Bought a used car from a dealer, AA approved trouble after

sweetsand

Grumpy_chap said:

sweetsand said:

Thank you. When a dealer sell you a car, everything must be working unless they advise you the onus is on the dealer to sell a working car unless stated otherwise.

That is not true - otherwise no dealer would ever be able to sell a car more than a couple of years old.  The obligation on the dealer is to ensure the safety of the car and not to conceal facts (that is directed at not concealing accidents etc). 

The OP even admits right at the start...

kielyjohn said:

I bought a car and didn’t check the aircon was working

It was entirely within the gift of the OP to check the aircon was working before agreeing to purchase.  The OP did not do so.  That is the OP's risk.  To be honest, on a 12 yo £1,600 car, if I had bought it and the air con did not work I would just shrug and focus on just having a car to get from A to B.

Grumpy_chap said:

sweetsand said:

Thank you. When a dealer sell you a car, everything must be working unless they advise you the onus is on the dealer to sell a working car unless stated otherwise.

That is not true - otherwise no dealer would ever be able to sell a car more than a couple of years old.  The obligation on the dealer is to ensure the safety of the car and not to conceal facts (that is directed at not concealing accidents etc). 

The OP even admits right at the start...

kielyjohn said:

I bought a car and didn’t check the aircon was working

It was entirely within the gift of the OP to check the aircon was working before agreeing to purchase.  The OP did not do so.  That is the OP's risk.  To be honest, on a 12 yo £1,600 car, if I had bought it and the air con did not work I would just shrug and focus on just having a car to get from A to B.

I still disagree with you and am with the consumer link and the several posters that I agree with that it is down to the dealer and I stand by that and having seen the links, what the OP has stated, you are wrong yet again. For wahtever reason you do not want to accept you was wrong, that is your choice and I will let others convince you from now on.
Thanks

nicechap

kielyjohn said:

Hi all, so I bought a car and didn’t check the aircon was working, took to a trusted garage thinking it would need a simple regas. Turns out the condenser needs
changing. Got in contact with place a I bought it from told it would not be covered under the warranty just the engine and gear box. But they then agreed to cover the part and fit for £150. No quote or bill sent to me just a text message, the work was done but the original place made it worse and the fans were then not working at all.

Took back to the garage I trust and they confirm condenser had been replaced and the gas is holding and looked like there were fuses missing and replaced and I’m taking next week to hopefully get it sorted. I don’t really trust the place I bought from but wondering if they start chasing me for money I have no problem in paying just feel a bit begrudged to, anyone have any advice on used cars?

if they start demanding I’m going to ask them to email/quote me officially and also I’m going to threaten to approach the AA and advise they are selling cars but advertising fully working when in this case it wasn’t.

Didnt seem the original place fully checked the car before selling and trying to make me pay for costs that should be working from purchase.

thanks 

I can't see anywhere that you paid for an AA inspection, only that you bought from an AA approved dealer, hence why they are resolving the problems as per their Approved Dealer promise:

• The 10-point Promise – launched last year – includes a range of basic expectations such as a minimum six-month MoT, proper management of paperwork, free car history, 12-months AA breakdown cover, an audit by the AA once per year and, fundamentally, a way for customers to escalate any issues or problems through an AA Cars mediation service: full details – https://www.theaa.com/cars/dealer-promise.php

And even looking through an example AA inspection report, I can't see air condition being one of the checks (happy to be corrected).  https://www.theaa.com/vehicle-inspection/

So was it described as having working A/C?

bigadaj

sweetsand said:

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

EdGasketTheSecond said:

Likewise Dealers are responsible for ensuring that what they sell actually works unless stated otherwise. There is a difference between fair wear and tear due to age and something downright not working at all.

Exactly and the dealer clearly advertised "air conditioning."
Thanks.

Again where is your evidence....

Its not my "evidence" I am referring to but that of the OP.
See OP post at 19 August at 3:55PM
That is "evidence" enough for me but the OP has his rights as a consumer as well as they bought from a dealer.
Did you not read the read before jumping on my post?

Yes of course I did. You have inferred that it was advertised with aircon, the OP asks a hypothetical question. It may or may not have been advertised with aircon, it is likely that the OP assumed it had but it wasn't explicitly stated and they didn't ask. At that price point then elements of  car not working that aren't critical to the safety or operation of the car is not surprising, aircon is not exactly essential in the uk after all. Whether you consider this is evidence is irrelevant, and we've been through the rights the consumer has above. 

Ok, you say you did read the thread, but IMO you have not understood it as the OP is clear the car was advertised as with aircon.
I've supplied you with the "evidence" as you kindly requested but I pointed out to you it's not my "evidence" but that of the OP ie the person that was there and bought the car and that in most peoples book is the end of the story.

No they haven't this is why you are getting such adverse reaction because you are assuming things, that's not how things work in a court of law, which is the level of proof you should assume is necessary. You haven't supplied any evidence, you have confirmed that you have assumed hearsay is evidence which it is not. The OP has not confirmed the car was advertised with aircon and admits they did not test it when they inspected. 

swingaloo

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

EdGasketTheSecond said:

Likewise Dealers are responsible for ensuring that what they sell actually works unless stated otherwise. There is a difference between fair wear and tear due to age and something downright not working at all.

