Section 75 - Used Car dealer is a toe-rag

chewonit

Is it normal for people to behave like this in "supposedly helpful forums? is there any moderation?

fart

chewonit wrote: »

Is it normal for people to behave like this in "supposedly helpful forums? is there any moderation?

Moderation of what?

You're saying something is dangerous when it isn't. Lights don't automatically equal danger. I asked whether your steering wasn't working properly and you didn't answer, you merely decided to call me a troll because i'm giving advice you don't want to hear.

You have no comeback for a verbal agreement unless you have witnesses and even then it's a long shot proving it.

The developed faults since you took it are another matter.

I'm sorry i'm giving advice that you don't want to hear, but a seatbelt light coming on doesn't automatically equal danger, it could be a fault with the computer system. Legally, this matters.

chewonit

fart wrote: »

Moderation of what?

You're saying something is dangerous when it isn't. Lights don't automatically equal danger. I asked whether your steering wasn't working properly and you didn't answer, you merely decided to call me a troll because i'm giving advice you don't want to hear.

You have no comeback for a verbal agreement unless you have witnesses and even then it's a long shot proving it.

The developed faults since you took it are another matter.

I'm sorry i'm giving advice that you don't want to hear, but a seatbelt light coming on doesn't automatically equal danger, it could be a fault with the computer system. Legally, this matters.

Like i said, READ THE POST.

The faults you speak of where NOT accepted on a verbal agreement, they developed after the car was brought, weeks after infact. the other minor stuff was accepted on a verbal agreement - which yes i accept as spurious.

however, the faults are dangerous, and the CC card company is liable for the repairs costs under section 75.

fart

chewonit wrote: »

Like i said, READ THE POST.

The faults you speak of where NOT accepted on a verbal agreement, they developed after the car was brought, weeks after infact. the other minor stuff was accepted on a verbal agreement - which yes i accept as spurious.

Good grief.

I was talking about the 'agreement' for the stuff you claimed he would fix after you bought it, not the faults that developed later.

He has no legal obligation to fix any of the original faults. At all.

however, the faults are dangerous, and the CC card company is liable for the repairs costs under section 75.

Wrong.

How does something rolling around behind the dash and lights lighting up = dangerous? Feel free to enlighten me.

I have had no dealings with your CC company but i already know why they won't entertain you quite yet - these 'faults' INDICATE there COULD be a danger, they in themselves are not proof of danger. How hard is that to understand? Legally, lights coming on your dash are not a certainty that there's a danger there, and legally that means that no danger is proven.

If you fill up your car then your fuel light comes on do you think you can get your CC company to refund the cost? It's the same thing. The fuel could have fallen out of the bottom of the tank but then again it could just be a faulty light. Anyway i'll leave this thread to non 'trollers' who'll tell you what you want to hear.

HINT: getting someone who knows what they're talking about to check the vehicle and compile a report before going to ask for your money back would be a start.

chewonit

I have had an independent AA inspection on the car, and a main dealer quote for the repairs. (£3K quote from dealer)

Perhaps you should have asked this before "going off on one"

Group hug.

Herbalus

Is it just me or does everyone else find posts written completely in italics really annoying? I didn't read half of them.

Don't worry about fart's posts. The posts I've read of his seem to be overly critical.

chewonit

Hi All,

Just to complete this thread, I have today had a phone call from Barclaycard. They have offered to cover the cost of all repairs, and my consequential losses (around £3K), im more than happy with this as it allows me to sell the car, buy a different one and cover my losses.

Lesson learned from this process is to be patient and persistant, and to get the facts right regarding sale of goods / liability etc.

Thanks for those on this thread who chose to be helpfull, I appreciate your time & effort.

DKLS

chewonit wrote: »

Is it normal for people to behave like this in "supposedly helpful forums? is there any moderation?

Replies dont have to agree with the OP, members can post contrary opinions within reason, it happens often round here, somone posts, other posters dont agree with that view and the OP has a hissy fit.

magpiecottage

dalesrider wrote: »

Can I ask a question here.

Why have you not taken the dealer to court?

By the time you have finished. you could have taken the dealer to the small claims court and been done and dusted.

I appreciate where you are coming from Dalesrider but as the OP points out, there is a cost to doing that and no guarantee that, even if you win, the respondent will actually pay up.

On the other hand, with S75 the bank is liable for the whole lot.

Note I said the whole lot, not simply what was put on to the card. Provided the total cost was between £100 and £30,000 - even if just a penny was put on it.

That means, if the car should simply have been scrapped they would have to pay the full cost less any scrap value.

If the bank doesn't pay up, then the claimant can take them to FOS free of charge and if the claimant wins, the bank has to pay.

Coming from a banking background, I can understand Dalesrider being frustrated that the bank is therefore a soft target.

That is the basis of why NIAK is right to use his credit card.

The OP should also get the cost of the AA report refunded.

It would be in the public interest to also forward a copy of the report to the dealer's local trading standards with a note that it was sold in that condition.