Using Money Claim Online service against a car salesman?

AdrianC

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

But thats exactly why, buying from a trader, the expectation is that the trader has resolved faults and problems and the car is at least basically a useable car.

...within those restrictions based on reasonable expectations.

MEM62

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

But thats exactly why, buying from a trader, the expectation is that the trader has resolved faults and problems and the car is at least basically a useable car.

That's a naive expectation when it's patently obvious that, at that price level, the dealer does not have sufficient profit in the car do so that. The dealer is banking on the fact that he has been canny enough in his purchase and that the car will last long enough to prevent any comeback.

At that price level you buy private and take your chances in the knowledge that (a) you might get a slightly better car for the price and (b) in real terms you have the same amount of comeback.

That might not be the way that it is supposed to work but that's the real-word reality.

EdGasketTheSecond

I've never paid more than £1,000 for a car and all mine have at least run for a few years; my most recent Hyundai for over 11 years. So £950 would be at the high end of my budget and I would expect a fairly decent car.



But that asside, the law now states that the car must be fit for purpose; it does not allow for exclusion due to low price. If it cannot be used as a car, for which it was sold, then the consumer has every right to redress. I'm not saying whether that's fair on the dealer but that is what the law says so irrespective of the car being £950, it should still function as a car and the consumer is entitled to expect such.

JustAnotherSaver

NeilCr wrote: »

I am also surprised by the comments about TS.

I'm under the impression that he probably hasn't been talking to Trading Standards. He's frequently referred to them as that but then to go off topic (i know some people here like that!) he'll refer to his S&S ISA as his 'pension' because A) it rolls off the tongue better and pensions are always (mostly?) for retirement which is what his contributions are for. Point is - he doesn't always call things what they are. Often due to lack of knowledge/understanding/laziness.


I've googled the phone number he's been calling and it seems to be Consumer Rights, not Trading Standards. 03454040506. Again i'd argue Trading Standards is a more commonly known/used name which i'm guessing is how he keeps referring to it as TS. Regardless, it doesn't really matter greatly.

OP. I am not trying to be difficult. Some solicitors do give a free half hour. If you can find one could your brother go there to get some advice?

Already 1 step ahead of you. Emailed off to a few local ones but it seems they don't touch this area of law and instead steered him towards the Money Claims Online service :rotfl:

davidwood681 wrote: »

What usually happens is the OP comes back and tells everyone they were wrong and they won......even if that wasn't the result.

Takes a rare beast on MSE to actually admit when they were wrong

See that's the difference though - i don't actually care.


1) This isn't about me it's about someone else. A relative of mine yes but it's someone else.



2) To correct you ...there is no 'wrong'. Plenty of people win when they're not right. Plenty of people end up worse off when they're in the right. It's about will he win or not & there's only one way to find out.



3) As i say, i don't care what the opinions of people online are. I'm not here to impress anyone i'm just here for knowledge that's all. I'm not here for acceptance or whatever else people may think i'm here for. I'm just looking for a bit of advice. So if he doesn't win and i post back and say so and people after changing their underwear due to over excitement start jumping up and down saying told you so then let them have their moment but who cares? He'll never know if he will get a refund if he doesn't try & that's the end of it.

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

But that asside, the law now states that the car must be fit for purpose; it does not allow for exclusion due to low price. If it cannot be used as a car, for which it was sold, then the consumer has every right to redress. I'm not saying whether that's fair on the dealer but that is what the law says so irrespective of the car being £950, it should still function as a car and the consumer is entitled to expect such.

Exactly! Yet people are sticking on it when it's not even part of the question.


At no point have i said that there is a greater probability an old 'cheap' high mileage car will have something major going wrong with it because i know there is a greater probability, but that doesn't matter as what you said is right (or at least it's right based on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but maybe others know better?)


So for those saying it's cheap, it's old, it's done many miles ... if they bought a nice vase online and it came but when they opened it up it was smashed to bits, would they say oh well that's the risk you take when you have things delivered to you & you don't collect something yourself?


OR ... would they get a refund/replacement because they know that their rights say they're entitled to it?

JustAnotherSaver

AdrianC wrote: »

No, basic realism and the law.


Perhaps he will, perhaps he won't. We do not have enough detail.

And you do not NEED detail as you're trying to answer questions that are not being asked in this thread and that's the issue. Yes it's a public forum, yes people can say what they want, like i'm doing right now.


The question is about filling the form out & so far only 1 person has bothered to answer. The rest are concerned about whether he should bother chasing money on an old car. What do they care? Like you said, perhaps he will and perhaps he won't, but perhaps he's made the decision that he's going to find out...??