Exactly and the dealer clearly advertised "air conditioning."
Thanks.

Again where is your evidence....

Its not my "evidence" I am referring to but that of the OP.
See OP post at 19 August at 3:55PM
That is "evidence" enough for me but the OP has his rights as a consumer as well as they bought from a dealer.
Did you not read the read before jumping on my post?

Yes of course I did. You have inferred that it was advertised with aircon, the OP asks a hypothetical question. It may or may not have been advertised with aircon, it is likely that the OP assumed it had but it wasn't explicitly stated and they didn't ask. At that price point then elements of  car not working that aren't critical to the safety or operation of the car is not surprising, aircon is not exactly essential in the uk after all. Whether you consider this is evidence is irrelevant, and we've been through the rights the consumer has above. 

Ok, you say you did read the thread, but IMO you have not understood it as the OP is clear the car was advertised as with aircon.
I've supplied you with the "evidence" as you kindly requested but I pointed out to you it's not my "evidence" but that of the OP ie the person that was there and bought the car and that in most peoples book is the end of the story.

No they haven't this is why you are getting such adverse reaction because you are assuming things, that's not how things work in a court of law, which is the level of proof you should assume is necessary. You haven't supplied any evidence, you have confirmed that you have assumed hearsay is evidence which it is not. The OP has not confirmed the car was advertised with aircon and admits they did not test it when they inspected. 

I would quit now Bigadaj as you may as well bang your head against a brick wall with this poster

bigadaj

swingaloo said:

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

bigadaj said:

sweetsand said:

EdGasketTheSecond said:

Likewise Dealers are responsible for ensuring that what they sell actually works unless stated otherwise. There is a difference between fair wear and tear due to age and something downright not working at all.

Exactly and the dealer clearly advertised "air conditioning."
Thanks.

Again where is your evidence....

Its not my "evidence" I am referring to but that of the OP.
See OP post at 19 August at 3:55PM
That is "evidence" enough for me but the OP has his rights as a consumer as well as they bought from a dealer.
Did you not read the read before jumping on my post?

Yes of course I did. You have inferred that it was advertised with aircon, the OP asks a hypothetical question. It may or may not have been advertised with aircon, it is likely that the OP assumed it had but it wasn't explicitly stated and they didn't ask. At that price point then elements of  car not working that aren't critical to the safety or operation of the car is not surprising, aircon is not exactly essential in the uk after all. Whether you consider this is evidence is irrelevant, and we've been through the rights the consumer has above. 

Ok, you say you did read the thread, but IMO you have not understood it as the OP is clear the car was advertised as with aircon.
I've supplied you with the "evidence" as you kindly requested but I pointed out to you it's not my "evidence" but that of the OP ie the person that was there and bought the car and that in most peoples book is the end of the story.

No they haven't this is why you are getting such adverse reaction because you are assuming things, that's not how things work in a court of law, which is the level of proof you should assume is necessary. You haven't supplied any evidence, you have confirmed that you have assumed hearsay is evidence which it is not. The OP has not confirmed the car was advertised with aircon and admits they did not test it when they inspected. 

I would quit now Bigadaj as you may as well bang your head against a brick wall with this poster

I'm not expecting to win a argument but strongly believe that inaccurate or misleading posts need to be responded to. Ironically I'm not saying the poster is wrong on this occasion, just that we don't have the information to decide one way or the other, and even if we did then it's not a clear cut outcome. 

fred246

so if a car is advertised as having aircon and isn’t working no matter the age I’m expected to pay?

That was the nearest we got. It's not 100% conclusive. The trading standards document said that if you advertise a car with air conditioning it must work. It's interesting how different people look after their possessions. I would never leave a car with anything not working. I would get any problem fixed immediately. So however old my cars are everything works perfectly. If you don't fix things you start to get fed up of them.

EdGasketTheSecond

Grumpy_chap said:

If everything on a used car 12 yo at £1,600 has to work as perfectly as a brand new car, what, then, would be the point of anyone ever buying a brand new car?

There is no point. All the cars I've ever bought have been £1,000 or less, everything has worked on them when I bought them and I made sure they continue to work. New car sales are mostly to companies and the few individuals that do buy new cars do so for snob value, the warranty, because money is not important to them, or maybe they are not confident buying a used car.

fred246

Fixing cars yourself makes so much difference though. You do it yourself at a fraction of a price a garage would charge but you do a much better job. This thread is a great example. "We fixed the Aircon but wrecked the fan." Mechanics cause so much damage. They are always breaking something else and then they claim it is unrelated.

Mercdriver

fred246 said:

Fixing cars yourself makes so much difference though. You do it yourself at a fraction of a price a garage would charge but you do a much better job. This thread is a great example. "We fixed the Aircon but wrecked the fan." Mechanics cause so much damage. They are always breaking something else and then they claim it is unrelated.

I can guarantee that if I tried to do work that should be done qt a garage, I would do a much worse job.  The car would be a write off after.  Your 'advice' doesn't work for the majority of people and making sweeping statements about mechanics doesn't make them true.

oldagetraveller1

How would you "fix" a non operating aircon system Fred?

Hopefully you have the correct equipment at hand to do a "much better job"?