Not Impressed With Evans Halshaw

motorguy

Herzlos wrote: »

Any indy garage local to her will source and fit the part.

If EH say they won't replace it, it'll cost you far more than it's worth to force them to, so you can always send them small claims court paperwork with the invoice from the indy to get the work done and see if they bite.

+1

Totally agree with this.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, the onus is for the seller to demonstrate that it "conformed to the contract" at the time of sale - SOGA S.48A(4)(a)

That's slightly different to showing that it worked, because conforming to the contract includes the implied terms about quality or fitness provided by SOGA S.14, which includes a requirement of reasonable durability. Working at the time of sale but failed within 24 - 48 hours doesn't amount to "reasonable durability" unless the seller can show that it was damaged by the buyer. That's true even for some Chinese plastic junk from a pound store, let alone for part of a £3000+ car.

Yes, you're totally right - if they wont play ball print this off the internet from an armchair expert and that will put the fear of god into them.

O/P take them to court immediately - shouldnt take more than six months and probably no more than several hundred pounds in hassle and expenses and a few days off work, free time, etc.

Or better still, take the advice on here and REJECT THE CAR. Take it to the door of their showroom, hand them the keys and quote the SOGA. Those will just look like tears of laughter but it will be tears of shame that they are crying, and they're just pointing at you so everyone knows who to give the immediate cash refund to.

Someone could have DIED in this car.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Yes, you're totally right - if they wont play ball print this off the internet from [STRIKE]an armchair expert[/STRIKE] someone who potentially deals with SOGA every day of his working life as a small business engaged in selling stuff - new AND used - and has made sure over the years that he knows the buyer's rights better than the buyer who comes in "shouting his rights".

Fixed that for you. I know, understand, and keep up to date with SOGA for a very simple business reason:

If a customer has a problem and asks for help I'll bend over backwards to do so (if he'd bought from me the OP would already have his glovebox* and probably a valet thrown in for good measure). But, if they come in shouting and getting their rights wrong then they'll get exactly what they're entitled to and nothing else.

In case you've missed it, I've also suggested just buying a glovebox if it comes to it.

But the number one rule (as promoted by this site amongst other organisations) is to know where you really stand before trying to negotiate with sellers. In this case, SOGA would be very much on the OP's side and EH would be on a hiding to nothing trying to defend if he did go to court.

After the OP had tried to negotiate and EH had blatantly refused their obligation (having virtually admitted it by agreeing to repair in the first place) he'd also almost certainly be awarded his costs in filing the claim. It would still entail time and inconvenience, which he couldn't claim for but may be prepared to accept on principle.

As you suggested earlier, EH will have legal advisors. They will be well aware of the situation and, if the OP demonstrates that he also knows the legal position and is prepared to carry through regardless of inconvenience, would be negligent in their advice if they didn't recommend fitting a damn glovebox to make him go away.









* except that not many watches or clocks are fitted with gloveboxes nowadays

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Fixed that for you. I know, understand, and keep up to date with SOGA for a very simple business reason:

If a customer has a problem and asks for help I'll bend over backwards to do so (if he'd bought from me the OP would already have his glovebox* and probably a valet thrown in for good measure). But, if they come in shouting and getting their rights wrong then they'll get exactly what they're entitled to and nothing else.

In case you've missed it, I've also suggested just buying a glovebox if it comes to it.

But the number one rule (as promoted by this site amongst other organisations) is to know where you really stand before trying to negotiate with sellers. In this case, SOGA would be very much on the OP's side and EH would be on a hiding to nothing trying to defend if he did go to court.

After the OP had tried to negotiate and EH had blatantly refused their obligation (having virtually admitted it by agreeing to repair in the first place) he'd also almost certainly be awarded his costs in filing the claim. It would still entail time and inconvenience, which he couldn't claim for but may be prepared to accept on principle.

As you suggested earlier, EH will have legal advisors. They will be well aware of the situation and, if the OP demonstrates that he also knows the legal position and is prepared to carry through regardless of inconvenience, would be negligent in their advice if they didn't recommend fitting a damn glovebox to make him go away.