MEM62 wrote: »

There is no guarantee that you won't get a problems with a £50K car so that theory does not stand up. (In fact there are many examples of very expensive cars giving lots of trouble)

See you seem to miss the point that i don't actually care..??


When people on here start going way off topic i treat it how it should be treated - with a dollop of sarcasm. I'm here to discuss how to fill a form out & if people want to help me on that then much appreciated & i'll discuss with them. Otherwise i'm not interested.



I know you'll get problems with £50k cars but are you really one of those people who think everyone is serious with everything they say? You seem to have missed the point that i was making with that comment so to rephrase it so that it makes more sense for anyone who was baffled by the sarcastic tone it should've read - i don't really care about you trying to take this off topic and if you'd like to stay on topic then i'll be serious and discuss with you but otherwise forget it.


But then that isn't so pleasant is it





See there's the real life way and the MSE way. If you said to someone - what you up to later in person, they'd tell you what they would be doing later on that evening, job done. The MSE way however would be to never answer that question straight. What do you mean by the phrase 'up to'? What do you mean later? How later? In 5 seconds? 5 hours? Tomorrow? Next week? Why are you even asking this question? Maybe you should ask me a different question.

But then if they ever did answer it, to take it further the true MSE way would be to never believe that persons answer. They're lying for some reason, they have to be!!



Some forums on this board are worse for that than others. Employment is particularly bad. I think this board is probably 70% that way.

I'm here for that other 30%.

JustAnotherSaver

Now i wanted to put this in to its own reply for one reason...

wgl2014 wrote: »

To answer the actual question - https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/work-out-interest

The interest will be from when the car was rejected and the debt started.

First off thanks for being the only one to answer the question.

However, before committing time and effort to a claim your brother (or sister as per the other thread) s

What's this all about? Are you trying to be clever or is there some other reason for this?


Back to what i just said about the MSE way - always thinking people are up to something. If someone is asking for their 'friend/brother/mother/other' then it must be some BS story and it's really a question they're asking for themselves because in 2018 nobody can try and help others, right?


I come on here to find help over various things. Mostly for myself but some times my brother, my sister, my mother, my wife. I've no reason to make any story up as like i said i'm not here for acceptance or to impress anyone or whatever else you may think i'm here for. I'm here for 1 thing only and that's to get advice on whatever i'm asking about.



So if i say i'm asking on behalf of my brother then that's the situation. If it happens to be a lot then so be it, it's a lot. Who cares? Yes i've also asked questions for my sister on things she's wanted to know about because i like to help people if i can.



So there is no 'or sister'.

JustAnotherSaver

Just a note... https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/buying-or-repairing-a-car/problems-with-a-used-car/


It says

Your consumer rights are different if you’ve changed your mind about the car and there’s nothing wrong with it.

What i can't find on there is "your consumer rights are different if you buy an old car, a car that has done a lot of miles or if you buy a car that people online think is an insignificant amount of money".

wgl2014

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

What's this all about? Are you trying to be clever or is there some other reason for this?

So if i say i'm asking on behalf of my brother then that's the situation. If it happens to be a lot then so be it, it's a lot. Who cares? Yes i've also asked questions for my sister on things she's wanted to know about because i like to help people if i can.

So there is no 'or sister'.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5820319/bought-car-garage-wont-cant-fix-dash-light

Same car as this? Assumed it would be. If not your family appear to be having some bad luck with cars.

Anyway the decision on how to proceed is nothing to do with anyone else on here, at least you will have the benefit of some different viewpoints.

Quentin

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

The vehicle cost puts him close to the border of one court fee category at £950.



So first question really is from when is interest calculated? .

Further to the answer you were given, should he be worried about paying for a claim in excess of £1000 and his interest would breach the £1000 level then he can claim just £50! (If the interest is in excess)


And of course if he wins the court fees will be paid by the defendant (assuming he has enough assets to pay!), so whatever the value of the claim would be irrelevant!


(Not a good idea to embark on a claim without proper legal advice on his chances - if he loses not only are his court fees unrecoverable, but he will have to pay the defendant's allowable expenses too)

James2k

there is mention of this age and mileage thing here: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-second-hand-car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights

but also the fact (like has been said here) it must do what its supposed to, i.e be a car safely. regardless of age.

A few on this forum think that old cars from dealers are practically caveat emptor.

The way i see it, you buy an old car and, for example, the heated seats don't work or a crack develops in a seat cover etc, well one could see that as 'taking into account its age'. But if the transmission fails, its not fit for purpose, regardless of price paid.