoted. Bear in mind that they charge something over £100/hour for labour. But whether it's £2300 or £200, it's not about natural justice or your or my sense of right and wrong, the question is what is the law? English law in this case.
If we accept that a problem with the steering rack is an "expensive" fault to fix, that makes it a "serious" fault. And the question is - what is English law? If something has a serious fault then do I have the right in law to demand a full refund or not?
C) Yes I did my best check the vehicle "maintenance history" before buying, but I am only a humble consumer and not an expert in the trade. And the entire maintenance history that you receive only fits on a single sheet of A4 and it comes from Lex Autoleasing who have their own rather obscure/ambiguous way of codifying what things mean. And nobody at the car trader could tell me what their jargon actually meant.
Rather bizarrely when I phoned up Lex Leasing afterwards they still couldn't (or at least refused to) tell me what the coding means for sure. For example on the sheet opposite various mileages they have written:L
"Kwik-fit, Wheel & tyres WRN"
"Kwik-fit, Wheel & tyres RTN"
"Kwik-fit, Wheel & tyres PUN"
I am guessing that "PUN" means "puncture" but what the heck does "RTN" mean?0 -
Arcon has already answered that question when he said...And the question is - what is English law? If something has a serious fault then do I have the right in law to demand a full refund or not?You have 'reasonable' time by law to reject goods that do not conform to contract for a full refund after which they effectively choose the remedy.
Then why did you make the purchase before getting someone else to check the thing?Yes I did my best check the vehicle "maintenance history" before buying, but I am only a humble consumer and not an expert in the trade.
Oh, sorry... I see Arcon has already made that point too...Why didn't you check this before buying? Not really grounds to obtain a refund though.0 -
Sorry Wealdroam I dont completely understand your points.
> Then why did you make the purchase before getting someone
> else to check the thing?
Erm confused. Yes, I did check the service history as best I could (see above). However this is not about your or my sense of fair play, I am simply asking about what is the law of England(?)
Now in English law, perhaps surprisingly, the consumer is protected to a significant extent when making purchases... and it is not deemed necessary to bring in experts before making a purchase. In fact if you do bring in an expert to advise you and he/she misses somethingm, then you are in fact in a weaker position legally. Or so it appears.
Check out this document from the OFT:
"Guidance for second hand car dealers - Compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979"
http://www.oft.gov.u...408/oft1241.pdf
From page 29/28 is appears that all the consumer needs to do is to prove that the car had a "serious" fault, and then the consumer has the right not only to a full refund but also to incidental expenses such as getting the independent report compiled.
For the same OFT document, it appears that 'reasonable' time in law for buying second hand cars runs into weeks or even up to 6 months. The fact that I complained by email within 2 days would clearly then count as being within a "reasonable" time. ==> TICK
So... this sounds like yes I should get my refund, yes?0 -
Not sure anyone can tell you exactly what the law is in your case, depends what you bought and what the advertisement and paperwork says - these form part of your contract. If the car was presented as roadworthy but is actually illegal/ dangerous, you were clearly lied to or you have a warranty you may have some protection.
Otherwise it may be the car was sold as seen. It's not the dealer's fault if you failed to get the car checked out prior to purchase and failed to ask questions about the service history. If you want to reject under SOGA you need a legitimate reason, changing your mind or failing to do due diligence doesn't count.
"3. Inspect it
You should also take your time assessing the exterior and the interior of the car, in daylight.
Keep an eye-out for rust, damaged tires, oil leaks and faulty windscreen wipers/seat belts/windows etc. Ask about any body work, such as replaced panels, welding or different patches of colour/texture.
If you don’t know a lot about cars then take someone with you who does.
Consumer Direct also recommends that you ask the dealer if the car has been in accident and is a write-off, as they are under no obligation to volunteer this information."
http://www.moneywise.co.uk/scams-rip-offs/rip-offs/dont-get-stung-buying-used-car
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/the-second-hand--car-i-bought-has-a-problem/
https://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/c_secondhand_cars.pdf
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/problemswithvehicles-sum6.cfmDeclutterbug-in-progress.⭐️⭐️⭐️ ⭐️⭐️0 -
OK then... get on with it.Check out this document from the OFT:
"Guidance for second hand car dealers - Compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979"
http://www.oft.gov.u...408/oft1241.pdf
From page 29/28 is appears that all the consumer needs to do is to prove that the car had a "serious" fault, and then the consumer has the right not only to a full refund but also to incidental expenses such as getting the independent report compiled.
All you need to do is prove the car has a serious fault.
From what you have told us, you car does not have a serious fault.
If you already know the answers, why are you here asking questions?0 -
Firstly, your treating posts here with a great deal of apprehension. I would suggest you stop taking such an emotive view of posts and see them as more subjective. Because a lot of facts are included, and not just merely our opinions or our own sense of right/wrong!Various points
A) The car had only done c 43,000 miles, not 100K.
Thus, will not be as new. Age is also a considering factor.
Therefore not representative of the average market value for the work! The £2300 figure is simply what Mazda quoted. Bear in mind that they charge something over £100/hour for labour.
The law, particularly consumer law, often revolves around what is 'reasonable'. The Sales of Goods Act refers to this term multiple times.But whether it's £2300 or £200, it's not about natural justice or your or my sense of right and wrong, the question is what is the law? English law in this case.
For example, the implied term as to quality states:
The underlined part is crucial.(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
If a fault is expensive - this doesn't necessarily mean it's serious. Especially where you are quoted overly inflated prices. Also the seriousness of the repair doesn't necessarily mean it's faulty.If we accept that a problem with the steering rack is an "expensive" fault to fix, that makes it a "serious" fault. And the question is - what is English law? If something has a serious fault then do I have the right in law to demand a full refund or not?
