Help with dud car :(

sketchx

Hi all,

Hoping for some help with a bit of a mess

I purchased a car a few months back, it was from a "Dealer" - its a bit questionable as they are self employed however the online ad was a business ad, the car was on trade plates and it was listed on the dealers Facebook page as a business sale.

I inspected the car and was happy, it took it for a service at my local garage within a few days and they pointed out that it was very badly corroded underneath on the chassis and was unsafe to drive, i have a report form the garage stating as much.

The dealer offered some welding (paying for half of the work) but i was told by the garage that this was a temporary fix and the extent to the issues i would face in the near future wasn't worth fixing, the entire back end (breaks, axel, break lines ect) were all corroded, the car is from 2007 with around 60k miles so well above what is expected form a car of the millage and age.

I requested a refund in full (within 1 week of having the car) under the consumer protection act but this was refused.

CAB advised to check with my bank as i maybe able to charge back, i started this long process and provided all details, when it came to "returning the goods" it was hard, the bank confirmed that if i return the keys and sign over the log book and make the car available for collection it would be OK so i did this (all tracked) and the car is at the garage that inspected about 3 miles form the dealer.

Visa decided to reject in the grounds that i didn't return the goods.

So i currently have a car parked a the garage with no keys and not in my name
I started small claims (with the individual and company as defendants) and they have replied and it looks like im going to court!

I just want to make sure that i have everything in order for the big day, i have a report from the garage, all correspondence, originals ads and some pictures but the seller is very underhand, they have stated that i caused the damage (im not using the car, its covered about 30 miles since purchase form the initial week and the issue was reported within 1 week of purchase) - they have also tried to claim that it was his personal car (i suspect to avoid me claim under the consumer protection act) but i have a copy of all ads and a receipt so i can fight that.

What will i need to take with me? im only claiming the car (£2200) plus fees (about £130 for the court)

Does it sound open and shut or can he wriggle out of it somehow? i just dont want to end up further out of pocket or worse (CCJ on my name)!

thanks in advance for any help.

Cheers
Steve

tacpot12

You should be alright if they are trying to claim that the corrosion happened while you owned the car, it is not something you can cause in the short time before you took it to the garage. But you should be ready to refute the suggestion that you should have inspected the underside of the car. The problem you have is that the dealer has not sold you a car that is unsafe, or unroadworthy. Presumable it has an MOT and is safe to drive, it's just not a very good car.

sketchx

Thanks for the reply. I did inspect best I could however it's only when its on the ramp that the extent of the damage is clear, even the dealer said (and I suspect fibbed las they done some work the car before it was sold) that they never look under cars.

The car had 3 months MOT however it wouldn't pass one now, the garage deemed the car unsafe to drive due to imminent failure of components such including breaks. They also said (however not written) that the car would sustain some pretty bad damage if rear ended.

I'm hoping that the clause in the consumer rights act that the car has to be in a safe condition and fit for purpose will help me here.

What would happen if I lose the case? Would the judge order the return of keys and paperwork?

Thanks again, Steve

angrycrow

Not a Mazda by any chance. Even on the 2007 they had shocking issues with corrosion although on the rear suspension arms it looks far worse than it actually is.

jimjames

angrycrow wrote: »

Not a Mazda by any chance. Even on the 2007 they had shocking issues with corrosion although on the rear suspension arms it looks far worse than it actually is.

Maybe a Ford Ka, also ones to suffer from rust. Pretty shocking that any modern car has rust at under 10 years old when galvanising was standard for many starting in 1980s.

tacpot12

The Sale of Goods Act should cover this as the car has to be in a satisfactory condition given regard to its age and mileage. If it has become unroadworthy/unsafe within three months of purchase, it's not in a satisfactory condition,

You should continue to assert that the vendor is a dealer. If the claim in court that this was a car they used personally, you can point you that they should be even more aware of its condition,

agrinnall

I would be making a formal complaint to my bank and then escalating to the FOS, the rejection reason sounds dubious to me if you followed instructions given to you by the bank.

arcon5

I'd put it through an mot and see what it fails on. If it fails it will make it a lot easier to demonstrate its not roadworthy. And if it doesn't fail but is advised it could save you a lot of time and money.

As the claimant you will be expected to demonstrate adequately to a judge that the dealer has breached the contract, including those terms implied in to it by law. If the dealer can discredit your report or put doubt in the judges mind about road worthiness then you could be taking a gamble.

sketchx

Thanks all.

It's a 2007 Honda Civic, not a car known for corrosion.l as far as I'm aware. The garage suspect it was stored for a long period on wet grass or something. I will try to post some pics tomorrow so you can see the extent of the damage. Strangle the front is in perfect condition.

I do have the worksheet from the garage and a letternknheaded paper confining all issues and that it's unsafe to drive but I will see about getting an MOT.

I am a bit annoyed about the banks advise as I don't even have the keys or documents. I will call them tomorrow to complain and see if they can reopen the chargeback and get it going from both ends.

I read the dealers defence when I got home from work. He is claiming that it's his personal car, really frustrating. He is also claiming evidence that I'm not entitled to a refund because the chargeback failed.

Really frustrating situation.

Cheers

Steve

tacpot12

A 9-10 year old Civic should still be a very solid car. You would have to mistreat a Civic quite badly to get it to corrode to "unsafe" in 10 years.

Joe_Horner

sketchx wrote: »

[...] He is claiming that it's his personal car, really frustrating.

That's going to go down well in court. Dealer selling a car through a business advert and then trying to claim private sale in order to avoid liability.