Rejecting used car

Stephenrjy87

They simply said nothing at all was covered, even though the coolant leak is a fault, and appeared to be covered on their list but it's wear and tear they said. I've never been a fan of aftermarket warranty companies.

unholyangel

mufi wrote: »

Isn't there a legal requirement of 6 month's warranty if you buy from a dealer?

As shaun said, no, but faults that occur in the first 6 months are assumed to be inherent and its up to the retailer to prove otherwise.

The-Truth

usefulmale wrote: »

Why didn't you arrange for an AA or RAC inspection BEFORE you bought it? Starts from £142 for the AA.

Better than paying out over 2 grand and then having the hassle of rejecting it etc.

theaa.com/vehicle-inspections/

Yeah but if you had to do this 5 times it would cost £710, hardly worth it if you're only planning on spending around £2000 in the first place. You'd probably be better off buying third party a warranty.

marliepanda

unholyangel wrote: »

As shaun said, no, but faults that occur in the first 6 months are assumed to be inherent and its up to the retailer to prove otherwise.

This isn't correct with used cars. It's only if they are mis described or have faults soon after you wouldn't expect with their age and mileage. There are not many faults you wouldn't expect to start occurring at over 100k miles.

unholyangel

marliepanda wrote: »

This isn't correct with used cars. It's only if they are mis described or have faults soon after you wouldn't expect with their age and mileage. There are not many faults you wouldn't expect to start occurring at over 100k miles.

Then perhaps you'd like to tell Trading Standards that.

Used motor vehicles - consumer rights

...

The onus is normally on you rather than the trader to prove a claim (that is, to prove that the vehicle is faulty in some way). However, the law states that if you are claiming repair, replacement, full or partial refund within the first six months of ownership, the onus is on the trader to prove that the vehicle was sold without faults when you bought it. This is called the 'reversed burden of proof'. After six months, the burden of proof reverts back to you to provide evidence to support your claim that the vehicle was faulty when it was sold.

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

EDIT: SoGA applies to new and used goods alike. The trader may have a defence against some claims that are wear and tear, but that doesn't change what the SoGA states in relation to burden of proof or anything else.

And nor can they sell a car that is unroadworthy (although thats covered by road traffic act).

burlington6

usefulmale wrote: »

Why didn't you arrange for an AA or RAC inspection BEFORE you bought it? Starts from £142 for the AA.

Better than paying out over 2 grand and then having the hassle of rejecting it etc.

https://www.theaa.com/vehicle-inspections/

Complete waste of money. Those inspectors would find faults on a new car let alone a high mileage decade old one.

They condemn vehicles because they're scared of any repercussions coming back to them

shaun_from_Africa

marliepanda wrote: »

This isn't correct with used cars.

As unholyangel rightly stated, there is no exemption with used vehicles when it comes to the 6 month period for proving faults.
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/view/NCC094699


Page 27 & 28




A dealer may well have a valid case if they can show that the faults are due to fair wear and tear but in this case with the car breaking down only two days after the sale, I can't see that happening here.

Stephenrjy87

Quick update- trading standards spoke to the dealer so he eventually rang me today again with a horrible attitude. His offer was for me to get the car back to him at my expense, then he would look at the car. He also stated he won't be doing anything that doesn't need doing and that he is very unhappy that I've even complained about this. And said the whole thing is ludicrous it's an old car and these faults are to be expected.

usefulmale

burlington6 wrote: »

Complete waste of money. Those inspectors would find faults on a new car let alone a high mileage decade old one.

They condemn vehicles because they're scared of any repercussions coming back to them

Yes, but if the OP had an inspection done, he could have made an informed choice whether or not to walk away or bargain with the trader to cover the cost of repairs.

Instead, the OP has bought blind, therefore owning any problems, THEN paid someone to inspect it, and now will have the time and cost to take it to court with, in my opinion, a very small chance of winning.

bris

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

As unholyangel rightly stated, there is no exemption with used vehicles when it comes to the 6 month period for proving faults.
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/view/NCC094699


Page 27 & 28




A dealer may well have a valid case if they can show that the faults are due to fair wear and tear but in this case with the car breaking down only two days after the sale, I can't see that happening here.

Wear and tear is still excluded under the SOGA, I thought you guys would know this by now.