Faulty used car (third time) now over 6 months

Tilt

AdrianC wrote: »

Selespeed was launched in '99, and was used widely across Fiat group cars. It has long had an _abysmal_ reputation for reliability.

Even if you are correct, how does this help the OP? The car was described as being in "good condition" when it probably wasn't as the fault was most likely already there. Then the seller as clearly attempted to repair it on the cheap, something you can't do with one of these.

If the seller wasn't capable of understanding the "mechanics" and the subsequent potential repair costs of what he was selling, then he shouldn't have sold it.

arcon5

The car probably was in good condition for an old car with 85k miles on the clock.

I don't understand this it shouldn't break down when I only bought it 6 months ago logic

sinbad182

Tilt wrote: »

Even if you are correct, how does this help the OP? The car was described as being in "good condition" when it probably wasn't as the fault was most likely already there. Then the seller as clearly attempted to repair it on the cheap, something you can't do with one of these.

If the seller wasn't capable of understanding the "mechanics" and the subsequent potential repair costs of what he was selling, then he shouldn't have sold it.

Equally if the buyer did no research into what they were getting into they shouldn't have bought it.

I had a 2000 Alfa 156 Selespeed, it was the most appalling vehicle I've beer owned. Ended up doing the exact same thing as the OPs car

Tilt

sinbad182 wrote: »

Equally if the buyer did no research into what they were getting into they shouldn't have bought it.

I had a 2000 Alfa 156 Selespeed, it was the most appalling vehicle I've beer owned. Ended up doing the exact same thing as the OPs car

The buyer isn't the expert in the eyes of basic consumer law... a trader is. A trader is expected to know what he is selling and IF a particular make/model of car is renowned to have a particular potential problem, then the trader should be the one doing the "research" into the vehicle he is buying for the purpose of selling for a profit. Part of that process surely includes assessing the potential repair costs should the car becomes faulty shortly after sale.

On a foot note; I had a friend who also had a 156 Sellespeed and he says the exact opposite to your conclusion. I also know of someone (who I don't know personally) who has the same model as the OP and I hear that he has no such problems.

sinbad182

Tilt wrote: »

The buyer isn't the expert in the eyes of basic consumer law... a trader is. A trader is expected to know what he is selling and IF a particular make/model of car is renowned to have a particular potential problem, then the trader should be the one doing the "research" into the vehicle he is buying for the purpose of selling for a profit. Part of that process surely includes assessing the potential repair costs should the car becomes faulty shortly after sale.

The law doesn't expect the trader to be an expert anymore than it expects a TV salesman to know how a flat screen tv works. It expects a trader to sell a car fit for purpose and without hiding any known (to the best of their knowledge) faults.

If a car turns out not to be fit for purpose, the trader would be expected to put it right within reason, which in this case has been attempted. The law would not demand a new selespeed unit be put into a 87k, 10 year old car. That would be up to the dealers discretion.

The OP has unfortunately bought a dog of a car, like I and thousands of others who were taken in by fancy pants selespeed cars, and nothing they or the dealer does will change that - take it from someone who's actually experienced this issue.

On a foot note; I had a friend who also had a 156 Sellespeed and he says the exact opposite to your conclusion. I also know of someone (who I don't know personally) who has the same model as the OP and I hear that he has no such problems.

Cool story. Completely irrelevant to the thousands of people who have been let down by this famously bad and unreliable model, but yeah, cool story.

Tilt

I didn't contribute to this thread to start an argument or to score points against other members... I came to offer advice to the OP.

The fact that some people have a low opinion of Fiat, Alfa Romeo or Selespeed is irrelevant to the OP's situation. The reality is that the car was sold as being in good condition and sold by a trader who clearly has no real experience in the fact that this particular model with this transmission requires a specialist repairer to fix the problem.

