We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Some reassurance please
Comments
-
nickybubbles wrote: »I brought a used car in February, I agreed with the vender that he would reduce the cost because an EML was on. He said this was because of an exhaust sensor and would cost aout £135. The car was priced at £995, I got it for £900.
27 days later a mechanic looked at the car and told me that the Cat had been replaced with a pipe, and there was many other faults, some dangerous that should not have passed the MOT in December. Aslo, the milage on the MOT says about 100,000 whilst the vehicle says about 63,000. (i do not have the full advert to show the milage advertised) I caled the garage that day and was basically told tough
The car was advertised with a warrenty but none was offered. I returned the car as not fit for purpose on the 28th day.
The garage refused a refund and asked me what i expected for a £900 car. he offered and astra and told me he had the right to repair.
i have read the consumer rights act so know i had the right for a full refund
So, we go to court. He has requested (and was granted) to move the venue to a london court, because he says he lives and works there.
at every stage i have written to him (recorded delivery) but he has never signed for any of the letters. I have hand delivered all of those letters
The court asked that i send them and the garage all documents, which i have. again he has not signed for this. i have not hand delivered these documents as yet, but i do have proof that i attempted to send.
I am obviously worried about the whole process, i'm sure i have done everything correctly by what i have read about the Consumer Rights Act, but would like some reassurance and advice if you have any for me
.Thank you
The problem is that If you requested a VT17 for a MOT that was over 3 months old the DVSA would have a total disinterest in even looking at the car
This implies that the opinion of your garage in this case about what happened 6 months ago is not really relevant and a court should ignore that "evidence"
( whether they do or not is a different matter)
Best of luck anyway0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards