In Dispute With Dealer Over a Car Now Getting Legal! Advice Please!

laidbackgjr

I don't think it can be the dealers fault that you have no recovery breakdown cover, seeing as you can get cover for around £60 a year it makes sense to have cover.

pappadruid

Laidback, I agree. It is not the dealers fault I did not have cover (Sods Law, I usually am covered, but this had lapsed for one reason or another!Typical!!). However, I dont think I am being unreasonable to expect the dealer to meet the repair costs.

My main worry is that if I reject the initial offer of £350 and go for more, then they may decide to offer nothing and say see you in court fella!! It is a 50/50 situation. Are they trying to get rid of me cheaply by offering £350 and hoping I will accept it so they dont pay any more than they need to or will they say £350 is all youre getting pal, and if I push for more, will they withdraw all previous offers?

I might just flip a coin over it!! lol!!!

OddballJamie

laidbackgjr wrote: »

I don't think it can be the dealers fault that you have no recovery breakdown cover, seeing as you can get cover for around £60 a year it makes sense to have cover.

Although the dealer is partly to blame for selling a car that has broken down so soon. If they didn't realise that then they wouldn't be offering anything at all.

My point was to ask for more as they may come back with a counter offer rather than pay the lot. Hopefully the counter offer being £500-£600 covering the repair costs.

On the other hand, if you take the £350 from the garage and same from the warranty company then at least you've got the reassurance the clutch will last a good while for approx £500.

JonathanA

I'm not sure you'll get far with Misrepresentation. Advertised mileage 88,000, actual mileage under 90,000. That is not a huge discrepancy -if it was advertised with 50k miles that may be different. Did you actually view the car before purchase? If so, you would have noted the mileage and made a decision on whether to purchase or not.

I'm not sure that part of your claim would have any legs.

pappadruid

Jonathan, I agree to an extent. Having looked into it, any discrepancy, however small, constitutes a breach of the Act. This is just an additional piece of ammunition I would rather have in my arsenal than theirs!! Additionally, the advertisement stated that the car was a 'stunning example'. So stunning, it broke down in a major way after only 5 days and 400 miles!!

I did not notice the difference in mileage until I got home. I know it is very nit picky but little things like this make a difference in the eyes of the law!

Thanks for all replies so far!!

kelevraz

i think the part you will have the most problems with is explaining why you didnt wait the two weeks for them to be back, as someone has already said, in theory they are totally entitled to being able to see the full extent of the damage before any action was taken, by not allowing them to see the damage before you fixed it

there is CHANCE, that from this they could say - maybe you did not get it as cheap as they would have (i guess this may be down to them to prove)

you could take it to small claims, however, they could also turn around and say that had you incurred any costs from not being able to use the car for two weeks, then they would have paid those costs - ofcourse, it is always easier for these companies to talk about what they ''couldve/wouldve'' done

or they may just offer you a settlement of more, if i was you, personally, i think i would take it to small claims, the chances are that a court will believe it made more sense for you to get the repairs done. i guess its just a case of who presents themselves in the more logical manner? 1 - why didnt you wait and let us pay for any costs, 2 - two weeks without my car is not something i can do so i did what had to be done

good luck

pappadruid

Hi All,

Just an update on where I am at now. After a bit of soul searching I rejected the intial offer of £350. I wrote back to the legal company stating why I was sticking to my guns, as I believed I had a strong case that would hold up well in a small claims court, and I stated this fact in the letter also.

I have since had a reply back saying that the dealer will meet the full cost of repairs in order to keep the matter out of court, so I am happy (and relieved!) with that.

I have since submitted a claim to my credit card company under Section 75 CCA in an attempt to get my breakdown charges reimbursed. Nothing ventured, nothing gained I suppose!

I suppose the moral of this story is that you believe that you are in the right and can back it up under the Sale of Goods Act etc, then you can get what you are rightfully entitled to. Dont let the big boys get away with it!!

I hope this thread has helped other people who may be in the same position.

Thanks to everyone for your good advice with this!

:j

mattyprice4004

Has he paid up yet? If he gets an S75 letter before doing so, after agreeing to the full cost, he may just change his mind!

I personally think pursuing an S75 claim was uncalled for and disrespectful, especially after admitting you should have had breakdown cover. He's agreed to cover the costs when he didn't have to, as you did the repairs without his permission and giving him a chance to repair.

If you'd have gone through court you'd have had added stress and worry, plus you probably wouldn't have been awarded the full claim as you didn't follow the guidelines set in legislation.

Let's also not forget a clutch is a wear and tear item, so you've done better out of the deal. A clutch usually lasts between 80 and 120k depending on driving, so now you've got that distance with no clutch worries.

Please think about this, and do the right thing.

TradePro

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Has he paid up yet? If he gets an S75 letter before doing so, after agreeing to the full cost, he may just change his mind!

I personally think pursuing an S75 claim was uncalled for and disrespectful, especially after admitting you should have had breakdown cover. He's agreed to cover the costs when he didn't have to, as you did the repairs without his permission and giving him a chance to repair.

If you'd have gone through court you'd have had added stress and worry, plus you probably wouldn't have been awarded the full claim as you didn't follow the guidelines set in legislation.

Let's also not forget a clutch is a wear and tear item, so you've done better out of the deal. A clutch usually lasts between 80 and 120k depending on driving, so now you've got that distance with no clutch worries.

Please think about this, and do the right thing.

I agree 100%. You've had a 'right result' getting a brand new clutch in an old car, definitely don't need to screw the dealer any further.

pappadruid

Matty/Tradepro

I submitted the S75 claim against my cc company as I was led to believe that they were also liable for any losses, so they would meet any outstanding losses if successful. Are you saying that the cc company would pursue the dealer for these losses in addition to what he has already agreed to?

If this is the case, I would not have submitted a S75 as I thought the S75 claim with the cc company was separate to anything agreed with the dealer as they have some liability with this.

Im going to have to look into this a bit I think....

Thanks for the heads up!