By selling the car as being in "good condition", you expect the car to be fit for the purpose which it clearly wasn't as it failed after just 2 weeks. I did say in my very first post that it would be ultimately for a judge to decide the outcome but after 'reasonable opportunity', the seller has failed to repair satisfactorily so IMO, the OP should be looking at either getting it fixed at a Fiat dealer (at least with a contribution from the seller) or seek a refund.

I also said in my first post that the OP should seek face to face advice (via CAB if necessary) to further look into his options.

arcon5

I wouldn't say op has bought a dog of a car... Just a car that's at a dangerous age in its life. IMO 80-100k mile is a dangerous age, lots of wear and tear has amassed over the years, lots of crucial components are nearing a stage where they may need replacing depending on its history , clutch, flywheel, water pump, injectors are just a few. And of course smaller but still crucial components like sensors around the car etc.

You don't spend say £2k on a car and think ye that's it, should do me a couple of years. You spend this much knowing its a machine at the end of the day that needs constant maintaining from the second you buy it. Newer cars not so much because they've not been subject to much wear.

It's unfortunate this part has failed... But the mere fact it's failed doesn't necessarily make the dealer liable... What does if it's prematurely failed and due to an inherent fault.
So the big question really is... How long would a reasonable person expect this component to last?

As for the dealer putting seconds in, I see nothing wrong with this. Unfortunate it only lasted 6 months though.

As for cab, personally I don't rank them too highly when dealing with more complex cases like this. Unless they know not just the law but particulars of the vehicle purchased and specifically the failed component.

AdrianC

Tilt wrote: »

By selling the car as being in "good condition", you expect the car to be fit for the purpose which it clearly wasn't as it failed after just 2 weeks.

SOGA does not expect or demand absolute perfection and reliability from all used purchases. It carries a test of reasonable expectations. This was a ten year old car (low expectation), albeit at a highish price for the model (raised expectation), but of a model with notoriously poor reliability from the transmission (reduced expectation). It worked just fine at the time of sale and for a period after that - then failed. So was the fault pre-existing? Was the dealer's response wrong? It's a ten year old car - is expecting him to replace a component with an brand new, not reconditioned, replacement at a fair proportion of the purchase price realistic? Or would a good used or recon component be fair? Is failing to conform to unrealistic expectations over a single failure sufficient grounds to demand return of the car?

Tilt

AdrianC wrote: »

SOGA does not expect or demand absolute perfection and reliability from all used purchases.

I am well aware of that. But it does expect the car to be fit for the purpose and be of reasonable quality. In this case the car is neither.

AdrianC wrote: »

It carries a test of reasonable expectations. This was a ten year old car (low expectation), albeit at a highish price for the model (raised expectation), but of a model with notoriously poor reliability from the transmission (reduced expectation).

I am aware of this also. The "test" would be conducted in court from various pieces of evidence provided. The biggest consideration surely would be that the car was described as being in "good condition". This would suggest that the seller had fully tested it and had some knowledge about it.

AdrianC wrote: »

It worked just fine at the time of sale and for a period after that - then failed. So was the fault pre-existing? Was the dealer's response wrong? It's a ten year old car - is expecting him to replace a component with an brand new, not reconditioned, replacement at a fair proportion of the purchase price realistic? Or would a good used or recon component be fair? Is failing to conform to unrealistic expectations over a single failure sufficient grounds to demand return of the car?

The onus is on the seller to prove the fault was not present at the point of sale. Due to this model having (as you put it) a history of un-reliability (something a consumer would not be expected to know), it could be argued that the seller knew there was a potential problem with the transmission. AFAIK (having worked in a Fiat/Alfa dealership), the transmission does not normally "fail" instantly, there are symptoms before it completely fails. It seems that the OP can confirm this following the first "repair" was carried out.

As far as your other questions are concerned, SOGA would not expect (or provide) 'betterment', but it would expect the seller to rectify accordingly, and/or come to a satisfactory and amicable conclusion with the OP. The alternative (as I have previously stated) is have a judge decide the outcome.

I say again; the OP should seek face to face advice from either a consumer-specialist solicitor or approach CAB who will refer him to trading standards to confirm his options.