Don't rely on the small claims court - it really is 'Buyer Beware'

burlington6

Very minor faults really

EdGasket

I've used small claims a couple of times and got what I wanted too.

londonTiger

john1974z wrote: »

Clutch well worn, tyres kept going flat, two tyres with cracking and crazing needed replacing asap, central locking broken after a couple of months, faulty battery...

Very little small claims court can do for you.

Clutch worn - test drive!
the rest - inspection
central locking - all electrics are a time bomb, they will all eventually stop working suddenly. Just takes 1 wire to chafe and break and !!!!!!, no longer working.

These aren't obvious issues like a clocked engine, faulty gearbox and other mechanical issues which an engineers report can realstically say must've been faulty from 6 months prior.

The clutch should last the life of the car - but if it has been driven rough it can get burnt out a 50K miles.

you should pick your battles wisely, in this instance the small claims court cannot side with you because all these issues can flare up after sale.

jimjames

debbiereynolds76 wrote: »

If the small claims court system worked then there would not be people like this trader acting like this.

Small claims courts offer a fig leaf of protection for the general public and function only to line the pockets of lawyers and provide employment for judges

The small claims court may or may not work, I've got no personal experience of it but I really don't think this case would prove it either way.

If you commission an independent engineer and they don't agree with your assessment you can hardly be surprised when the small claims court doesn't either. The court will presumably take the engineer's report as the expert view and make a decision on that.

It does seem like the OP may have been badly advised by CAB that ALL faults in first 6 months are present at purchase. Based on the comment that the car is being scrapped I'd assume it was rather old, you really can't expect that level of guarantee from any seller for 6 months on a car that is of scrap value.

The dealer may well be a reasonable one, I wouldn't expect them to pay out for things that they are not responsible for sorting.

arcon5

Age, mileage, price and description play a big part when it comes to buying second hand goods.

scaredofdebt

The "Sale of Goods Act" is pretty vague in many areas. For example, I can't quote it verbatim but it's something like "goods should last a reasonable length of time depending on the price paid and the use to which they are put".

In other words for a £500 banger don't expect any come back after more than a few days, but if you buy a £30k car you should expect it to last longer!

For some reason all manufacturers seem to offer a years guarantee as standard, some offer two years if you are lucky (I'm not talking about cars here) but it's purely arbitrary and that's why it states "your statutory rights are not affected".

Treat advice from CAB with a pinch of salt as they mean well but often don't know what they are talking about and solicitors will tell you whatever you want to hear if you are paying them.

motorguy

Firstly O/P - top lurking! Joined Sept 11, first post now! I guess we should hold out for responses any time soon?

john1974z wrote: »

Clutch well worn, tyres kept going flat, two tyres with cracking and crazing needed replacing asap, central locking broken after a couple of months, faulty battery...

This is all dependant on the age of the car and price paid, so if its a 6 month old Porsche at £50K your rights and expectations under the SOGA are different than if you paid £500 for a 15 year old fiesta.

Clutch "well"? worn? Clutches wear out - they're wear and tear items. Noone will cover that and again, i going to assume it wasnt slipping when you bought the car, so it "went" after a period of time?

Tyres going flat - leaking round the beading - my local tyre fitter strips the tyres off, sands the rim, refits and reseals for a few pounds. A common problem and not a refund worthy issue.

Tyres cracking - tricky one. They tyres are cracking on my golf and they're no more than a couple of years old. Not sure about that.

Central locking broken after a couple of months? So working at the time of sale? Chances are a battery problem, remote problem or a cracked wire. Not a refund worthy issue either and quite common.

"Faulty" battery? Really? or worn out? If its worn out then again wear and tear.

I'm going to bookmark this thread though - a lot of people automatically go around with this notion that once you wave terms like the "SOGA" and "not fit for purpose" and "wouldnt pass MOT therefore unroadworthy therefore the dealer has broken the law and must go to jail" and "citizens advice say" then you can go to court and you will WIN.

Clearly not so.

Sorry it didnt work out for you O/P, but really i'm not seeing or hearing anything here that makes me think these couldnt be construed as "reasonable" - and clearly thats what the court thought too.

motorguy

debbiereynolds76 wrote: »

If the small claims court system worked then there would not be people like this trader acting like this.

Small claims courts offer a fig leaf of protection for the general public and function only to line the pockets of lawyers and provide employment for judges

Sadly caveat emptor is the rule

I dont agree.

We dont know the age of the car, the miles on the car and the price paid for the car. All of these influence your rights under the SOGA.

Also, the bulk of the above issues are clearly wear and tear related, therefore not covered under the SOGA.

jimjames

motorguy wrote: »

I dont agree.

We dont know the age of the car, the miles on the car and the price paid for the car. All of these influence your rights under the SOGA.

Also, the bulk of the above issues are clearly wear and tear related, therefore not covered under the SOGA.

The independent engineer did know those things though. And they only thought the clutch was an issue not the myriad of other issues mentioned that as you say are wear and tear. Maybe if the OP had stuck to that they may have had more success and may not have even ended up at court.

motorguy

jimjames wrote: »

The independent engineer did know those things though. And they only thought the clutch was an issue not the myriad of other issues mentioned that as you say are wear and tear. Maybe if the OP had stuck to that they may have had more success and may not have even ended up at court.

Uh huh.

So an independent engineers report said the clutch was worn or slipping.

However a clutch is a wear and tear item so wouldn't be covered by soga anyway?