And therein lies your problem - you're comparing an antique / classic watch with something that is very close to the end of its life (average life of a car is something like 11 years) and has been sold for probably something like 13% of its original value.

Cars generally speaking have a set lifetime, classic / antique / quality watches dont and usually go UP in value.

I sold probably between 500 - 1000 used cars in my time so am very au fait with what could and should be covered under the SOGA for cars (not watches).

We are in agreement that EH should have sorted the problem at very least as a goodwill gesture, however i dont believe its a SOGA issue when something like a latch gives up on a ten year old car.

When i once was in discussion with Trading Standards and asking their advice on if a particular issue was a fault or wear and tear and they said "if you bought the car brand new, and this particular part failed at the same age, would you consider it reasonable?" I think very clearly the answer here is, yes it would be quite reasonable for a latch to wear out after 10 years.

As i have already said - and i believe you agree on - the dealer "should" have sorted it (i would have) and i'd personally cause a bit of a rumpus and see what happened, but realistically its a £30 fix, so i wouldnt be bothered with the stress / hassle of taking it further - i'd simply not go back there.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

After the OP had tried to negotiate and EH had blatantly refused their obligation (having virtually admitted it by agreeing to repair in the first place) he'd also almost certainly be awarded his costs in filing the claim. It would still entail time and inconvenience, which he couldn't claim for but may be prepared to accept on principle.

As you suggested earlier, EH will have legal advisors. They will be well aware of the situation and, if the OP demonstrates that he also knows the legal position and is prepared to carry through regardless of inconvenience, would be negligent in their advice if they didn't recommend fitting a damn glovebox to make him go away.

Trust me on this - the solicitors that EH have will know fine well that 99.999% of the time the customer will simply "go away" over an issue like this. They wont pay out every time someone comes in waving an internet copy of the SOGA, and getting them to the point "beyond" that will cost more in time and hassle for the O.P than will fix this

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Trust me on this - the solicitors that EH have will know fine well that 99.999% of the time the customer will simply "go away" over an issue like this. They wont pay out every time someone comes in waving an internet copy of the SOGA, and getting them to the point "beyond" that will cost more in time and hassle for the O.P than will fix this

The chances are that, given the small cost of the repair, following his requests (probably refused) with a simple LBA will be enough to make the risk not worth their while. That'll cost a sheet of A4, some inkjet ink and about 95p for signed-for delivery with maybe an hour in the evening to type it up and print it.



eta: In fact, it took me 45 minutes including making and drinking a coffee:


Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Faulty glovebox on vauxhall Zafira, registration xx yy zzz, purchased on aa/bb/2015 from your xxxxxx branch for £

As I have already brought to your attention, the glovebox catch on this car failed within a day of purchase. I notified you of this at the same time as notifying a fault with the bonnet release. You accepted the car back for repair of both faults which you accepted were your responsibility.

However, having repaired the bonnet, you told me that the glovebox would cost £xx for new parts and that you had been unable to source used parts for it. You were therefore unwilling to complete the glovebox repair, that you had already agreed responsibility for, because of cost.

I have contacted you on cc/dd/2015 in person and also on ee/ff/2015 by letter but, in both cases, you have refused to fulfill your obligations under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

S.14, "Implied terms about fitness or quality", ss. 2(b)(e) specifically includes durability as an aspect of quality. Regardless of whether or not the catch was working at the time of sale, failure within 24 hours can by no stretch of the imagination be considered reasonably durable. In that respect the car does not conform to the contract of sale, as defined by s.48(f) of the Act. and I'm entitled to the remedies available under s.48 of the Act for such non-conformity:

Rejection or replacement of the goods: These would obviously be disproportionate given the nature of the fault and the ease of repair.

Repair: This is my preferred remedy and can be done by you at a small cost, comparative to the purchase price, and with minimal inconvenience to both parties. You have so far refused this option.

Reduction of purchase price: This would be an acceptable alternative resolution. I have determined that having the repair carried out elsewhere will cost me £xyz and I would be prepared to accept a refund of that amount in full settlement of your liability in respect of this fault.

