Been ripped off by a local dealer - where do I stand?

motorguy

TradePro wrote: »

I don't think you can say that for sure Paul without knowing the make/model/age/mileage.

They may have bought a car worth much more than £995 but that just needed a battery and a brake bleed...

I know it's unlikely, but this is why I feel the info has some relevance.

Don't forget, some people are unreasonable and again it may be the OP in this instance.

Oh i know what you're saying.

But bear in mind though that the advert was "a glowing report and had an MOT till 2014 and been serviced every year."

However they were "done over" because once they went to sign for the car they were told by the seller "that any car under 1k has to have 'FAULTY' written across some paperwork which I had to sign".

This is in clear breach of the SOGA and something trading standards would jump all over.

You simply cant describe the car in an advert as being of merchantable quality (to the point of it being a "glowing report") and then at the moment of handover have the buyer sign some paperwork with "faulty" written across it.

On that basis the O/P was "done over"

fivetide

Good work here from Paul. I have been critical in the past, he's usually very quick to defend traders but in this case OP his inside knowledge is very much on your side. Listen to the man.

motorguy

TradePro wrote: »

They may have bought a car worth much more than £995 but that just needed a battery and a brake bleed...

Then that should clearly have been written on the invoice.

Any time i sell a car with known faults (sometimes people want discount in lieu of rectification) then i would list the faults

"car will need tail light replaced as it is broken - buyer aware and car priced accordingly"

or

"noise from rear passenger side wheel - may be wheel bearing - buyer to investigate and take remedial action if required at their cost"

TradePro

Yes, when you put it like that Paul, I guess so.

There is of course though potentially a part of the story that we haven't been informed of, as there almost always is.

motorguy

TradePro wrote: »

Yes, when you put it like that Paul, I guess so.

There is of course though potentially a part of the story that we haven't been informed of, as there almost always is.

Yes, of course. There is two sides to every story.

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

Good work here from Paul. I have been critical in the past, he's usually very quick to defend traders but in this case OP his inside knowledge is very much on your side. Listen to the man.

Thank you.

:beer:

Steve1977

cheers for the feedback guys. There has been a little confusion in this thread though...so just for clarity.

I wasnt told it was faulty, I was told they had to write 'FAULTY' on the paperwork of any car below 1k. But I was told the car was a great drive, "nice little runner" as Arthur Daly would say.

AFTER I PAID...I was told the brake pedal is low.

So I wasnt told of any problems whatsoever, until after I paid.
Also appreciate I'v perhaps been a little naive to say the least, but going to put this all down to experience.

I will contact trading standards but as others have said, whether I actually get any money back is another thing. However it'll make me that slightly bit more comfortable if someone actually investigates this place.

Cheers to Motorguy, your insistence that they are upto no good is actually quite comforting and the neccessary push to get me to do something.


Trust me though, it could have been far worse. I had to visit them to pick up a fiver they owed me and whilst there, a deal was taking place... 8k for a Porsche eek.

Joe_Horner

Steve1977 wrote: »

I will contact trading standards but as others have said, whether I actually get any money back is another thing. However it'll make me that slightly bit more comfortable if someone actually investigates this place.

If only more people took that attitude! :beer: