Bought used car yesterday ....problem

motorguy

jonnyhenry wrote: »

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.

not true - and quite a difference between illegal tyres and a cosmetic mark on a windscreen.

motorguy

The whole 'oh the dealer obviously knew and was trying to bluff it' thing just doesnt make sense to me.

If he had known and its as bad as the O/P says, then why not simply get whats a simple repair done in the convenience of his forecourt, rather than now have to pay someone to physically go to the buyer and do the repair?

If it was going to be picked up anyway, then hes just cost himself more money than he needed to?

harveybobbles

Can't wait for the next thread:


"Car broke down after a little petrol-can-type light was on for 5 days, dealer not interested.."

fivetide

motorguy wrote: »

The whole 'oh the dealer obviously knew and was trying to bluff it' thing just doesnt make sense to me.

If he had known and its as bad as the O/P says, then why not simply get whats a simple repair done in the convenience of his forecourt, rather than now have to pay someone to physically go to the buyer and do the repair?

If it was going to be picked up anyway, then hes just cost himself more money than he needed to?

the simple answer is "he was trying to pull a fast one."

You are not helping the OP here. She has politely explained it to you several times and all you are doing is calling into question her first person account, especially with statements like it definitely wouldn't be an MOT fail when you haven't seen it and don't seem to understand the rules about windscreen damage for the MOT.

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

the simple answer is "he was trying to pull a fast one."

You are not helping the OP here. She has politely explained it to you several times and all you are doing is calling into question her first person account, especially with statements like it definitely wouldn't be an MOT fail when you haven't seen it and don't seem to understand the rules about windscreen damage for the MOT.

And what was "the fast one"?

Sure he arranged to send someone out as soon as she phoned?

Doesnt sound like much of a 'fast one' to me?

As i said, fair play to the dealer, for sorting it out so readily and easily as soon as he was made aware that the customer wasnt happy.

fivetide

motorguy wrote: »

And what was "the fast one"?

Sure he arranged to send someone out as soon as she phoned?

Doesnt sound like much of a 'fast one' to me?

As i said, fair play to the dealer, for sorting it out so readily and easily as soon as he was made aware that the customer wasnt happy.

So which is it. As you said above, why let the car leave the forecourt with damage that needed to be repaired?

You have been belligerent in your accusation that this is the OP's fault and she should have noticed and the dealer had done nothing wrong.

Either:

1. The dealer should also have noticed it and fixed it. If they didn't, why should you feel the need to badger the OP in such an unhelpful way telling her (wrongly) she wouldn't get anywhere and (wrongly) it wouldn't be an MOT fail

or

2. The dealer did notice it, but didn't do anything and simply hoped the problem would go away. It hasn't no thanks to your very poor advice. that's pulling a fast one.

So what is is to be? Dealer didn't fix the car like they should have (poor service) or dealer treid to get away with it (even worse)?

Again, not withstanding your very poor advice and terrible attitude to the OP throughout.

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

So which is it. As you said above, why let the car leave the forecourt with damage that needed to be repaired?

He probably didnt spot it. You're working on the assumption that the salesman drives every single car and has intimate knowledge of each. Thats rarely the case. It could simply have slipped his notice. The dealer immediately organised for someone to GO TO THE CUSTOMER as soon as they were made aware the customer was unhappy. That backs up what i said - if he'd been aware it would have been cheaper for him to get it done on site, than physically send someone out.

fivetide wrote: »

You have been belligerent in your accusation that this is the OP's fault and she should have noticed and the dealer had done nothing wrong.

It wasnt an accusation, it was a statement. The OP had ample time to examine the car and in fact noticed the mark but passed it off as a smudge. The dealer has done nothing wrong - once they were made aware the OP was unhappy, they rectified it. Simples.

fivetide wrote: »

Either:

1. The dealer should also have noticed it and fixed it. If they didn't, why should you feel the need to badger the OP in such an unhelpful way telling her (wrongly) she wouldn't get anywhere and (wrongly) it wouldn't be an MOT fail

"Should have", but probably didnt. I've had customers point things out on my cars that i 'should have' spotted and these days i've only normally about five. BUT, as per the dealer in this case, you correct them as soon as you're made aware.

I never said she wouldnt get anywhere - in fact my first post on this thread wasnt until AFTER the O/P said the dealer was fixing it. I said i didnt think it would stand up in court - thats entirely different.

fivetide wrote: »

or

2. The dealer did notice it, but didn't do anything and simply hoped the problem would go away. It hasn't no thanks to your very poor advice. that's pulling a fast one.

Oh come on, problems dont just 'go away' - particularly something that the O/P says is so noticable. Perhaps the dealer was 'hoping' it would rain constantly for the next three years so the O/P would continue to think its a smudge?? :rotfl:

fivetide wrote: »

So what is is to be? Dealer didn't fix the car like they should have (poor service) or dealer treid to get away with it (even worse)?

The dealer immediately put in place a plan of action to resolve the problem as soon as the OP made them aware they werent happy. Hows that poor service?

fivetide wrote: »

Again, not withstanding your very poor advice and terrible attitude to the OP throughout.

I'm giving a different perspective on this. My first comment was 'fair play to the dealer for sorting it out'. I'm flagging that the dealer immediately agreed to sort the problem out as soon as they knew the OP wasnt happy.

I'm looking at it from the 'the glass is half full' perspective - there was an issue, the dealer resolved it quickly and efficiently.

Clearly you're a 'half empty' sort of guy

(text removed by forum team)