Second hand car sale - do I have the right to demand a full refund?

dalesrider

shiphen wrote: »

Surely the 'seriousness' of the fault can only be measured by the cost to fix the problem?

Wait till a built in radio goes belly up.....

Not a serious issue... But costs a fortune to fix. :rotfl:

Then compare that to a tyre with a split in it.... Serious issue, but cheap to fix.

Serious has to be classed by its danger to yourself and other roadusers. Or the risk of the car breaking down.


Maybe the origonal owner lived down a long rough lane.

shiphen

> How long have you had the vehicle by the way?
I've now had the car for 4 days.
I got the car tested by Mazda the day after I bought it.
I emailed them with a demand for the refund plus a copy of the Mazda Health Check the next day.

To be honest I still cant intellectually get to grips with what does and does not constitute a "serious" fault.

All I can say is that I feel in my bones that any problem with something so important as the steering mechanism of a car could be considered 'serious' and 'not fit for purpose' and 'not of satisfactory quality'. Frankly the trader should have spotted such things. And having been advised by Mazda about these two faults, I dont see why I should pay for them to be fixed.

Out of interest I just spotted these sections on the OFT document:
( http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf )

Section 9.4 says "It is not sufficient that a vehicle is merely roadworthy and safe under the Road Traffic Actd 1988 and or General Product Safety Regulations 2005"

Section 9.5. says "Even where a vehicle has a minor defect, it may still be of unsatisfactory quality"

Section 9.7 says "You [the trader] are not liable however... If the consumer examined the vehicle before buying it and should have noticed the fault. Where the vehicle is examined by an the consumer rather than by an expert, this main applies to cosmetic defects such as dents and scratches"

Anyhow we'll see tomorrow.

I'll probably try to phone the citizens advice bureau and see what they say. My main problem is that time is extremely short if I am supposed to stop using the darned car.

Meanwhile - thank you for all your advice

dalesrider

Has the car just been MOT'ed?

As a quick google brings it up as a MOT failure.

So there could be a few issues at stake here.
Are the safety check garage looking after themselves and trying to find work.
Is there actually a issue with the car.
What has the seller said?

Get a 3rd opinion.

arcon5

Forget the issue surrounding the seriousness of the fault, your protection under the sales of goods act surrounds any and sll faults which aren't so minor that it would be unreasonable to reject it. For example, a faulty MAF sensor isn't necessarily a serious, dangerous or expensive fault, but if you had just bought a 6 month old car you would expect to have rights to a repair, at the very least.

Only having it for 4 days is in my opinion, and I'm sure others will agree, a reasonable time to reject a faulty car in, assuming it genuinely doesn't confirm to contract.
However, in my opinion I don't think you have grounds to reject it based on the information provided. I think the components mentioned could well be the result of wear and tear, particularly where there is a possibility the vehicle was treated roughly by the previous owner. I would also question whether the components are actually in need of repair, or whether the garage have merely found items subject to wear but would probably last a lot longer.

You can though have a friendly word with the dealer and explain you have concerns about the car, in the hope they offer some form of goodwill. But I fear you may have just got their backs up with letters of rejection.

shiphen

I spoke with the general manager of the dealer and he took the view that he didnt believe the Mazda dealer's report. So I got a second Health Report done by a different Mazda dealer first thing today. This time they found a buckled wheel (!), which they marked up with yellow chalk.

I have been such an idiot because at the time that I did the test drive there was a moderate wheel wobble/vibration at speeds over 65MPH, that seemed to be coming from the rear of the car (i.e. you could not feel it through the steering wheel). The salesman in the car with me said it was just "the wheels needed balancing" and like a fool I believed him.

Since buying the car I simply hadn't found time to get the wheels balanced and I had assumed that if there was anything serious mechanically wrong with the car that the first Mazda dealer would have spotted it during their Health Check that I paid for.

However today's report confirms the wheel wobble was in fact caused by the buckled wheel not by an unbalanced wheel!

I am appalled that I could have been sold a car, by a major second hand car trader, with wheel wobble that was in fact caused by a buckled wheel and I would sincerely hope that this fact alone would be enough to an trigger a full refund under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Today I also spoke to the Trading Standards Institute (Citizens Advice - Consumer Help Line) who told me that due to their salesman telling me that a buckled wheel was a wheel in need of balancing, that I could also seek damages under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Moreover that they may well have committed a *criminal* act (rather than just a breach of civil law) because they have broken the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading regulation of 2008.

The gloves are off. Watch this space.

arcon5

The salesman probably didn't misrepresent the car tbh, probably just came to the wrong conclusion. To be honest if I test drove it and felt that I probably automatically put it down merely as balancing..

For me, all the buckled wheel confirms is exactly what I've said already about the previous owner.

Although it would strengthen your case, I think you're making a mountain out of a mile hill and your expectations of a used car are unrealistic.

shiphen

Tbh, no I dont entirely blame the salesman either. But I do blame the trader's service department. They simply should not be selling cars with buckled wheels. Period. And if they do choose to do so then they MUST tell the consumer that the car has a buckled wheel. Yes, those are my expectations. Luckily we have various laws designed to protect the non-expert consumer from being legged over by unscrupulous motor trade experts. However time will tell how well that legal protection works in practice...

shiphen

All good - the car trader has (FINALLY) given me my money back in full. I may even get my expenses back too.

J

arcon5

Excellent result op - glad it turned out well for you.