Bought a Used Car TODAY

topdaddy_2

Will the op be back to tell us how it went?

sh0597

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Who decides whether it is a major fault, the buyer, the dealer or the court?
On a £4000 car a dealer might think a major fault is the car splitting to two halves or engine exploding, I would argue a major fault be the gearbox dropping in the car meaning its undrivable if gears can't be engadged. Dealer could say its just a mount. On the other hand, the dash might just show a faulty airbag light which initially you might consider minor, but if every airbag needed replacing (on an IQ thats 9 @ £400 each) thats £3600 to make it roadworthy and although a 'minor' fault in that the car will still stop, start and drive fine, it will be far more expensive to sort than a gearbox mount.

It'll obviously be the court that would decide. I don't think the OP could reject this car. The only way a hard-line approach would work is if the dealer couldn't be bothered with the hassle.

motorguy

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Who decides whether it is a major fault, the buyer, the dealer or the court?
On a £4000 car a dealer might think a major fault is the car splitting to two halves or engine exploding, I would argue a major fault be the gearbox dropping in the car meaning its undrivable if gears can't be engadged. Dealer could say its just a mount. On the other hand, the dash might just show a faulty airbag light which initially you might consider minor, but if every airbag needed replacing (on an IQ thats 9 @ £400 each) thats £3600 to make it roadworthy and although a 'minor' fault in that the car will still stop, start and drive fine, it will be far more expensive to sort than a gearbox mount.

Yes, and therein lies the problem. A major fault to a customer could be an entirely different thing to a major fault to a trader (or in the eyes of the law) - as can be seen by the O/P's conclusions on the situation.

Hence why some of us were saying that its not the light on that makes it a major fault, its what it might take to repair it. It could require the car to be off the road for a fortnight or it could require a new engine, or it could take several attempts to fix. The problem being that if it does go to court it would be hard to make a rejection stick if the dealer is saying all it took was a DPF flush.

Relative to you airbag scenario - the airbag light being on is not a basis for rejection, in fact, technically neither is replacing every airbag in the car, if the dealer is happy to pay it. BUT you could argue that if you've only had the car a matter of hours and its going to need pulled apart to stick 9 airbags in it, then that is unacceptable and you are rejecting the car.

BeenThroughItAll

topdaddy wrote: »

Will the op be back to tell us how it went?

Probably not... he doesn't have much luck buying motors, does he?


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3204646

OddballJamie

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Probably not... he doesn't have much luck buying motors, does he?


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3204646

Or the previous car to that
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2839132

Almost a bike in the past too.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3438267

atrixblue.-MFR-.

motorguy wrote: »

Ok, heres how it is.

If a car develops a fault, the trader must be given the opportunity to inspect the car. Upon inspection, if he decides that it is a fault and not just wear and tear (not applicable in this instance) then he can opt to refund, repair or replace. This is HIS choice and based on whats best for his business. So, for example if you bought a £1,000 car and it needed a £2,000 repair, then the dealer would probably opt to refund or replace with a similar acceptable car.

Your other option is to REJECT the car, on the basis that you have not yet accepted it. Acceptance is not considered to have happened for several weeks after purchase. The longer after purchase you try to reject the less likely it is to be a valid rejection. But typically it might be 4-6 weeks.

BUT you cannot just reject the car for a minor fault. It has to be a major failure, and you must put the car beyond use. ie, you would need to hand the car back to the dealer along with the keys and a letter of rejection. OR a letter of rejection and demonstrate the car is not being used - parked up in a driveway or at a garage. You CANNOT reject a car and continue to drive it. This is important should it end up in court. You cant have rejected a car if you are still driving around in it.

The dealer may not accept your rejection of the car. If thats the case, you would have to take it through the courts. Rocking up and saying i reject the car because there is an engine management light on does not mean the dealer HAS to refund you.

IF it turns out that the car has a major fault, upon the dealer inspecting it, you could potentially reject at that point - "this car needs a new cylinder head and turbo, therefore i am rejecting it". OR if it takes several attempts and its still not resolved then you could reject it on that basis.

If it turns out to be a DPF needs cleaned or an EGR valve problem then thats not a major fault.

One thing i wouldnt be doing is poking around at the car. The O/P has said they've had a code reader on it, etc, etc. I would not be doing that. The dealer could wash his hands of the situation and say the car has been tampered with.

Personally - those 1.6HDIs are a torture of an engine. the fault is probably linked to the DPF, but this in turn will have clogged the EGR valve, which in turn makes the turbo work harder which can cause it to fail (along with poor oilways). Also the ECU is not very good at giving specifics of the fault causing the problem, so you end up having to "fix" or replace several things before actually hitting the problem. This can be costly and time consuming.

I resold one of these in 110BHP XSI form with 57k miles and a full peugeot history. Pig of a thing. Took us about 5 attempts and £1,000 to sort out a very similar problem.

I dont think the O/P is helping themselves with their attitude. I think it could very easily entrench the situation and the dealer could just stall and play hardball for months.

Conversely though, theres a small chance the dealer will think "i cant be arsed dealing with this tool" and give him his money back.

Nothing in SOGA specifies the seller has options, the Buyer requests repair replace of refund. as specified in SOGA F4048B, this is often the misconception that a seller has options to give a buyer, the buyer is under no obligation to take any offer by the seller.


Soga refers to no mention of any MAJOR fault present as conditions or minimum limit as a basis to reject a faulty goods.


What you describe is the basis on fairness a court would consider, which has happened many times in case law that a court would look at both side and dish out the fairness stance, who did what, how was is approached, who offered what to the table pre court and how could he effectively apply both fairness and be within the legislation in his ruling.


Less not forget, Acceptance paragraph 35 here, it has already been tried and tested in court by traders/dealers that a short test drive and picking up the car and paying for it is acceptance, the courts say its not acceptance in this method, the OP bought the car 9 hours later its developed a fault, he/she is entitled to reject it, on this basis alone no matter what the fault is.


So is the OP entitled to reject it: Yes under acceptance of SOGA
does it matter what level of fault its is: NO the car is displaying a fault as it happened not long after purchase they would be entitled to reject it having not accepted it.


Now it would seem more balanced in your this is how goes theory, and allot case's has set the bar almost to this level.


allot of consumer action groups would recommend that your advice and theory is done this way so if it got to court you stand a better chance of swinging the reasonable person test to go your way.


But recommendations by such groups has got confused and merged with law so people think it is LAW, when its not hence why allot of people here think you MUST give a dealer the chance to repair, when infact it is the buyer who requests one, and that it isn't a MUST at all.


I totally agree with your view, its much more balanced way of trying to deal with things.

Captaincodpiece

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Nothing in SOGA specifies the seller has options, the Buyer requests repair replace of refund. as specified in SOGA F4048B, this is often the misconception that a seller has options to give a buyer, the buyer is under no obligation to take any offer by the seller.


Soga refers to no mention of any MAJOR fault present as conditions or minimum limit as a basis to reject a faulty goods.


What you describe is the basis on fairness a court would consider, which has happened many times in case law that a court would look at both side and dish out the fairness stance, who did what, how was is approached, who offered what to the table pre court and how could he effectively apply both fairness and be within the legislation in his ruling.


Less not forget, Acceptance paragraph 35 here, it has already been tried and tested in court by traders/dealers that a short test drive and picking up the car and paying for it is acceptance, the courts say its not acceptance in this method, the OP bought the car 9 hours later its developed a fault, he/she is entitled to reject it, on this basis alone no matter what the fault is.


So is the OP entitled to reject it: Yes under acceptance of SOGA
does it matter what level of fault its is: NO the car is displaying a fault as it happened not long after purchase they would be entitled to reject it having not accepted it.


Now it would seem more balanced in your this is how goes theory, and allot case's has set the bar almost to this level.


allot of consumer action groups would recommend that your advice and theory is done this way so if it got to court you stand a better chance of swinging the reasonable person test to go your way.


But recommendations by such groups has got confused and merged with law so people think it is LAW, when its not hence why allot of people here think you MUST give a dealer the chance to repair, when infact it is the buyer who requests one, and that it isn't a MUST at all.


I totally agree with your view, its much more balanced way of trying to deal with things.

Have a read of 35 (1)(A).

Taking the keys and driving off maybe considered to be accepting it. You keep going on about time limits, there isn't one mentioned in the act certainly not 9 hours.

The whole legislation needs to be taken into account and not the bits that fit either argument.

Let's be real, if a dealer put 12 months ticket on a car and a headlight bulb blew on the way home is that reason to reject it? Car is no longer roadworth and wouldn't pass another test.

topdaddy_2

OddballJamie wrote: »

Or the previous car to that
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2839132

Almost a bike in the past too.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3438267

They ought to take someone knowledgeable when buying a vehicle

poppasmurf_bewdley

I once had a Vauxhall Astra and the engine management light came on one day whilst I was driving the car. It stayed on for two days and then never reappeared in the seven years that I kept the car for.

These lights have a tendency to come on and off for no reason.

OddballJamie

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I once had a Vauxhall Astra and the engine management light came on one day whilst I was driving the car. It stayed on for two days and then never reappeared in the seven years that I kept the car for.

These lights have a tendency to come on and off for no reason.

If a Peugeot/Citroen diesel does it, do not ignore. It generally means it's about to go into limp mode when you're miles from home.