Bought a Used Car TODAY

Captaincodpiece

I wonder if our op will be back with an update or whether he's been locked up for giving the dealer a matching pair of broken legs.

motorguy

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.

Yes, it does.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Section F40 48B

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Translated - its up to the seller as to how they handle it.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

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

Yes, it does

[F2015A Modification of remedies for breach of condition in non-consumer cases.

(1)Where in the case of a contract of sale—

(a)the buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15 above, but

(b)the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them,

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

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.

No. Absolutely not. You have no right to reject for a minor fault, and as detailed above in the SOGA.

From Trading Standards website

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/glos/con1item.cgi?file=*ADV0003-1011.txt

Action to take
If you have bought a vehicle from a trader, which turns out to be faulty or you think has been misdescribed, you need to take action straight away.

If you have only had the vehicle for a very short time, have only driven a few miles and you discover a major problem,

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

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.

No. Nonsense. You cant reject it for ANY reason no matter what the fault is. Think that through - how dumb would it be if that were the law? And its not, quote above.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

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.

There is some confusion on this thread between acceptance of the goods and repairs to a fault.

You CANNOT reject the goods for a minor defect.

You CAN expect a defect to be repaired by the seller.

ERGO, in this case, as the car cant be rejected for what amounts to a light on on the dash at this stage, THEN you are into the realms of allowing the seller to inspect the goods and then take it from there. IF its a major fault OR it takes several times to repair then you could seek to reject.

Bear in mind rejection isnt a "get out of jail free" card that you can wave at the seller and he is obliged to get his cheque book out. If he declines the rejection then you are into a world of pain doing without the car until such times as it FINALLY gets to court. And THEN you're in a situation whereby the seller is there saying "its a light on on the dash, the buyer was unreasonable and wouldnt let us inspect the car, and we would have happily made any repairs necessary". Whos looking unreasonable then?

Probably the buyers biggest hope is they come across to the seller like the unreasonable !!!!! they are on here, and he cant be arsed with the hassle, gives them their money back and tells them not to let their !!! hit the door on the way out.

motorguy

OddballJamie wrote: »

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.

They are pigs of engines.

When i was trading we refused to underwrite 1.6HDI's for dealers and we wouldnt accept them as trade ins.

motorguy

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

I wonder if our op will be back with an update or whether he's been locked up for giving the dealer a matching pair of broken legs.

I suspect as he didnt get the answers he wanted, he'll not be back. Particularly if the dealer does play ball.

Captaincodpiece

motorguy wrote: »

I suspect as he didnt get the answers he wanted, he'll not be back. Particularly if the dealer does play ball.

Probably not, looks like he specialises in bags of !!!!.

sh0597

Seems like a troll as I suggested earlier but maybe someone who just buys bargain bin vehicles with unreasonable expectations.


I read through the SOGA and any action that acknowledges the buyer's ownership appears to indicate acceptance. Taxing and insuring the car and driving away for example.


If there is a fault the seller must refund repair or replace, or offer a partial refund and buyer chooses, but the seller does not have to agree if it is impossible or significantly more costly than the other options.


In other words it appears the seller should accommodate the buyer's preference so long as it is reasonable. If the seller enacts their right to use a different option (such as a repair instead of refund) they must not inconvenience the buyer either. I'd take that as providing a courtesy car or compensation.


This is just my interpretation and not to be taken too seriously.

motorguy

sh0597 wrote: »

Seems like a troll as I suggested earlier but maybe someone who just buys bargain bin vehicles with unreasonable expectations.


I read through the SOGA and any action that acknowledges the buyer's ownership appears to indicate acceptance. Taxing and insuring the car and driving away for example.


If there is a fault the seller must refund repair or replace, or offer a partial refund and buyer chooses, but the seller does not have to agree if it is impossible or significantly more costly than the other options.


In other words it appears the seller should accommodate the buyer's preference so long as it is reasonable. If the seller enacts their right to use a different option (such as a repair instead of refund) they must not inconvenience the buyer either. I'd take that as providing a courtesy car or compensation.


This is just my interpretation and not to be taken too seriously.