Here's an example:
I buy a Ford Mondeo, 2005 model and has 120k miles on the clock. After a month the flywheel needs replacing. Is the flywheel faulty? Not necessarily, they often start failing after this sort of mileage on the mk3 - it's the result of 120k miles of wear.
Note, this is an example... hopefully you see the point i'm trying to make!
The tie rod is showing signs of play and wheels need an alignment - at 44k miles is this reasonable wear? Well, i'm betting most would consider it to be.
If however, after 44k miles then head gasket failed, you would have more rights as a reasonable person would expect it to last much much longer on this particular model.
I don't know - but had I been buying the car i'd certainly enquire. The fact is, even where presented with this information you did not seek to discover its meaning. Nor did they fail to disclose all known information about the history.C) Yes I did my best check the vehicle "maintenance history" before buying, but I am only a humble consumer and not an expert in the trade. And the entire maintenance history that you receive only fits on a single sheet of A4 and it comes from Lex Autoleasing who have their own rather obscure/ambiguous way of codifying what things mean. And nobody at the car trader could tell me what their jargon actually meant.
Rather bizarrely when I phoned up Lex Leasing afterwards they still couldn't (or at least refused to) tell me what the coding means for sure. For example on the sheet opposite various mileages they have written:L
"Kwik-fit, Wheel & tyres WRN"
"Kwik-fit, Wheel & tyres RTN"
"Kwik-fit, Wheel & tyres PUN"
I am guessing that "PUN" means "puncture" but what the heck does "RTN" mean?
If you didn't like not knowing, you could have used the opportunity to walk away in favour of a dealer with a more thorough description of its history.
Although it's irrelevant because it could well have been down to the previous owners driving or the roads they used - this could indicate potential misalignment too.
Within the first 6 months, it's the dealer who must disprove this. Only after 6 months does the burden of prove fall on the consumer. This is English Law, not my opinion by the way.all the consumer needs to do is to prove that the car had a "serious" fault
But this sentence is misunderstanding a single basic fact.... there is a difference between a fault and wear and tear... take my DMF example above, the flywheel is failing due to w&t - not because it is faulty. The component itself has lasted a time a person would consider reasonable.0 -
arcon5 yes you make some good points.
> The tie rod is showing signs of play and wheels
> need an alignment - at 44k miles is this reasonable wear?
I asked this question of the Mazda dealer. Wheel alignment is obviously a trivial thing that can easily be needed at almost any age. But the Mazda mechanics where insistant that the tie trod was not a wear and tear item and should definitely not need to be replaced within 44K if ever during normal use. Likewise the steering rack. i.e. I was emphatically told that both items are NOT wear and tear items at any mileage.
> The fact is, even where presented with this information
> you did not seek to discover its meaning.
There is a misunderstanding - I did enquire what these Lex Autolease code mean but the salesman could not tell me. I have previously had the same problem on a different Lex Autolease car and on that occasion, I phoned Lex up and asked them. I got put through to 3 different people and none of them could answer the question. They finally said the three letter codes "probably mean the same thing". So I did my best endeavor to find out but the trader failed to tell me.
Summing up, if a vehicle has a fault that is not wear and tear, and which is not currently dangerous but which appears very likely to become dangerous over time, how are we to measure it's seriousness?
The OFT were emphatic that a fault does not need to be dangerous in order to be not fit for purpose and/or serious.
Surely the 'seriousness' of the fault can only be measured by the cost to fix the problem?
And if cost is a key metric afterall, at what number of pounds to fix a problem does the cost start to become "serious"?
EDIT:
PS Does an email count as the same thing as a letter - if they have replied to it? Or should I use paper and registered post too?
PPS Also should I immediately stop using my car? (Tricky as I cant get to work without it!)0 -
I suspect the last owner drive like an idiot and/or used a lot of socks track roads or similar which tend to be laden with pot holes - as a result certain components have worn quicker than perhaps they would had it been treated with care.Summing up, if a vehicle has a fault that is not wear and tear, and which is not currently dangerous but which appears very likely to become dangerous over time, how are we to measure it's seriousness?
There is no set rule here, a test of reasonableness would be applied.
If its not yet dangerous though or the fault has not yet developed then it would be difficult to claim anything as it would merely be speculation.The OFT were emphatic that a fault does not need to be dangerous in order to be not fit for purpose and/or serious.
That's true. Not all faults are necessarily dangerous.Surely the 'seriousness' of the fault can only be measured by the cost to fix the problem?
Not really. A serious fault could be collapsed wheel bearing, yet a home mechanic could fix this cheaply. Or failing head gasket wouldn't necessarily be dangerous but not cheap to sort out.
A guess what would be classed as a serious fault would be those that a fundamental to the product.
A dealer isn't just responsible for serious faults though, but responsible for others too. The difficult bit with cars is deciding what's faulty and what's juy because the cars been treated crap and caused excess wear. Also having rights and enforcing rights can be two different things with some car dealers to be honest.
How long have you had the vehicle by the way?
Yes - email and letter are on par with each other. Both are durable means of communication.PS Does an email count as the same thing as a letter - if they have replied to it? Or should I use paper and registered post too?PPS Also should I immediately stop using my car? (Tricky as I cant get to work without it!)
If you have genuine grounds to reject it for a refund (which many may disagree with) then yes. Continuing using it could mean you are acting in a way that could be considered to have accepted the goods. Then they'd have the option of repairing the components.
Although its a predicament many find themselves in when rejecting cars - more often than not they are purchased as a necessity rather than merely for pleasure.
It might be worth looking at their company history first though. The motor industry has many dodgy outfits abusing the Companies Act.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards