Paintwork Issues On Used Car

zb_rad

@DoaM any further advice? 

Manxman_in_exile

I appreciate this is tangential to the thread, but is £14k the going price for a seven year-old GTi?  (I know very little about cars and even less about cars even a little out of the ordinary, but it seems a lot of money for a car that may have been thrashed.  Isn't that the point of a GTi?  Or at least it was 30 or 40 years ago.)

zb_rad

Manxman_in_exile said:

I appreciate this is tangential to the thread, but is £14k the going price for a seven year-old GTi?  (I know very little about cars and even less about cars even a little out of the ordinary, but it seems a lot of money for a car that may have been thrashed.  Isn't that the point of a GTi?  Or at least it was 30 or 40 years ago.)

Yeah it’s about right for the age, mileage ect

shaun_from_Africa

zb_rad said:

When the guy finished cleaning the car we noticed that 1. the wing mirror replaced was actually a metallic one instead of a flat black one which is the cars colour (only noticed as you can see the metal flakes in the sun) 2. the car had severe polish swirls all on the passenger side 3. on the passenger side B pillar there was a bad burn from polishing. 

As the swirling and polish burn were only noticed after the professional cleaning job, is it possible that the damage was done by the cleaner?

Spank

Manxman_in_exile said:

I appreciate this is tangential to the thread, but is £14k the going price for a seven year-old GTi?  (I know very little about cars and even less about cars even a little out of the ordinary, but it seems a lot of money for a car that may have been thrashed.  Isn't that the point of a GTi?  Or at least it was 30 or 40 years ago.)

The starting price is just over £36k now

zb_rad

shaun_from_Africa said:

zb_rad said:

When the guy finished cleaning the car we noticed that 1. the wing mirror replaced was actually a metallic one instead of a flat black one which is the cars colour (only noticed as you can see the metal flakes in the sun) 2. the car had severe polish swirls all on the passenger side 3. on the passenger side B pillar there was a bad burn from polishing. 

As the swirling and polish burn were only noticed after the professional cleaning job, is it possible that the damage was done by the cleaner?

No as it was only a wash, no polishing was done. Just a thorough clean

neilmcl

Sorry, but I'm with the dealer on this. You purchased a 7 year old car and with that comes the expectation that it's not going to be factory perfect, particularly the bodywork. You had ample opportunity to inspect the vehicle fully before purchase, taking it out for a test drive and seeing it under various different light conditions if you chose to do so. Unless the dealership described the car differently to what you received I really don't think they are liable for some minor cosmetic issues.

zb_rad

neilmcl said:

Sorry, but I'm with the dealer on this. You purchased a 7 year old car and with that comes the expectation that it's not going to be factory perfect, particularly the bodywork. You had ample opportunity to inspect the vehicle fully before purchase, taking it out for a test drive and seeing it under various different light conditions if you chose to do so. Unless the dealership described the car differently to what you received I really don't think they are liable for some minor cosmetic issues.

The sales bloke brought the car under a canopy on an overcast day, he then walked off back into the shop and wasn’t to be seen again until we found him. On handover at night we were handed the keys and sent on our way. Hardly fair. 

I understand age related marks but not a poor respray on the passenger side and then a poor polish to top it off. 

I suppose it’s easier to side with the dealer when it’s not yourself in the situation. 

DoaM

People seem to be missing the point (subject to proof) that the dealer omitted material fact (repaired crash damage) during the sales negotiations, such (missing) details influencing the consumer's choice to purchase. The fact that the dealer was unaware is irrelevant - they're expected to know as they're the experts.

powerful_Rogue

DoaM said:

People seem to be missing the point (subject to proof) that the dealer omitted material fact (repaired crash damage) during the sales negotiations, such (missing) details influencing the consumer's choice to purchase. The fact that the dealer was unaware is irrelevant - they're expected to know as they're the experts.

Are you able to back that up at all? I've had a search and from what I can tell, it's only an offence of missleading ommissions if the dealer knew the car had been in an accident repaired.

I found this on HonestJohn

So if a salesman knows a car has, for example, been badly damaged and repaired and does not tell the customer, he could later be held liable if the customer subsequently discovered that the car had been damaged and repaired. https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/95072/a-dealer-sold-me-a-car-that-was-damaged-in-an-accident---is-this-legal-

I'm guessing it's what people get surveys and inspections carried out when buying a house, and not relyng on what the EA has told them.