I think thats a fairly reasonable summary, other than "acceptance". Generally with cars you have up to several weeks before you have deem to accepted it. Whilst it may imply otherwise for the likes of you and me reading it, its been proven - and accepted - in law that its several weeks.

topdaddy_2

sh0597 wrote: »

Seems like a troll as I suggested earlier but maybe someone who just buys bargain bin vehicles with unreasonable expectations.


I read through the SOGA and any action that acknowledges the buyer's ownership appears to indicate acceptance. Taxing and insuring the car and driving away for example.


If there is a fault the seller must refund repair or replace, or offer a partial refund and buyer chooses, but the seller does not have to agree if it is impossible or significantly more costly than the other options.


In other words it appears the seller should accommodate the buyer's preference so long as it is reasonable. If the seller enacts their right to use a different option (such as a repair instead of refund) they must not inconvenience the buyer either. I'd take that as providing a courtesy car or compensation.


This is just my interpretation and not to be taken too seriously.

everyone loves to shout troll at the drop of a hat on this site. Thats why its so poop. Makes!the people shouting it look stupid too.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

motorguy wrote: »

Yes, it does.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Section F40 48B

(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—

(a)impossible, or

(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies, or

(c)disproportionate in comparison to an appropriate reduction in the purchase price under paragraph (a), or rescission under paragraph (b), of section 48C(1) below.

One remedy is disproportionate in comparison to the other if the one imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison to those imposed on him by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract of sale,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the buyer.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Translated - its up to the seller as to how they handle it.



Yes, it does

[F2015A Modification of remedies for breach of condition in non-consumer cases.

(1)Where in the case of a contract of sale—

(a)the buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15 above, but

(b)the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them,



No. Absolutely not. You have no right to reject for a minor fault, and as detailed above in the SOGA.

From Trading Standards website

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/glos/con1item.cgi?file=*ADV0003-1011.txt

Action to take
If you have bought a vehicle from a trader, which turns out to be faulty or you think has been misdescribed, you need to take action straight away.

If you have only had the vehicle for a very short time, have only driven a few miles and you discover a major problem,



No. Nonsense. You cant reject it for ANY reason no matter what the fault is. Think that through - how dumb would it be if that were the law? And its not, quote above.



There is some confusion on this thread between acceptance of the goods and repairs to a fault.

You CANNOT reject the goods for a minor defect.

You CAN expect a defect to be repaired by the seller.

ERGO, in this case, as the car cant be rejected for what amounts to a light on on the dash at this stage, THEN you are into the realms of allowing the seller to inspect the goods and then take it from there. IF its a major fault OR it takes several times to repair then you could seek to reject.

Bear in mind rejection isnt a "get out of jail free" card that you can wave at the seller and he is obliged to get his cheque book out. If he declines the rejection then you are into a world of pain doing without the car until such times as it FINALLY gets to court. And THEN you're in a situation whereby the seller is there saying "its a light on on the dash, the buyer was unreasonable and wouldnt let us inspect the car, and we would have happily made any repairs necessary". Whos looking unreasonable then?

Probably the buyers biggest hope is they come across to the seller like the unreasonable !!!!! they are on here, and he cant be arsed with the hassle, gives them their money back and tells them not to let their !!! hit the door on the way out.

F2015A Modification of remedies for breach of condition in non-consumer cases.


(1)Where in the case of a contract of sale—

(a)the buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15 above, but

(b)the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them.

this is a consumer case so this subsection would not apply in a consumer purchase.


again trading standards can only offer advice they do not write the legislation and a major problem is not descriptive enough to deem what is a major fault in a consumer case.


a major fault to someone not in the know about cars is an EML light and limp mode where the car is powerless displaying not normal mode of operation.


The above does state that buyer must not request a repair or replacement where it is impossible etc but does not state rejection. or specifically includes it either.

OddballJamie

I don't think the OP is a troll, just naive.

From reading his other threads, I get the feeling he chooses a model he wants then finds the cheapest example on Autotrader without questioning why. Then shortly after he realises.

For future purchases I'd say an AA/RAC/trusted garage inspection before he parts with cash is a necessity.