Worried I've bought dodgy car :-(

BeenThroughItAll

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

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.

Please, do explain where in any of your posts there has been any question requiring specific qualifications to answer?


Also, with all due respect, you have no idea what my working 'day' consists of. Ten or fifteen minutes on a forum a few times a day is hardly 'copious' in quantity when measured against the 52 hours I worked last week, as an example.


I'd also point out the irony of you assessing my expertise in a subject matter you are clearly no expert in. How many cars have you restored, nut by bolt by panel? How many different vehicles have you serviced, repaired, modified, or restored, motorcycles, cars, and commercial vehicles included? I assume for you to determine that I am indeed no expert, your level of knowledge and experience must be at least equal to, if not far superior to mine - that being the case, why wouldn't you fix the car yourself; you must be quite capable of doing so?


As regards your assertion you are not making gross generalisations, I'd point you to your other posts:

I guess I'm quite cynical and kind of just expect to get ripped off by a secondhand car salesman, which I know is a dreadful stereotype, so i apologise to all the genuine sellers out there!

So, you know you're fond of a good stereotype.

people like this seller should not be allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour. Anyone who thinks otherwise should perhaps go and join him in cowboyland. <SNIP>This seller quite clearly knew the car had major issues and chose to sell it to a perfectly unsuspecting customer anyway.

Simply dishonest and deceitful.

And since you'd never bothered to actually speak to the seller at this point, you had NO PROOF whatsoever that he was either a) behaving badly; b) a 'cowboy'; c) aware of 'major issues'; d) 'dishonest and deceitful'.

mrsvanderkamp_2

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

So, you know you're fond of a good stereotype.

Which I qualified by stating that I was apologetic toward all GENIUNE sellers

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

And since you'd never bothered to actually speak to the seller at this point, you had NO PROOF whatsoever that he was either a) behaving badly; b) a 'cowboy'; c) aware of 'major issues'; d) 'dishonest and deceitful'.

And having now spoken to him, I still have NO PROOF of any of those things, but that doesn't mean that I don't suspect some or all of them to be true. Just because I didn't have a screaming match with him doesn't mean I believe what he was telling me.

The original topic of this thread has been completely lost and it now seems to be about who is more dishonest - the buyer or the seller. In all cases, it may be one, it may be the other, it may be none, or it may be both. I would suggest as has been previously pointed out by others, that there are a lot of very defensive people here, who are not always giving accurate advice. If you want to offer advice, qualification may be irrelevant but accuracy isn't.

Rather than lower my expectations as regards the car, perhaps I would do better to lower my expectations as regards the quality (and indeed friendliness) of advice offered in this forum. Some has been reasoned and helpful, and for that I am grateful, but much of it has not. Responses and advises such as "cheap car, live with it", "all buyers are liars" (not much stereotyping going on there is there??) and "I'd be unhelpful to you simply out of spite" are not particularly friendly or useful.

AdrianC

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

You seem to confuse "theory" and "practice" when it comes to the law.

One of us is. It's not me.

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.

You forget one small detail. As soon as you start doing work on the car, you're waiving that right to legal redress. You are not giving him the opportunity to repair it, so you have no further options.

Like I've said several times now - you are accepting that you have no come-back against him.

s_b

for any sensible person buying a car and having a problem with it please make your first call to the supplying dealer and go from there
give the seller full chance to inspect the vehicle state your worries stop using the vehicle and do not let anyone else touch it

this thread can now be closed as OP clearly is going their own path

mrsvanderkamp_2

AdrianC wrote: »

One of us is. It's not me.



You forget one small detail. As soon as you start doing work on the car, you're waiving that right to legal redress. You are not giving him the opportunity to repair it, so you have no further options.

Like I've said several times now - you are accepting that you have no come-back against him.

The devil is indeed in the detail....so let me give you the detail as you appear not to have read in enough detail to understand the position.

No work was carried out on the car before I made contact with the seller. It was merely inspected and the issues reported to me. That in no way affects my right to redress under the CRA 2015. As I have said, several times now, my conversation with the seller proved to be one that was not going to result in consensus between us as to when the issue (s) arose. I have also stated that I did not want him to repair the car. Legally I have no obligation to ask for a repair or accept an offer of one if within 30 days of purchase (you clearly don't understand the Act if you think that this is incorrect).

Therefore, my options were:

a) reject the car with him disputing this and not being prepared to give me my money back, which would result in me having to take him to Court to achieve this or,

b) cut my losses and repair the car myself.

I chose b.

AdrianC

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

Therefore, my options were:

a) reject the car with him disputing this and not being prepared to give me my money back, which would result in me having to take him to Court to achieve this or,

b) cut my losses and repair the car myself.

I chose b.

<applause> Correct.

And, in choosing B, you accepted that there was no further come-back on the vendor.

Silver-Surfer_2

Bit of a non thread.

You asked a question, were given suitable advice which you chose to ignore.

mrsvanderkamp_2

AdrianC wrote: »

<applause> Correct.

And, in choosing B, you accepted that there was no further come-back on the vendor.

Well that much is obvious, I am (and always have been) well aware of that fact. I'm unclear as to why you would think I'm not and why you perceive that this makes me unaware of the legal position. I don't think at any point that I have suggested that I would repair the car myself and then pursue the seller? I am quite clear that that is not the way forward, nor is returning the car and waiting months to see if if I'm lucky getting my money back. I made a choice which yes, sees me accepting that I will not pursue the seller in any way; but it was my choice to make.

And I agree, end of thread.

bigjl

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

The devil is indeed in the detail....so let me give you the detail as you appear not to have read in enough detail to understand the position.

No work was carried out on the car before I made contact with the seller. It was merely inspected and the issues reported to me. That in no way affects my right to redress under the CRA 2015. As I have said, several times now, my conversation with the seller proved to be one that was not going to result in consensus between us as to when the issue (s) arose. I have also stated that I did not want him to repair the car. Legally I have no obligation to ask for a repair or accept an offer of one if within 30 days of purchase (you clearly don't understand the Act if you think that this is incorrect).

Therefore, my options were:

a) reject the car with him disputing this and not being prepared to give me my money back, which would result in me having to take him to Court to achieve this or,

b) cut my losses and repair the car myself.

I chose b.

Why does this recap of events seem different to how you have indicated previously?

Maybe it's just me.

bigjl

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

Well that much is obvious, I am (and always have been) well aware of that fact. I'm unclear as to why you would think I'm not and why you perceive that this makes me unaware of the legal position. I don't think at any point that I have suggested that I would repair the car myself and then pursue the seller? I am quite clear that that is not the way forward, nor is returning the car and waiting months to see if if I'm lucky getting my money back. I made a choice which yes, sees me accepting that I will not pursue the seller in any way; but it was my choice to make.

And I agree, end of thread.

And will the OPs true character please stand up!

I suspect the trader you bought the car from will be equally glad to see the back of you.