Fault with new car bought from garage not local. SOGA enquiry.

artichi

motorguy wrote: »

The dealer hasnt sold an 'unroadworthy' car.

Trading Standards WONT take action - at least none that will help the O/P. they may well take an interest in the trader but they wont in any way 'force' the dealer to fix this particular car. they are only interested in the law, not in helping individuals.

"illegal activities"? Selling a car with 220,000 miles is going to have some wear and tear issues. Please keep in perspective.

How do you know that the car is roadworthy without inspecting it yourself?

Trading Standards will take court action and if the dealer is prosecuted, the court will be forced to pay compensation to the OP.

As the OP acknowledges they are plenty of wear and tear items that he is willing to accept. I'm refering to the NSF ball joint issue, which has been independently found to be unroadworthy. Regardless of age, mileage and MOT the dealer is still liable, unless he pointed out the extent of the faults.

There seems to be plenty of pro-dealer posts in this thread, I'm the one trying to keep it in perspective!

An OFT study in 2010 found that the current legisaltion is sufficient but a small minority of dealers lack the awareness of their responsibilities. In this case I think they are correct.

motorguy

artichi wrote: »

How do you know that the car is roadworthy without inspecting it yourself?

You're the one saying it isnt, not me. Its also a common tactic to say 'its not roadworthy' to put the fear of god into some poor customer.

Also, i note the O/P isnt saying he hears any noise / rattling / clunking from that area? So nothing imminently about to drop off?

Also, the case would then be against the garage who did the MOT work, NOT the trader. They sold the car with a full years MOT.

artichi wrote: »

Trading Standards will take court action and if the dealer is prosecuted, the court will be forced to pay compensation to the OP.

Trust me on this - they will NOT take court action on this. Why would they? Think it through :-

(a) the trader has asked to inspect the car, with a viewing presumably to making good any 'faults'.
(b) the trader had the car MOT'd. If that is sub standard its against the garage, not the trader.
(c) the trader is following its obligations under the SOGA to the letter.

If TS did make a full investigatation and found continuous wrongdoing by the dealer THEN they would take it to court, not over one simple incident where there is a grey area over 'wear and tear' on a 220,000 mile car.

Do you really really think TS have nothing better to do with their time than take someone to court over a poorly fitted ball joint? I love your optimism there.

artichi wrote: »

As the OP acknowledges they are plenty of wear and tear items that he is willing to accept. I'm refering to the NSF ball joint issue, which has been independently found to be unroadworthy. Regardless of age, mileage and MOT the dealer is still liable, unless he pointed out the extent of the faults.

Presumably then the O/P has stopped driving the car - got it trailered home or the car is still at the main dealers? No? Thought not.

If its a big issue, get the joint fixed in the meantime.

Also, the trader hasnt said they wont fix the faults - they asked the buyer to return the car so they can inspect it. Something they are perfectly entitled to do.

artichi wrote: »

There seems to be plenty of pro-dealer posts in this thread, I'm the one trying to keep it in perspective!

No. I'm trying to keep a sense of perspective.

Heres how it works - customer has issues, dealer has the right to inspect the issues and make good any that they deem to be 'faults'.

Heres how it doesnt work - main dealer examines car, puts fear of god into buyer over a ball joint, buyer contacts Trading Standards who send out a Crack SAS trained squad to drag the trader off to court whereby they are immediately fined £5,000.

artichi wrote: »

An OFT study in 2010 found that the current legisaltion is sufficient but a small minority of dealers lack the awareness of their responsibilities. In this case I think they are correct.

Yes, i agree. In this case the dealer knows his obligations, is invoking HIS rights under the SOGA to inspect the car rather than write a cheque for ££££s to a Volvo main dealer to repair a 220,000 mile car.

motorguy

For the avoidance of doubt, i'm going to reiterate my stance.

* IF the O/P is concerned about the roadworthiness of the ball joint, have it repaired by a local garage, and keep the receipt.
* You are obliged to let the dealer inspect the car. That is their right under the SOGA.
* Ask the trader for a loan car whilst they are inspecting / repairing yours.
* Take the car back, get the loan car, and agree how long the trader will have the car - i would suggest give them a week.
* Ask for a call from the dealer after they've examined it with their findings and what they plan to do.
* If you are happy with their proposal, let them make good the repairs.
* If not try to negotiate a solution.
* Failing that, take formal advice on your next move - probably seeking to reject OR making good the repairs yourself and taking the dealer to court.

I do not consider this a 'pro dealer' response, but a fair and sensible one.

motorguy

Ludlum wrote: »

main dealer has said it is unsafe to drive as a result of the ball joint

Is the car currently off the road then?

artichi

motorguy wrote: »

You're the one saying it isnt, not me. Its also a common tactic to say 'its not roadworthy' to put the fear of god into some poor customer.

Trust me on this - they will NOT take court action on this. Why would they? Think it through :-

(a) the trader has asked to inspect the car, with a viewing presumably to making good any 'faults'.
(b) the trader had the car MOT'd. If that is sub standard its against the garage, not the trader.
(c) the trader is following its obligations under the SOGA to the letter.

So you didn't say "The dealer hasnt sold an 'unroadworthy' car."? I'm repeating what an independent garage has said - that has seen the car.

Here's the first link I've just found:
http://news.warwickshire.gov.uk/blog/2013/05/29/unroadworthy-car-sold-for-400-cost-garage-owner-10000/
OK, the specifics are different but the process is the same.

While your advice is sound, it does mean that if the dealer makes good the repairs, then all evidence for TS is gone. Happy days for the OP but not for the next person that buys a car from him.

motorguy

artichi wrote: »

So you didn't say "The dealer hasnt sold an 'unroadworthy' car."? I'm repeating what an independent garage has said - that has seen the car.

You: "I believe in Tooth Fairies because someone on the internet say that someone told them there was"
Me: "there is no such thing as Tooth Fairies"
You: "Haha! Prove to me there isnt!!"

artichi wrote: »

Here's the first link I've just found:
http://news.warwickshire.gov.uk/blog/2013/05/29/unroadworthy-car-sold-for-400-cost-garage-owner-10000/
OK, the specifics are different but the process is the same.

Sounds like a particularly dodgy guy who willfully sold a massively unroadworthy vehicle and tried to avoid his responsibilities under the SOGA by stating "sold as seen" on the invoice and tried to hide behind a trading name. I'd say TS have been watching him for a while.

The trader here is following to the letter their obligations under the SOGA?

artichi wrote: »

While your advice is sound, it does mean that if the dealer makes good the repairs, then all evidence for TS is gone. Happy days for the OP but not for the next person that buys a car from him.

So all cars that subsequently develop faults, IMMEDIATELY the dealer should be taken to court by TS??????

Where does it say that in the SOGA????

Seriously, CATCH-YOURSELF-ON.

The pragmatic approach is let the dealer have a look - which is their right under the SOGA - and see what can be sorted out amicably.

ludlum

Hi all thanks for the massive response. Albeit it varied which is good.

Re the NSF ball joint, I have had I inspected by a local independent garage who noticed it straight away, who's was a garage in the next town from me while is there killing time.

Didn't want to keep driving there for no reason so took it to a small Volvo main dealer and they simply confirmed what was said.

It is gone local garage that I have asked to quote for repairs and the selling garage knows that as I know he would not fork out for repairs.

The Garage said it had been obviously caused the mechanic some trouble getting on and in doing so, the bolt has had it's thread Cross and its basically been shoehorned on, damaging the sub axle in the process, which is why costs are mounting.

I had two front tyres put on yesterday and while it was in the air, took some pics of the two sides to compare and sent them to the dealer.

I just really want to avoid a long drawn out drama, I don't want to see any one in court really, and I don't expect an 8 year old car to be perfect.

D you think I will have much luck in writing back and just asking him to fix the ball joint issues if I put the rest down to wear and tear as that ball joint is the only thing that really concerns me.

laidbackgjr

ludlum wrote: »

I just really want to avoid a long drawn out drama, I don't want to see any one in court really, and I don't expect an 8 year old car to be perfect.

The way to make this least drawn out is to follow the dealers request to return the car for them to inspect and fix, this is always the first step under SOGA, only if this doesn't work do you have a problem.

It's not the dealers responsibility to get the car back to them, you should either return it, use your breakdown cover to return it or pay a recovery company to return it.

andy.m_2

Get the ball joint fixed, should be £100, I would be pretty confident that if you gave the supplying dealer the receipt for that and asked him to cover it, but you'll swallow the rest, he will most likely play ball.

motorguy

ludlum wrote: »

I just really want to avoid a long drawn out drama, I don't want to see any one in court really, and I don't expect an 8 year old car to be perfect.

D you think I will have much luck in writing back and just asking him to fix the ball joint issues if I put the rest down to wear and tear as that ball joint is the only thing that really concerns me.

I would consider taking the car back and letting him have a look at the issues. He may well do more than you think - although i know theres the big inconvenience involved.

If you did the ball joint prior to going, but took lots of pics, i'd say chances are he'd back pay you for that over and above anything else he'll do.

Other than that i'd get a quote for sorting out the ball joint then ring him and ask if he would pay that, and you will sort the rest out yourself.

Pity you live so far away from him though. There are definitely things in there he should be sorting.