Second hand car - MOT Fail

motorguy

izools wrote: »

Is anyone familiar with the laws regarding faults that become apparent within six months of sale?

Yes.

I am a motor trader. Very very familiar with this and have spoken to trading standards many times on similar issues from a dealers perspective.

You are reading the SOGA as if it is a precise, black and white document. It isnt. You might interpret it in your mind a particular way, but that doesnt mean you're right.

Wear and tear and age play a significant part in it. The one thing that has to be asked objectively is "if i had owned this car from new, would it be reasonable for X to need replaced after 11 years / 120,000 miles'. If the answer to this is yes, then its wear and tear.

Also, Citizens Advice are there for that - advice. They will give you their interpretation based on the information YOU give them, which may or may not be objective. They wont otherwise get involved and they wont appear in court.

Tradining Standards dont care about you as an individual. If they think there is wrongdoing, they may or may not investigate the trader, but that is not relative to your case.

From the dealers perspective, he could follow the letter of the law, have had the car examined and based on that decided the issues are wear and tear.

He could then for example offer you a token amount as a gesture, or offer to repair / replace some of the minor items.

If you're not happy with that and you take him to court, he could postphone and postphone for months.

When he finally turns up in court hes there saying this customer bought an 11 year old car with 120,000 miles and i've helped him make a contribution to repairs that i would consider wear and tear therefore i have exceeded my legal obligations.

You may win, you may not - it depends on what mood the judge is in, how he interprets what the trader has done to help so far, and what hes had for breakfast.

motorguy

Personally,

You've bought a 120K miles car at 11 years old, for probably 1/10th of its original price and 8 years out of manufacturers warranty.

I would work with the dealer to see what / if he will do anything to help - chances are he will.

If you go in gung ho threatening legal action you will simply entrench the situation and force you down a route which will be drawn out for months / years and you may not win.

motorguy

izools wrote: »

Like I say, I understand that these are wear and tear parts but driving sensibly should not result in over £1,000 of work after just two months, unless the parts were already of poor quality and / or in poor condition at point of sale, should it?

I would say take any 11 year old 120K mile car and a garage will 'find' an easy £1,000 of work needing done.

izools

Just to confirm - I've had it confirmed by legal counsel that as it is within six months of point of sale the burden of proof is on the vendor to either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the faults weren't present at point of sale - which he wouldn't be able to as there were no pre-sale inspections or MOTs done on the vehicle - or to prove that I was made aware of said faults and accepted the car considering their presence - which I wasn't.

I agree that it is reasonable for an 11 year old car with 120K on the clock to require some work doing to it but I don't expect to be lied to about the condition of a car and as far as the law - and the six month statute is concerned - it is very much caveat vendor in this instance.

Caveat vendor for not checking the car in any way shape or form before selling it as "Fine" with "Nothing wrong".

I'm surprised there is such limited knowledge of these regulations on here, typically everyone's really clued up.

Or are these laws simply ignored by most vendors and consumers to the point of being completely pointless? Certainly seems to be in my case but thankfully I'm not the sort to roll over, back down, and let someone screw me because they think I'm not afraid to use the law to the extent it's intended.

Let us not forget that Protyre confirmed that the camber / toe was out by such a large amount that there must be underlying suspension issues just two weeks after purchase before even 100 miles had been put on the clock by me.

System

why didn't you take it back to the vendor at that point then?!? instead of driving it for another couple of months and then taking it for an inspection to see what the issue with the suspension was?
you obviously think that your interpretation of the SOGA is the only one... iirc I read something on the which website about second hand car sales specifically and they said that it has to be a "reasonable time" to reject the car rather than the six months applied to the sale of new goods, obviously your legal counsel know better than me so enjoy your court case, please keep us updated of the facts

motorguy

izools wrote: »

Just to confirm - I've had it confirmed by legal counsel that as it is within six months of point of sale the burden of proof is on the vendor to either prove beyond reasonable doubt that the faults weren't present at point of sale - which he wouldn't be able to as there were no pre-sale inspections or MOTs done on the vehicle - or to prove that I was made aware of said faults and accepted the car considering their presence - which I wasn't.

.

Keyword that you are overlooking - FAULT. Wear and tear is not a FAULT.

izools wrote: »

I agree that it is reasonable for an 11 year old car
with 120K on the clock to require some work doing to it but I don't expect to be lied to about the condition of a car and as far as the law - and the six month statute is concerned - it is very much caveat vendor in this instance.

