Worried I've bought dodgy car :-(

arcon5

rev_henry wrote: »

MOT certificate doesn't really matter too much as its all online. I don't think there's anything dodgy going on, but I wouldn't believe something like a clutch had actually been done unless I had a receipt for it. Fortunately its not like a cambelt, you can tell if a clutch is going.

I don't understand this 'previous Doctor owner' business either. I read one ad where they had gone to great lengths to point out that his title of Dr was on the V5! Erm, ok? Is that meant to make it more looked after? Than what? What job title indicates a lack of maintenance? Maybe I should start putting my postnominals on V5s...

Mechanic to name just one

arcon5

Iceweasel wrote: »

I have no problem in believing your 'well trusted mechanic' - bit good luck with rejecting the car.

If it were me that had sold it to you I would be having nothing to do with it now and recommend you get your mechanic to carry on - at your expense of course.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong - but I predict that this will not end well, and you will be blaming the seller - rather then you not following the correct order of doing things.

Then you sound like yet another dodgy dealer!

To many dealers on here on the defensive!

zaax

if you have legal insurance with union, insurances etc use them otherwise trading standards etc. Did you pay with a card?

bigjl

s_b wrote: »

the only sure way to confirm low compression is a removal of a plug and if this has been done then you clearly ignored my advice

car would not pass an mot if low compression on a cylinder

To be honest it could just be slightly low on one cylinder.

Clearly the OP simply wants to reject it.

A faulty coil pack is hardly a complicated or expensive fault to repair.

If the car actually had one cylinder with very low compression then it would never have run right, not during the test drive and not up until the warning light came on.

Buyers remorse?

mrsvanderkamp_2

arcon5 wrote: »

Then you sound like yet another dodgy dealer!

To many dealers on here on the defensive!

Thanks for this.....the responses thus far do tend to have come from a dealer's perspective, who appear to be even more cynical than I am!

s_b

bigjl wrote: »

To be honest it could just be slightly low on one cylinder.

Clearly the OP simply wants to reject it.

A faulty coil pack is hardly a complicated or expensive fault to repair.

If the car actually had one cylinder with very low compression then it would never have run right, not during the test drive and not up until the warning light came on.

Buyers remorse?

all buyers are liers
been in the job long enough to know that:)
i still try to help though just like you often wonder why i bother though

mrsvanderkamp_2

bigjl wrote: »

Clearly the OP simply wants to reject it.


Buyers remorse?

No and no. Clearly no one has really bothered to understand this at all. I have stated time and again, that if the issue was simply coils then I was happy to pay for these on the basis that it was quite possibly bad timing/luck. That is why I didn't contact the seller straight away, why would I unless I wanted him to do something? I didn't so I didn't call him.

Therefore my decision to take my car to the garage to pay for a repair that may have been there at the point of purchase, but that I have chosen not to pursue the seller for, is hardly the sign of a buyer trying to pull a fast one now is it?

The subsequently identified additional fault is another issue, but just for clarification, the law is on my side here. I am under no obligation to either ask, allow or accept the seller to carry out repairs. Under the CRA 2015 I am quite entitled to simply ask for a refund citing evidence from any mechanic that the fault was present at the time of purchase. I have taken legal advice on his point. In this case however, it would be difficult to prove and the law is one thing in theory but a completely different being in practice. I may have my suspicions about the seller and his ethics but again I'm not able to prove anything ..I say the car was like that at sale, he says otherwise, I remain out of pocket and will have no car but a lot of stress, that I don't want or need. My son loves the car and frankly I can't be bothered to start again with running around all over the countryside to look at cars advertised as "tidy" but actually they aren't......having considered all the options, repairing the car which is (so far as we can tell) otherwise in good order, appears to be the best, though not ideal, option. Hopefully at the end of it he gets a car that is mechanically sound, looks nice and is happy with, which is all that was required in the first place.

Your assumption that I "just want to reject" is just that, an assumption, one which I am guessing is based upon your own poor experiences with buyers. As you dealers have gone to pains to stress, don't tar us all with the same brush.

s_b

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

No and no. Clearly no one has really bothered to understand this at all. I have stated time and again, that if the issue was simply coils then I was happy to pay for these on the basis that it was quite possibly bad timing/luck. That is why I didn't contact the seller straight away, why would I unless I wanted him to do something? I didn't so I didn't call him.

Therefore my decision to take my car to the garage to pay for a repair that may have been there at the point of purchase, but that I have chosen not to pursue the seller for, is hardly the sign of a buyer trying to pull a fast one now is it?

The subsequently identified additional fault is another issue, but just for clarification, the law is on my side here. I am under no obligation to either ask, allow or accept the seller to carry out repairs. Under the CRA 2015 I am quite entitled to simply ask for a refund citing evidence from any mechanic that the fault was present at the time of purchase. I have taken legal advice on his point. In this case however, it would be difficult to prove and the law is one thing in theory but a completely different being in practice. I may have my suspicions about the seller and his ethics but again I'm not able to prove anything ..I say the car was like that at sale, he says otherwise, I remain out of pocket and will have no car but a lot of stress, that I don't want or need. My son loves the car and frankly I can't be bothered to start again with running around all over the countryside to look at cars advertised as "tidy" but actually they aren't......having considered all the options, repairing the car which is (so far as we can tell) otherwise in good order, appears to be the best, though not ideal, option. Hopefully at the end of it he gets a car that is mechanically sound, looks nice and is happy with, which is all that was required in the first place.

Your assumption that I "just want to reject" is just that, an assumption, one which I am guessing is based upon your own poor experiences with buyers. As you dealers have gone to pains to stress, don't tar us all with the same brush.

but it wasnt though
you quite clearly say in your first post it ran perfectly and went home over the speed limit no problem
you have given selling dealer no chance to even look at car ,this means you have failed under the act that is set out in your favour i gave you the benefit of the doubt but now realise i was wrong

mrsvanderkamp_2

s_b wrote: »

but it wasnt though
you quite clearly say in your first post it ran perfectly and went home over the speed limit no problem
you have given selling dealer no chance to even look at car ,this means you have failed under the act that is set out in your favour i gave you the benefit of the doubt but now realise i was wrong

First, whether it did or not will remain unproven...just because it drove 30 miles doesn't mean categorically, that there was nothing wrong with it to start with.

Second, the Act does not oblige me to request or accept an offer of repair, I can simply reject the vehicle (but I haven't). If you work in the trade I suggest you brush up on your legal knowledge around this. The act quite clearly states that within 30 days a buyer does not have to give a seller the opportunity to repair. Oh, there you go, less reading for you, I just told you what the law is.

Third, thanks, but the benefit of your doubt is rather surplus to my requirements and is not therefore required. You may keep it with my best wishes.

arcon5

s_b wrote: »

but it wasnt though
you quite clearly say in your first post it ran perfectly and went home over the speed limit no problem
you have given selling dealer no chance to even look at car ,this means you have failed under the act that is set out in your favour i gave you the benefit of the doubt but now realise i was wrong

Just because it wasn't obvious at time of sale doesn't mega it wasn't there or wasn't inherent!

Ops not failed under the act at all! He hasn't had any work dive do can easily go to the seller now. Had op had it fixed and now wanted money it would be different, but that's not the case here.
Implying that by having a car looked at elsewhere, as ice weasel was, means he forfeits his rights is ridiculous !!