Second Hand Cars & Sale of Goods Act

dieseloil

Hi,

I bought a car from a garage at the end of May. Upon test driving I had my doubts about the gearbox working correctly. The garage, however, assured me that it would be fully serviced and ready to go for the trip to France. Drove to France and back and the gearbox seemed to be getting worse. I then took the car to a gearbox specialist in the UK, who informed me that it was faulty.

The specialist company was in constant contact with the garage about the repairs. They had done previous repairs for the garage and were content for them to do the repair. Photos were taken of the state of the gearbox to prove that work was required.

The breakdown warranty only covered £500 and the garage was going to pay £450 towards the repairs. Repairs and other financial losses amounted to £2500.

Since the car was bought under Barclay card I tried to pursue my claim through them first. They stated that my claim was not valid under Section 75. From what I understand, Sale of Goods Act is still applicable. I’m unsure about how to pursue this further. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks

motorguy

dieseloil wrote: »

Hi,

I bought a car from a garage at the end of May. Upon test driving I had my doubts about the gearbox working correctly. The garage, however, assured me that it would be fully serviced and ready to go for the trip to France. Drove to France and back and the gearbox seemed to be getting worse. I then took the car to a gearbox specialist in the UK, who informed me that it was faulty.

The specialist company was in constant contact with the garage about the repairs. They had done previous repairs for the garage and were content for them to do the repair. Photos were taken of the state of the gearbox to prove that work was required.

The breakdown warranty only covered £500 and the garage was going to pay £450 towards the repairs. Repairs and other financial losses amounted to £2500.

Since the car was bought under Barclay card I tried to pursue my claim through them first. They stated that my claim was not valid under Section 75. From what I understand, Sale of Goods Act is still applicable. I’m unsure about how to pursue this further. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks

Why did the dealer only pay £450?

Whats the breakdown of repairs costs v financial loses and what were the financial loses?

I would have thought this was covered all day long by the SOGA.

Inherent fault, dealer should repair, replace, or refund.

burlington6

dieseloil wrote: »

Hi,

I bought a car from a garage at the end of May. Upon test driving I had my doubts about the gearbox working correctly. The garage, however, assured me that it would be fully serviced and ready to go for the trip to France. Drove to France and back and the gearbox seemed to be getting worse. I then took the car to a gearbox specialist in the UK, who informed me that it was faulty.

The specialist company was in constant contact with the garage about the repairs. They had done previous repairs for the garage and were content for them to do the repair. Photos were taken of the state of the gearbox to prove that work was required.

The breakdown warranty only covered £500 and the garage was going to pay £450 towards the repairs. Repairs and other financial losses amounted to £2500.

Since the car was bought under Barclay card I tried to pursue my claim through them first. They stated that my claim was not valid under Section 75. From what I understand, Sale of Goods Act is still applicable. I’m unsure about how to pursue this further. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks

Can you go into detail?

shaun_from_Africa

dieseloil wrote: »

Since the car was bought under Barclay card I tried to pursue my claim through them first. They stated that my claim was not valid under Section 75. From what I understand, Sale of Goods Act is still applicable.

How exactly did you pay for the car?
If it was a direct payment from your credit card to the seller then I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be a valid S75 claim. Did Barclaycard give any specific reason why they refused to investigate?

colino

Disappointing that you were fobbed off by the CC company, but don't let the trader off the hook. Additional warranty or not, if you alerted him to your suspicions of a gearbox problem pre-purchase and it has subsequently failed so recently after purchase; it is down to him to fix. He should be grateful a third party is taking the sting out of the cost, if there wasn't this warranty he would be liable for the whole repair.

forgotmyname

How old was the car when you bought it and what mileage/price?

bartelbe

forgotmyname wrote: »

How old was the car when you bought it and what mileage/price?

Not sure this is relevant, from I can gather from the OP's post they specifically asked the dealer about the condition of the gearbox after the test drive and was assured that any problems would be dealt with before the point of sale.

I know you will say that secondhand dealers have a raw deal people expect perfect cars on high mileage. However that does require that dealers are honest about their cars and the fault that they have. Which of course reduces a possible sale price.

Dealers can't whine that they lose money on these sales if they describe cars as not having faults before sale.

forgotmyname

Because it maybe a 20 year old £500 car that had a slight whine to it, and where the gearbox specialist said we can fix that with a new gearbox.

Did anyone check the gearbox oil level?

mchale

dieseloil wrote: »

Upon test driving I had my doubts about the gearbox working correctly.

And you still went ahead & purchased it :eek:

usefulmale

mchale wrote: »

And you still went ahead & purchased it :eek:

Quite. Some people think the SOGA is there to protect them against their own stupidity.

Why didn't the OP insist the repair was done FIRST, satisfied via another test drive and THEN hand over the cash?

Joe_Horner

usefulmale wrote: »

Quite. Some people think the SOGA is there to protect them against their own stupidity.

In a way, it is.

If everyone was completely clued up (and cynical) about every potential purchase they might make then there'd be no need for it because the dodgy sellers would never find a mark to con out of their hard-earned. So it's only really there to protect the less-than-clued-up (and overly trusting) in any given area. Which some people seem to equate to "stupidity".

Thankfully, the law makers don't take that attitude or there'd be no law at all against any form of mis-selling, sharp practice, or fraud.