What is wrong with this car/advert

Joe_Horner

Browntoa wrote: »

did a report on the advert as there is a report "Cat C/D " option

Yeah, I did one last night. There's absolutely no reason at all for burying cat D as a "feature" like that except to be able to claim "it was in the advert" when a buyer finds out later.

Be interesting to see if Autotrader takes misleading ads any more seriously than a certain auction site does

Stoke

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Yeah, I did one last night. There's absolutely no reason at all for burying cat D as a "feature" like that except to be able to claim "it was in the advert" when a buyer finds out later.

Be interesting to see if Autotrader takes misleading ads any more seriously than a certain auction site does

In a certain sense it does reiterate the point of read, and read again. That said, it's nasty practice from the dealer. Mind you, my missus bought a car from a dealer early this year. He made no mention of the fact the car was a Cat C. Only when she sold it was she told it was a Cat C by the person buying it. He could have been very awkward about it...

colino

I'm pretty sure only the tailgate and rear bumper are the only panels not to have been repainted on that one. Buyer should have gone to Specsavers and remember, caveat emptor.

colino

Oh and by the way stoke, it is illegal for a trader not to volunteer something that would affect the buying decision of a consumer, like failing to categorically state it was a cat c or d.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

not allot gone into repairs most of the cash is in the paint.


passenger side clout.


give aways.


.passenger light recessed too far back misaligned (maybe an issue with beam aim come MOT).


.bumper misaligned (front valance is damaged or ill fitted).


.bonnet misaligned (either the hinges are bent or someones a tool when it comes to body panels)


.wing misaligned to pillar


.over spray passenger wheel arch.


.over spray under bumper near wheels 2 flaps which supposed be black.


.maybe just the pic but pic number three rear passenger wheel looks to have + camber and incorrect alignment.


.repainted everywhere except roof panel, spoiler, boot lid, rear bumper rear drivers quarter panel and sills.


.passenger door misaligned (proud at top shut lines don't match).


.passenger wing at front seems to angle in towards the edge of the recessed light suggesting front valance damaged.


.massive gap between grille and bumper slanting to drivers side (suggests bumper bracket broken, front valance misaligned bumper bar bent, possible hit to fan and aircon rad damage)


.all these combined, possible structure damage to front frame inner wing passenger and drivers side, this car will list left or right when driven.


.second hand dashboard (not clipped in correct where the dash meets lower storage/center console) suggests passenger and drivers airbag activation, replacement steering wheel.


.side airbags deployed, there a new patches in the side seat bolsters place easily picked up by the contrasting leather color (have they been replaced?) they gave it a good valet to try and bring the seats to the same color.


.passenger fog lamp new.


.passenger blackbumper grill fog lamp surround new.


.refurbished alloy wheel passenger side/filled up painted.


.tire passenger side has different tread pattern to rest of the set also which could amplify listing left if frame issues.


caution with this vehicle would be my view to anyone who goes to buy it not just because its been highlighted for fun here, if only external features repaired, you could easily throw 1.5k or more into front end repairs such as wishbone track ends link bar link bushes (possible subframe if wheel took a nasty hit), wheel hub, and frame alignment jigging, front valance, bumper bar, and brackets and
miscellaneous screws plugs and caps, aircon rad.

cardinalbiggles

Even if it wasn't accident damages 3k for a 10 year old Skoda that were selling for less than 10k new in 2009 is ridiculous.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Even if it wasn't accident damages 3k for a 10 year old Skoda that were selling for less than 10k new in 2009 is ridiculous.

2004 brand new would have cost 13k for top range one.


current prices around 2.4k-3.9k on 04 give or take a few hundred for miles condition history and spec on non cat car.


this one worth well worth a 30% reduction from going bottom rate due to poor rushed repair and probable frame issues.

Flying-High_2

Easy.... CAT D and gash undesirable colour.......... The Fabia VRS goes well but the trim is crap unless its the leather.

Tosca3

Well I know nothing about cars, I just drive them, but is the car going at 20mph whilst idling.

I will go and get my coat !!!!

Tigerprint

A search (cheapest first) of most cars on Autotrader will bring up Cat C & D cars first (with the words usually hidden in there somewhere) I'm always sceptical about the 'VOSA print out' line too (which I know is the MOT print-out) but I'm just concerned when I read it.... Full MOT print out sounds better. My dealings with VOSA have always been CAT B/C related hence the concern.

If I'm searching cars, I always bypass the first bunch of 'too good to be true' cars