Have you written proof you were lied to?

izools wrote: »

Caveat vendor for not checking the car in any way shape or form before selling it as "Fine" with "Nothing wrong".

I'm surprised there is such limited knowledge of these regulations on here, typically everyone's really clued up.

Trust me on this - we ARE really clued up on it. Just because noone on here is giving you the answer you want to hear doesnt make us ALL wrong.

You are taking a very black and white blinkered view to the SOGA that just so happens to suit the interpretation you want. Thats not how it is. There are many shades of grey and interpretation.

But primarily you are confusing the difference between wear and tear and a fault.

izools wrote: »

Or are these laws simply ignored by most vendors and consumers to the point of being completely pointless? Certainly seems to be in my case but thankfully I'm not the sort to roll over, back down, and let someone screw me because they think I'm not afraid to use the law to the extent it's intended.

No one has screwed you. You bought an old car that needs ongoing maintenance. You cant run a champagne lifestyle car on lemonade money.

izools wrote: »

Let us not forget that Protyre confirmed that the camber / toe was out by such a large amount that there must be underlying suspension issues just two weeks after purchase before even 100 miles had been put on the clock by me.

Why not raise it at the time with the dealer then?

Mark my words - you will exert a lot more than £1,000 worth of effort, time, stress and money chasing something that you only *might* win.

System

actually, just found it http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/the-second-hand--car-i-bought-has-a-problem/

a few interesting bits...

If there's a problem with a second hand car soon after you've bought it, for example, the car develops a problem you wouldn't expect for the car's age and mileage

But you only have a reasonable time to reject a second hand car. While there's no clear definition of what a reasonable time is – it probably needs to be within three to four weeks – less if it's an obvious problem

When you buy a second hand car from a dealer, you have the right, under the Sale of Goods Act, to expect the car to:

• be of satisfactory quality (taking into account its age and mileage)

so these wear and tear items on a high mileage cheap car you will have to prove aren't subject to the age and mileage (which they are)

motorguy

the_r_sole wrote: »

why didn't you take it back to the vendor at that point then?!? instead of driving it for another couple of months and then taking it for an inspection to see what the issue with the suspension was?
you obviously think that your interpretation of the SOGA is the only one... iirc I read something on the which website about second hand car sales specifically and they said that it has to be a "reasonable time" to reject the car rather than the six months applied to the sale of new goods, obviously your legal counsel know better than me so enjoy your court case, please keep us updated of the facts

No way could you reject the car after six months, but i dont think the O/P has mentioned that (yet) anyway?

Invariably we dont get kept up to date with the 'facts' - we either never hear from the threads again OR they come back and miraculously say the dealer gave them a big bag of cash as compensayshun for aggrieving them.

izools

I had contacted the dealer several times from the day the wheel alignment was done until they finally got back to me just under a fortnight ago.

I have proof of this in the form of emails sent and phone calls made on my bills.

I have a witness who will happily sign a sworn affidavit that I was told the car was fine, yes.

I had attempted to reject the car within a few weeks of purchase but the vendor ignored my calls and emails.

We'll see what he does to the car when he gets back to me and go from there.

If the dealer hadn't ignored me for two months running and hadn't lied to me about the warranty, lied to me about the condition of the car, and all round be an uncooperative rude nasty ignorant man from the get go despite my (initially) diplomatic approach, we wouldn't be here now.

There are a few grey areas, I agree with that and have conceded that from the get go, which is why I am asking that he only look at a tiny proportion of the litany of issues the vehicle has been diagnosed with.

Given what everyone has said I've actually taken the decision to let him do whatever he sees fit to the car and get the rest sorted out at my own expense - in all honesty it's a cracking car, it drives beautifully, it's comfortable, it's in overall very good cosmetic condition (I've had the wheel arch liners done myself), and it deserves to be looked after.

I shall be selling it soon anyway as my OH has ordered us a car on the Motability scheme - I just want to ensure whoever the car gets sold to doesn't have any nasty surprises like I did and it can't be denied that there was at least some dishonesty and failings on the part of TC Cars - lying about the warranty, failing to get back to me for 6-8 weeks.

motorguy

izools wrote: »

I had attempted to reject the car within a few weeks of purchase but the vendor ignored my calls and emails.

So how come you still have the car then? To reject the car means handing it back and giving him the keys, OR at very least stopping using the car totally and making it available for him to retrieve - neither of which you seem to have done as you continued driving it?

Did your 'legal advisor' not tell you that?