Found Fault cover up after owning car 2 days

70sthrowback

Will post the letter tomorrow from the P.O with proof of postage, waiting for a callback from CAB in case they have any other pearls of wisdom, though I have typed it up ready.

Just for my clarification. Does the fact that the seat belt tensioners have been previously detonated not make the car unsafe? As the seat belts will not work correctly if I were to be involved in an accident? I just want to make sure that I can definitely say the car is unroadworthy based on the warning lights alone being tampered with and therefore not working.

One other obvious concern for me. I go to small claims court, I am hoping I win otherwise this will be a complete waste of time. But lets say I do. I am taking the business not the person, so can they avoid paying given they have a car lot full of cars? Or can they say they cant afford it and pay me a small sum a month? At what point do they get the car back?

Thanks

EdGasket

bod1467 wrote: »

I disagree ... you don't need recorded delivery. Simply post 1st class via the PO and get a free certificate of posting. The letter is deemed "served" (delivered) within 2 working days, and there's no need to bother with the expense of recorded or the risk of it being rejected (not signed for).

Interpretations Act 1978.

I understand that emails are now 'evidence' in court of law so is it still necessary to use recorded snail mail or snail mail with proof of postage? Can you not give notice of intention to take court action by email?

70sthrowback

I will cover all bases and do both.

70sthrowback

Update

spoke with CAB a very quick call, explained what had happened so far. They said well you have done everything we would have advised. Put it in writing to the dealer. They have reported it to Trading Standards who will call me within 3 days.

Thanks

Joe_Horner

70sthrowback wrote: »

Just for my clarification. Does the fact that the seat belt tensioners have been previously detonated not make the car unsafe? As the seat belts will not work correctly if I were to be involved in an accident? I just want to make sure that I can definitely say the car is unroadworthy based on the warning lights alone being tampered with and therefore not working.

That's a difficult one to answer from a "real life" point of view. The lack of pretensioners won't in itself make them "unsafe" but they do increase the chance of airbag injury (which is why they're fitted) if they don't work.

The more worrying thing is why they've fired. It may have been some careless maintenance firing them by accident at some time, or it may have been an accident - in which case the belts themselves should have been replaced because they've suffered shock loading.

Even that doesn't mean they'll automatically fail and kill you - seatbelt webbing is pretty tough stuff - but it does mean they're less likely to protect you as well as they were intended to.

Regardless of that, the ABS light failing to light is enough to make the car "legally" unroadworthy (ie: unable to pass an MOT) which is all you need. That would technically be true even if it was just a case of a blown bulb - although in that case the dealer would be perfectly justified in fitting a new bulb, so you'd be hard pressed to reject it for that.

But, in this case, there's an ABS fault logged and the bulbs have been intentionally disabled. Regardless of who actually did that (the dealer or a previous owner) you have no way of knowing what else they may have done in a similar vein and that's plenty of reason to reject

facade

You might find your insurer takes a dim view of the safety systems being disabled/known to be non-functional and may restrict, or refuse cover.

They would certainly be very awkward if you have an injured passenger claiming against you in the event of a an accident.

70sthrowback

As already stated I am not driving the car and am posting a letter of rejection tomorrow so there is no chance of that happening

peter12345678910

You know that a new consumer bill was made a few days ago that allows you to get a refund. I am sure it includes cars.

70sthrowback

I believe it is only for purchases made after the law came into effect. Either way you need the seller to actually care what the law states. Whether its this new law or SOGA 1979

hollie.weimeraner

peter12345678910 wrote: »

You know that a new consumer bill was made a few days ago that allows you to get a refund. I am sure it includes cars.

Started 1st October so Sunday 27th September is under the previous legislation.