S, 48(a) of the Act entitles me to require repair of the goods if this remedy is not disproportionate which, in this case, it is not. I therefore now require you to arrange repair of the fault, or to refund the cost of repair elsewhere as indicated above, within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

If you ignore this notice I shall initiate court action to enforce resolution. Please be assured that, while you may believe that this fault is "not worth" pursuing, the decision to pursue it or not is entirely mine, as the buyer, and I shall do so without pause if you continue to ignore my clearly defined rights.



Yours faithfully,

vvvvvvvvvv

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The chances are that, given the small cost of the repair, following his requests (probably refused) with a simple LBA will be enough to make the risk not worth their while. That'll cost a sheet of A4, some inkjet ink and about 95p for signed-for delivery with maybe an hour in the evening to type it up and print it.



eta: In fact, it took me 45 minutes including making and drinking a coffee:


Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Faulty glovebox on vauxhall Zafira, registration xx yy zzz, purchased on aa/bb/2015 from your xxxxxx branch for £

As I have already brought to your attention, the glovebox catch on this car failed within a day of purchase. I notified you of this at the same time as notifying a fault with the bonnet release. You accepted the car back for repair of both faults which you accepted were your responsibility.

However, having repaired the bonnet, you told me that the glovebox would cost £xx for new parts and that you had been unable to source used parts for it. You were therefore unwilling to complete the glovebox repair, that you had already agreed responsibility for, because of cost.

I have contacted you on cc/dd/2015 in person and also on ee/ff/2015 by letter but, in both cases, you have refused to fulfill your obligations under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

S.14, "Implied terms about fitness or quality", ss. 2(b)(e) specifically includes durability as an aspect of quality. Regardless of whether or not the catch was working at the time of sale, failure within 24 hours can by no stretch of the imagination be considered reasonably durable. In that respect the car does not conform to the contract of sale, as defined by s.48(f) of the Act. and I'm entitled to the remedies available under s.48 of the Act for such non-conformity:

Rejection or replacement of the goods: These would obviously be disproportionate given the nature of the fault and the ease of repair.

Repair: This is my preferred remedy and can be done by you at a small cost, comparative to the purchase price, and with minimal inconvenience to both parties. You have so far refused this option.

Reduction of purchase price: This would be an acceptable alternative resolution. I have determined that having the repair carried out elsewhere will cost me £xyz and I would be prepared to accept a refund of that amount in full settlement of your liability in respect of this fault.

S, 48(a) of the Act entitles me to require repair of the goods if this remedy is not disproportionate which, in this case, it is not. I therefore now require you to arrange repair of the fault, or to refund the cost of repair elsewhere as indicated above, within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

If you ignore this notice I shall initiate court action to enforce resolution. Please be assured that, while you may believe that this fault is "not worth" pursuing, the decision to pursue it or not is entirely mine, as the buyer, and I shall do so without pause if you continue to ignore my clearly defined rights.



Yours faithfully,

vvvvvvvvvv

You do know you've argued with me for two days now and thats exactly what i said to do in post 13?

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

You do know you've argued with me for two days now and thats exactly what i said to do in post 13?

yeah, I did wonder a couple of times about what exactly we were disagreeing on I think maybe the difference was just angle of approach.

I was maintaining that he has a case under SOGA that e could threaten them with, while suggesting that actually enforcing it might not be worthwhile but the bluff has a good chance.

You were maintaining that it wouldn't be worth actually enforcing it, while suggesting that there might be a case to threaten them with and the bluff might have a good chance.

A bit like those two Twix brothers on the advert I guess :beer:

colino

OP, if your serious about following up, check your car against the checklist, or pay a local, friendly, independent, recommended garage to do it for you. Don't !!!!!! about dithering about a glovebox catch.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

yeah, I did wonder a couple of times about what exactly we were disagreeing on I think maybe the difference was just angle of approach.

I was maintaining that he has a case under SOGA that e could threaten them with, while suggesting that actually enforcing it might not be worthwhile but the bluff has a good chance.

You were maintaining that it wouldn't be worth actually enforcing it, while suggesting that there might be a case to threaten them with and the bluff might have a good chance.

A bit like those two Twix brothers on the advert I guess :beer:

Totally with you.

Hey its good to knock these things around..

:beer:

(great letter by the way)