Used Car Rights

andystephens

Hi all,

Sorry for the long post but just wanted some advice.

On the 12th November we bought a car from a dealer on autotrader. The test drive was great and the guy said the car was brilliant, roadworthy and had just been serviced and had a new egr valve fitted (remember this for later). All this was in the advert along with this car retails at 3000 but it was on at 1795. A bit of dealing and got it down to 1700 (he said no more as he could get more for it). On doing the paperwork he wrote "Sold with all faults sold as spares or repairs". I queried this and he said that 1) The previous owner had a mechanic friend change the cam belt so could not be verified and 2) it was a PX (I knew about this). No other faults were mentioned.

About a week ago we had an engine malfunction light come on and the car went into limp mode. It has been getting steadily worse. The fault codes have been read and its saying the Diesel Particulate Filter is full of ash and soot and the pressure is too high. All attempts at regeneration have failed. I have since found out that having a faulty egr (see above) can cause the DPF to become blocked quickly so I contacted the garage where I got it from. When I phoned on saturday, he said I had no come back as it was a part exchange. I have since looked up my rights and believe the following:

1) It doesnt matter whether it was a px or not. What they did and how much they paid for the car has no bearing on my sale.

2) Spares or repairs means that a car is not roadworthy and has various faults so either needs to be repaired or used as spares. There was nothing in the advert to say it was this and they said it was all fine apart from the cam belt.

3) They were also saying they wouldnt help as I only paid what they paid for the vehicle. They said if they had cleaned it up more they could have got more so basically helping me would affect their profit.

Just wondered if I am correct in the above and what course of action I could take. I love the car and dont want a refund, just the issue sorting as I believe this should have been picked up by the garage.

Thank you all kindly

andystephens

Bump

Can anyone help at all?

agrinnall

You're outside the 30 days for a CRA no quibble return now unfortunately, which might have been your best option. While you can still invoke the CRA I suspect you have dealt with a dodgy dealer who isn't going to do the repair, so you might be better to find out how much it will cost for you to get it done, pay for it yourself, and have nothing more to do with the dealer.

andystephens

Thank you

I did email them Saturday and they confirmed Monday that their 'legal' team are looking into it. They have been around for 40 years and pride themselves on customer service apparently.

He did say that the dpf was not covered under any warranty, even if the car was brand new from manufacturer and broke down the next day.

I just wanted to see what my rights were and if they had any way of getting out of it. What would be the next step?

neilmcl

agrinnall wrote: »

You're outside the 30 days for a CRA no quibble return now unfortunately, which might have been your best option. While you can still invoke the CRA I suspect you have dealt with a dodgy dealer who isn't going to do the repair, so you might be better to find out how much it will cost for you to get it done, pay for it yourself, and have nothing more to do with the dealer.

There's no such thing as a "30 day CRA no quibble return".

If you're referring to the short-term right to reject, it's hardly "no quibble".

agrinnall

neilmcl wrote: »

There's no such thing as a "30 day CRA no quibble return".

If you're referring to the short-term right to reject, it's hardly "no quibble".

It was a shorthand description for something that the OP is unable to use now anyway. Had it been within the 30 days I would have been more expansive. As it is, I'm pretty sure said dealer would indeed have quibbled, but at least the OP would have had stronger legal grounds for the rejection.

You seem to be in a bit of a bad mood today, perhaps you should take a short break from posting until you're able to do so without picking holes in what people have to say.

andystephens

Was hoping someone would tell me if I still have any rights or not considering that I contacted them within the time frame and not argue on here

curty510

not sure on your exact rights etc, but you should post this in the motoring section, you will get better advice there.

lincroft1710

Did you research the selling price? If this car usually retails at £3,000 and you only paid £1,700, then you would have less chance of getting a satisfactory result if you were to pursue this matter through Money Claim Online.

neilmcl

agrinnall wrote: »

It was a shorthand description for something that the OP is unable to use now anyway. Had it been within the 30 days I would have been more expansive. As it is, I'm pretty sure said dealer would indeed have quibbled, but at least the OP would have had stronger legal grounds for the rejection.

You seem to be in a bit of a bad mood today, perhaps you should take a short break from posting until you're able to do so without picking holes in what people have to say.

Perfectly good mood thankyou. I only tend to pick holes in posts that are clearly wrong or misleading or otherwise make little sense.

bris

The 30 days right to reject is past but it does also extend to used car dealers (trading standards confirmed). In this case however the fact the 30 days has past and with it being sold for spares or repairs clearly stated on the receipt complicates things greatly.


To buy a car like this was always going to end in tears, dealers know when they have problem cars and they caught you out.


It could very well be a similar thing to people who sell broken phones etc on Ebay. The buyer buys it expecting an easy fix only for it not to be so easy so start a return, getting a refund despite buying a broken item. Not saying this is the case here but it's a valid defence for the dealer.