Bought used car yesterday ....problem

Avoriaz

Horizon81 wrote: »

Polishing out a scratch on glass?? Whilst I'd love to believe it, I'd be intrigued to see the results of the 'polished' area on a bright day.

It can be done successfully.

Mine came up fine and I can no longer tell where the marks were.

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

Also not sure why the dealer should get any credit.

If the buyer can see it then so can the dealer. They've let someone look at a car in poor weather and failed to either fix the fault or point out the problem to the OP.

In my mind they've simply hoped the car would be bought by someone who didn't have the guts to go back and say anything. Well done on the OP for not being a mug I say.

Its not a fault - a fault on a used car would be something that prevents it performing its function.

How far do you go to refurbish a car to a specific standard? Whats the target of that standard? Return to new? Its a used car, and at £3000, being sold at probably 15% of its new price and presumably its condition was reflected in the price.

It wouldnt have been an MOT fail, the seller didnt hide it, and in fact the buyer spotted it but didnt think anything of it. They bought the car for a specific price in the condition it was in.

Subsequently the buyer has decided they want more than that. The seller has come up with a solution, though i dont think they were in any way legally obliged to.

I sold a Civic over the weekend and it had a couple of small scratches on the bonnet. Now i know the buyer spotted these but didnt pass comment and i in no way hid them - had it been a 'fault' i would have either had it resolved or point it out to the buyer, as i am obliged to do by law. We negotiated and agreed on the price and he left happy with the deal. Now i'm really not expecting a call from him today saying 'oh i'd really like the bonnet painted', and with respect if he does he will be met with a a firm 'sorry, no - you bought the car in a specific condition at a specific price'.

hayday75

motorguy wrote: »

Its not a fault - a fault on a used car would be something that prevents it performing its function.

How far do you go to refurbish a car to a specific standard? Whats the target of that standard? Return to new? Its a used car, and at £3000, being sold at probably 15% of its new price and presumably its condition was reflected in the price.

It wouldnt have been an MOT fail, the seller didnt hide it, and in fact the buyer spotted it but didnt think anything of it. They bought the car for a specific price in the condition it was in.

Subsequently the buyer has decided they want more than that. The seller has come up with a solution, though i dont think they were in any way legally obliged to.

I sold a Civic over the weekend and it had a couple of small scratches on the bonnet. Now i know the buyer spotted these but didnt pass comment and i in no way hid them - had it been a 'fault' i would have either had it resolved or point it out to the buyer, as i am obliged to do by law. We negotiated and agreed on the price and he left happy with the deal. Now i'm really not expecting a call from him today saying 'oh i'd really like the bonnet painted', and with respect if he does he will be met with a a firm 'sorry, no - you bought the car in a specific condition at a specific price'.

You make it sound as if i was aware of the scratch ,this was not the case as it was raining & looked like a wiper smear .I would never have bought the car knowing that it had a scratch right across the window scene regardless of cost .He mentioned all other digs and scapes on the car ,why not the screen ?

motorguy

hayday75 wrote: »

You make it sound as if i was aware of the scratch ,this was not the case as it was raining & looked like a wiper smear .I would never have bought the car knowing that it had a scratch right across the window scene regardless of cost .He mentioned all other digs and scapes on the car ,why not the screen ?

By your own admittance you did notice it, but thought it was a smear - perhaps further investigation was required on your part, which you didnt do.

My point was that the dealer is sorting it out, and i think fair play for sorting it out - given on here complaints are usually about dealers not sorting things out.

fivetide

motorguy wrote: »

I sold a Civic over the weekend and it had a couple of small scratches on the bonnet. Now i know the buyer spotted these but didnt pass comment and i in no way hid them - had it been a 'fault' i would have either had it resolved or point it out to the buyer, as i am obliged to do by law. We negotiated and agreed on the price and he left happy with the deal. Now i'm really not expecting a call from him today saying 'oh i'd really like the bonnet painted', and with respect if he does he will be met with a a firm 'sorry, no - you bought the car in a specific condition at a specific price'.

That's all fine, if the buyer has been given a specific condition. As the OP clearly stated it was raining, the screen was wet and it is easy to mistake damage of this type for a simple watermark.

The dealer could and should have pointed it out. It's great you are here defending them with your motor dealer hat on but at the end of the day, the dealer hasn't been all nicey nicey, they tried to pull a fast one and got caught out, especially mentioning other dinks and scrapes to the OP.

Also, if the scratch runs full length of the screen then surely it will be classed as being zone B where the wiper crosses into the passenger side. If it is over 40mm (which it will be) then that should be a fail.

Light surface scratches on your windscreen is not to be considered as “damage”, unless it is an area of concentrated scratching i.e scratches caused by the prolonged use of a defective wiper blade. If the scratched area obscures vision and is of or over the size limits of Zone A or B than it will be considered as a reason for the screen to fail the MOT.

So while your repeated attempts to shore up a dubious dealer are admirable, you are wrong in many of your assumptions I feel.

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

That's all fine, if the buyer has been given a specific condition. As the OP clearly stated it was raining, the screen was wet and it is easy to mistake damage of this type for a simple watermark.

Perhaps in hindsight they should have looked at it further at the time. Also, they were really unlucky to not spot realise what it was on initial inspection of the car, during the test drive, after the test drive, during handover and whilst they were driving the car away?

fivetide wrote: »

The dealer could and should have pointed it out. It's great you are here defending them with your motor dealer hat on but at the end of the day, the dealer hasn't been all nicey nicey, they tried to pull a fast one and got caught out, especially mentioning other dinks and scrapes to the OP.

We know there is a mark on the windscreen, the dealer may not have been aware of it, given the buyer didnt notice it on numerous occassions and they're fixing it - how were they 'pulling a fast one'?

fivetide wrote: »

Also, if the scratch runs full length of the screen then surely it will be classed as being zone B where the wiper crosses into the passenger side. If it is over 40mm (which it will be) then that should be a fail.

You havent seen the scratch and neither have i, but it would be extremely unlucky that wiper blades that passed MOT deteriorated enough inside six weeks to cause a scratch bad enough that it might subsequently fail MOT AND new wiper blades then to have been fitted? Sounds a bit of a long shot? Or perhaps the more likely, that it passed with the scratch?

fivetide wrote: »

So while your repeated attempts to shore up a dubious dealer are admirable, you are wrong in many of your assumptions I feel.

"shoring up a dubious dealer"? They are fixing it? In fact, they are sending someone out to fix it. What more could they do?

colino

Trader has went beyond his duties and will now be wondering when the next problem will we found. No wonder the boys at the low end of the market keep them wet.

hayday75

Motor guy - The dealer knew all along about the scratch .I asked him to book the repair man by phone in front of me ,i heard him explain it was a scratch caused by the wiper "just before the car was sold"

jonnyhenry

Any scratch on the window will cause an MOT fail. Send it back pronto. I had to send my car back because all 4 tires were awful. The dealer replaced them.

motorguy

hayday75 wrote: »

Motor guy - The dealer knew all along about the scratch .I asked him to book the repair man by phone in front of me ,i heard him explain it was a scratch caused by the wiper "just before the car was sold"

As opposed to happening AFTER the car was sold?

By default it must have happened before the car was sold, and your literal interpretation implies it was done by them which i dont think holds much water.

Either way, hes resolving it. In fact better than that - hes sending someone to you to resolve it.