Worried I've bought dodgy car :-(

arcon5

s_b wrote: »

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

To long by sounds of it since you sound like a bitter old man with an axe to grind whom has lost sight of objectively since like the other car dealers posting on here your presumptious, judgemental and defensive. Your mind was made up from the very first post

AdrianC

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

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!

No, from the PoV of realism.

You paid less than a grand for a car from a dealer. That's a car that you could have bought for half that privately.

It cannot have a significant compression problem if it was running fine when you test-drove it and collected it.

Iceweasel

It'll be interesting to see how this eventually pans out.

Relying on the law and possibly having to take the seller to courts to get satisfaction would not be cheap.

Matters of principal are never cheap especially over a sub £1000 car.

I'm not in any way in the motor trade - or a dealer - I just have 50 years experience of dealing with them.

Going in with all guns blazing - "I've had this car checked by a trusted mechanic, and it's cr*p, you clearly knew this car had issues." is not going to get the OP anywhere at all.

But let's see - hopefully I'm wrong

mrsvanderkamp_2

Iceweasel wrote: »

Relying on the law and possibly having to take the seller to courts to get satisfaction would not be cheap.

Matters of principal are never cheap especially over a sub £1000 car.

But let's see - hopefully I'm wrong

I completely agree - perhaps you didn't read this part of my post:

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.

Or perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am getting the car repaired at MY expense. I have at no point gone in "all guns blazing" with the seller. I have now spoken with him and whilst he was fairly reasonable, he of course takes the view that there was nothing wrong with the car when I drove it away from him. Of course, I disagree, but we were actually able to have a conversation about it without it getting nasty. Contrary to the opinions in this forum, I am not an unreasonable person. I will admit to having formed the opinion that the seller was rogue and that this may have been a jerk reaction (not uncommon I would suggest - it even happened when my brother bought a car from my dad which had been perfectly reliable but began to fall to pieces almost immediately after dad handed the keys over...) and whilst he was pleasant enough on the phone, the bottom line is that he won't take the car back without a fight, and I will never really know its true history, only what he chooses to tell me. He made a fair point I suppose in that he woudn't have replaced a clutch on car that was knackered, but then I've only got his word that it was a brand new clutch...so we end of going round in circles.

Of course I am upset that I bought a car and now have to immediately spend money on repairs, but as previously stated, it is going to be difficult to prove that they were there when I bought it. It will involve lots of stress and time, and during the process I will be out of pocket and not have a car. It will end up going to Court and for the sake of cost of the repairs (which is really what I am out of pocket for, rather than the car itself) it really isn't worth the aggro. I could buy another car in the meantime, but again as stated, frankly I can't be bothered, I could end up in the exact same position again, and if you look at my first post, you will see that I was very worried to be in that situation, so I really don't relish the thought of having to go through it again. I believe in taking the path of least resistance where possible, and in this case, as stated, having weighed it all up, that means repairing the car myself and moving on. Cosmetically the car is mint actually and DS loves it....they are actually quite difficult to come across in a 3 door, and at the price point paid (certainly within a 60 mile radius of where I live, and believe me we've looked!) so this is another reason for not wanting to starting again.

BeenThroughItAll

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

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!

I think it's probably worth pointing out the error of another of your gross generalisations in the same vein as 'all dealers are crooks'.


All posters who disagree with you != car dealers.


I'm a business improvement consultant, personally. I just happen to know a bit about the motor trade, and wielding spanners. I'm also qualified to undertake and inspect electrical work, but that doesn't make me an electrician.

AdrianC

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

Or perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am getting the car repaired at MY expense.

Oh, OK. So you accept you have absolutely no come-back against the dealer.

Of course I am upset that I bought a car and now have to immediately spend money on repairs

It's a 112k mile, sub-grand, 12yo car. The relevant legal test is whether the condition fits reasonable expectations for the age, price and apparent condition. Developing a minor misfire, easily and cheaply fixed, and showing signs of some age-related engine wear, is not unreasonable.

mrsvanderkamp_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, OK. So you accept you have absolutely no come-back against the dealer.

No, what I have to accept is that its his word against mine and that if I take him to Court over it, it will be lengthy and stressful and I can't be bothered. That does not mean however, that legally he is right and I am wrong, quite the contrary, I'm just choosing not to seek to enforce my rights through the Courts.

AdrianC

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

No, what I have to accept is that its his word against mine and that if I take him to Court over it, it will be lengthy and stressful and I can't be bothered. That does not mean however, that legally he is right and I am wrong, quite the contrary, I'm just choosing not to seek to enforce my rights through the Courts.

Which is what I said. You are accepting that you have no come-back against him.

mrsvanderkamp_2

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

I think it's probably worth pointing out the error of another of your gross generalisations in the same vein as 'all dealers are crooks'.


All posters who disagree with you != car dealers.


I'm a business improvement consultant, personally. I just happen to know a bit about the motor trade, and wielding spanners. I'm also qualified to undertake and inspect electrical work, but that doesn't make me an electrician.

In that case, perhaps you ought to limit yourself to offering advice in that which you are qualified, that might reduce any misunderstandings. However, if your idea of "business improvement", is to spend copious amounts of the working day, trawling internet forums in order to give bad advice about things that you are not expert in, then perhaps this area of "expertise" also requires some additional training and/or qualification.

And I would refer you to an earlier post where I quite clearly stated that I did NOT think that "all dealers are crooks" your words, not mine.

mrsvanderkamp_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Which is what I said. You are accepting that you have no come-back against him.

You seem to confuse "theory" and "practice" when it comes to the law. I cannot re-word, re-phrase or put it to you any other way than I have already but I will try for your benefit... I have the RIGHT to reject the car. I have the RIGHT to do this without allowing the seller the option of repairing the car first. The seller can REFUSE to accept my rejection and REFUSE to give me my money back. This does not mean he is RIGHT. What this means is that I then have to take him to Court to ENFORCE MY RIGHT. I am CHOOSING not to on the basis of time and economics. I hope that makes things crystal clear.