Buying a car 'as is' from a dealer

atrixblue.-MFR-.

OP if this vehicle has been bought as a hobby fixer upper for you both to get involved in to do together then this is an opportunity to for you both.


there are people here that can guide you through certain prceedures if you run into a problem.


but please, find a Haynes manual for that year and model, don yourself some latex gloves some old clothes and tuck yourselves in to it is my opinion on the weekends. It maybe a 2002 car, but if you fix the faults as cheaply as possible, then you could have a profit in store for yourselves to get something more cheaper to "restore" or have a vehicle that you know I fixed and done to keep.

arcon5

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Athough he also has to ensure the roadworthiness of the car under RTA s.75. Ignorance of the fault isn't a defence against that section, which applies to trade and private sellers alike, but might be allowed in mitigation if the fault wasn't likely to be known using reasonable diligence.

A non-operating SRS warning light doesn't in itself make the car unroadworthy but it's a strong clue to a fault with the SRS system, which does. If, behind the tape, the light is indicating a fault (why else would it be taped?) then the car is unroadworthy for the purposes of that section.

In this case, the absence of any visible warning lights should have made the need to investigate clear to any competent trader so ignorance would be very hard to claim even in mitigation.

No.

S75(6) also states a trader shall not be convicted if he has reasonable believe it wouldn't be used until the vehicle is put right.

Simply selling an unroadworthy isn't illegal.

Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) above shall not apply in relation to a person who, in the course of a trade or business— (a)exposes a vehicle or trailer for sale, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that any prospective purchaser would be aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful, or
(b)offers to sell a vehicle or trailer, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the offer was made was aware of that fact.

And it clearly states if they make the buyer aware of faults then they can avoid prosecution.

Op states:

I knew it needed some work but was confident I could complete the work myself as it was a few minor things.

So they can't really now argue they was unaware of the cars far from perfect condition. Especially since the advert stated 'as is', not exactly a description of a perfectly functioning car.

Arguing the dealer has acted unlawfully under RTA won't really get anywhere.

But as i've already said - sounds like misrepresentation to me. So I think in this instance op would have rights, since even when buying faulty goods you can expect it to be as described.

Joe_Horner

The defence for telling about faults only applies if they make it clear hat the car is not fit to be driven until the faults are fixed, and take "reasonable steps" to ensure it isn't.

The Act itself is clear on that, and the relevant Trading Standards guidance is even clearer about the sort of things that might amount to "reasonable steps" - up to and including refusing the sale if it's clear that the buyer intends to drive it away.

The dealer may have mentioned faults to the OP, but he doesn't seem to have mentioned airbag problems other than the switch for the test fuction not working.

I'm guessing that he did not say "here are the keys, now you'll have to trailer it away cos it's not roadworthy". OP, feel free to correct me if he did do that.....

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The dealer may have mentioned faults to the OP, but he doesn't seem to have mentioned airbag problems other than the switch for the test fuction not working.

I'm guessing that he did not say "here are the keys, now you'll have to trailer it away cos it's not roadworthy". OP, feel free to correct me if he did do that.....

The O/P bought what seems to have been a close to scrapworthy car at a bargain price from a dealer who has taken it as a trade in.

Whilst technically the O/P has "rights", he may well have to go to court to get those rights exercised. Hows it going to look turning up in court complaining about a 15+ year old car costing a few hundred? And how much time / effort / money is it going to cost to get there?

The O/P took a chance, bought an old car with a view to "fixing it up" and it now turns out it needs a few pounds more spent than was first thought - on common faults with easy fixes.

mrmot

You can make an electrical circuit up to fool the occupancy sensor for less than £5. All that the sensor does is to tell the SRS system to not fire the airbag for the seat that is unoccupied, so at worst with this circuit fitted it'll fire the air bag for a vacant seat.

A SRS warning light which doesn't work or appear to not work is (as already mentioned) not a MOT failure.

force_ten

motorguy wrote: »

The O/P bought what seems to have been a close to scrapworthy car at a bargain price from a dealer who has taken it as a trade in.

Whilst technically the O/P has "rights", he may well have to go to court to get those rights exercised. Hows it going to look turning up in court complaining about a 15+ year old car costing a few hundred? And how much time / effort / money is it going to cost to get there?

The O/P took a chance, bought an old car with a view to "fixing it up" and it now turns out it needs a few pounds more spent than was first thought - on common faults with easy fixes.

to be fair to the o/p the car in question is a 2002 BMW 320 compact so even in poor condition it still probably cost a fair chunk of change, they bought the car knowing that the parking sensors were faulty and the car had a poor interior, the fact that somebody has gone to the trouble of hiding warning lights to make the car more attractive to sell is the main problem here

it is sad really that even though the o/p should have rights in this case it is highly unlikely that the selling dealer will do the right thing by them

as a note to the o/p in future when you go to look at a car, if the interior has been unloved and badly abused chances are the rest of the car is probably the same

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Whilst technically the O/P has "rights", he may well have to go to court to get those rights exercised. Hows it going to look turning up in court complaining about a 15+ year old car costing a few hundred? And how much time / effort / money is it going to cost to get there?

The O/P took a chance, bought an old car with a view to "fixing it up" and it now turns out it needs a few pounds more spent than was first thought - on common faults with easy fixes.

In general I agree, MG, too many people buy cheap expecting faultless. But that doesn't seem to be the OP's situation in this case.

We're all assuming it's a seat sensor problem, but it may well not be - the loose wires are just as likely to be from where the last woner (or the dealer) started to investigate that common fault only to find that it's a more serious issue.

Regardless of whether or not an unlit warning light would fail an MOT, the fact that the lights have been taped over [ii]and[/i] the test switch disabled suggests strongly that there's a real fault with the system. That makes the car unroadworthy. It could also, potentially, open the Op up to liability if there was an accident and faulty airbags either injured or increased injury.

End of the day, the dealer had noticed the disabled switch (he told the OP it didn't work) assuming he didn't actually disable it himself. He should also have noticed the lack of light son start-up but chose not to investigate. He then made an illegal "sold as seen" disclaimer in relation to the sale to a consumer.

Regardless of what unreasonable expectations some customers might have, it's this sort of dealer who makes life a hell of a lot harder for the ones trying to scratch a living by giving customers at the lower end of the market fair service.

As long as people take the attitude of "what did you expect" in terms of the absolute basics (a roadworthy vehicle that can be driven legally and doesn't explode 5 minutes later), dealers like this will continue to make it harder for the decent ones as well as for the general public.

Joe_Horner

mrmot wrote: »

A SRS warning light which doesn't work or appear to not work is (as already mentioned) not a MOT failure.

No it's not, but driving with the (almost certainly) defective SRS system that the taped-over lights and glued-up test switch are hiding is an offence, whether or not the car was bodged through an MOT.

[Deleted User]

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

you now have the added issue of the odemeter having to be replaced and the clocks corrected for true mileage due to silicone being bunged in it.

You don't have to set a new clock, to the vehicle's mileage.

SunReader

motorguy wrote: »

No. Absolutely not.

A trade must "warrant the condition of the car" - that is to say, the car must be as described, that is very different from offering a warranty.

Yes, badly worded and wrong - what i meant to say is that using a 'trade sale' to get around statutory obligations selling to the public is not allowed, unless the buyer is a genuine trader, as I understand it.

The 'strictly speaking' bit, meaning I've done it myself both as a trader and a private buyer. The difference is I won't go crying SOGA and calling trading standards if i get stung, which is always the risk when buying cheap.

OP better to spend weeks looking for the best, rather than months and ££££ trying to fix up a lemon.