Second hand car purchase problem

motorguy

tinmice wrote: »

Yeah it was about £1000 mark, so slightly cheap for a car of that model and age, but not that cheap. It had a couple of marks on which is what he used to explain the cheap price. It was definitely a market value figure than scrap or spares figure.

I'm expecting this might be somewhat difficult, it would be a lot easier if there is something somewhere that says he can't sell it as spares if I drive it away.

Has anyone been through the process of 'rejecting' a car under the Consumer Rights Act before? Do you have to return it or are they obliged to collect?

Unless its a Merc or a Porsche or something like that, £1,000 doesnt sound like "spares or repairs" money.

Sounds an awful lot like the dealer is trying it on.

If the gearbox noises arent terminal it could potentially be argued by the dealer its typical for that age of car - no £1,000 is going to be perfect after all.

macman

Surely you were aware that it had no warranty and only a short MOT before you got anywhere near to being handed a receipt? Those are the basic checks that you would surely have made before you agreed to purchase? Did you not examine the MOT certificate? If a dealer is offering a warranty, even if were only 30 days, then they'd be telling your about it as part of their sales pitch.

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

If the gearbox noises arent terminal it could potentially be argued by the dealer its typical for that age of car - no £1,000 is going to be perfect after all.

This.

If you want anything more, you're going to have to take him to court. Do you feel lucky...?

It's your word against his as to whether you were "made aware" of the gearbox noise before collection, of course.

motorguy

macman wrote: »

Surely you were aware that it had no warranty and only a short MOT before you got anywhere near to being handed a receipt? Those are the basic checks that you would surely have made before you agreed to purchase? Did you not examine the MOT certificate? If a dealer is offering a warranty, even if were only 30 days, then they'd be telling your about it as part of their sales pitch.

I think the "Should be trailer away. Sold as scrap for spares" are the bits hes concerned about.

tinmice

Car is a Mazda MX-5. 15 years with 100k miles, so I am aware that it won't be perfect, I was fully expecting and deliberately chose to go for a cheaper one that would need a bit of work.

I agree that if there isn't anything terminal then I don't have an argument, I got what I was expecting.

I don't know that the problem is terminal yet, which is why I am having a garage looking at it tomorrow, which I was going to do anyway. The reason I am now worried is due to what he wrote on the invoice - it makes me think that he is fully aware that there is something very wrong with it and he is trying it on. We'll find out tomorrow, I would be delighted if there is nothing serious wrong with it and I can just fix what little things are wrong. There are noises from the gearbox which do not sound good to me, but that could be easily remedied, as you said. They have a good reputation for being solid cars that run well up to 200k miles, the only problem is rust and this car has none, which is why I was possibly a little too keen.

When you say there is a legal basis for it, is there a document somewhere I can check about that kind of statement to back up my argument?

Thanks all for your advice, I really appreciate it.

BeenThroughItAll

Three Jan 2016 registered posters, one after the other, in one thread.


Who'd have thought it.

AdrianC

tinmice wrote: »

the only problem is rust and this car has none, which is why I was possibly a little too keen.

...and there we have it. The car was surprisingly cheap for a non-rotten MX5, and you thought you'd snagged a bargain.

Still, on the bright side, a gearbox swap isn't terribly hard. Easier than welding a rotten one right.

When you say there is a legal basis for it, is there a document somewhere I can check about that kind of statement to back up my argument?

If you bought it after 1st Oct, then the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If before, the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Both say more-or-less the same thing in this context - the car has to be in a fit condition, given the price/description/apparent condition. And that's where you get into he-said-she-said. Tempered, of course, by you having a receipt clearly stating the car had issues...

tinmice

To be clear, I'm only going to pursue this if the car is unsafe and something significantly terminal with it. I was fully expecting to have to do some work on it, and I don't mind that really. My worry is that the phrasing he has written on it is severe and suggests there is something very very wrong with it and it is fundamentally unsafe for him to let me drive away in it.

I did a lot of homework, and will happily replace the gearbox if that is a problem - I'm not trying it on, just wanted to understand where I stand after my mistake of signing the invoice.

btw, It was on the cheap side, not surprisingly so - especially as it has some paintwork marks that need to be sorted. I'd say it was pretty much as expected.

arcon5

Here's my perspective on this..

Not sure what all this fuss is about with regards to the test drive and roadworthy.... I buy a lot of spares/repairs cars, and often test drive them. Also roadworthy doesn't necessarily mean fit for purpose - it just means the vehicle meets the minimum safety standards set out in the MOT. A vehicle can be safe to drive but have a fault, for example, head gasket failing, gearbox noisy, engine big end sounding like a bag of nails... all of which in some circumstances mean it can be driven until failure.

The problem here is the dealer has ops signature confirming he was effectively buying a vehicle with faults. The dealers evidence is quite damning.

I'd quite like to see the full ad, but from the info we have here I wouldn't say op has a solid case if the dealer was to use the paperwork as evidence to support an 'interesting' story.

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

The problem here is the dealer has ops signature confirming he was effectively buying a vehicle with faults. The dealers evidence is quite damning.

Yes - quite damning against the seller. You CANNOT use terms like "sold as seen", "sold for spares spares or repairs", etc to try to evade your legal responsibilities - which seems to be what has happened here - unless of course you're saying the O/P is lying?

The O/P say the advert and description of the car, went and had a test drive, and only at the very last minute the seller stuck what they did on the invoice.

The fact that the seller was quite happy for the car to be driven away, not trailered also speaks volumes.

This is a massive no no in the eyes of any court.