Secondhand Car Problems

Pat366

Hello
i bought a car from CarBase ten months ago, which came with a three month warranty only. We bought the car for 6.5K in cash and have just been presented with a 2.5K garage bill. Do we have any standing?

tia 

ontheroad1970

legally from six months after purchase you will have to prove that the fault existed at the time of purchase, and which couldn't be reasonably expected for car of the age, or in relation to wear and tear.  So you will struggle.

Carrot007

ontheroad1970 said:

legally from six months after purchase you will have to prove that the fault existed at the time of purchase, and which couldn't be reasonably expected for car of the age, or in relation to wear and tear.  So you will struggle.

Though for anyone to make an objective opionion for OP they would need to mention make/model/age and exactly what the 2.5k is for (and what sort of place is asking that).

ontheroad1970

Don't need any of that to know that the OP will need to evidence on the balance of probability that the fault existed at the time of purchase.  Everything else is irrelevant unless the OP can satisfy that.  That's in both Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Good Act, which has not replaced the former.

Carrot007

ontheroad1970 said:

Don't need any of that to know that the OP will need to evidence on the balance of probability that the fault existed at the time of purchase.  Everything else is irrelevant unless the OP can satisfy that.  That's in both Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Good Act, which has not replaced the former.

Depends of course on reagrds to if anyone here want to help the op or just give them boiler plate advice.

If OP bought an overpriced wreck from a car supermarket and took it to a main dealer for simple faults that would be a quater elsewhere or not even an issue they may be advised to just not bother as there is no point.

What you said is of course true, but with more information could be tailored to be more helpful.

AdrianC

It's over six months since the date of purchase, so you would need to prove that the issue was present at the time of purchase, as well as it not being reasonable to expect for a used car of that age/mileage/apparent condition/relative price.

What car, age, issue?

sweetsand

Carrot007 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Don't need any of that to know that the OP will need to evidence on the balance of probability that the fault existed at the time of purchase.  Everything else is irrelevant unless the OP can satisfy that.  That's in both Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Good Act, which has not replaced the former.

Depends of course on reagrds to if anyone here want to help the op or just give them boiler plate advice.

If OP bought an overpriced wreck from a car supermarket and took it to a main dealer for simple faults that would be a quater elsewhere or not even an issue they may be advised to just not bother as there is no point.

What you said is of course true, but with more information could be tailored to be more helpful.

Great post.
9 months down the road on a used car, I doubt there is a 1% change of getting anything. Even with a warranty they often go for wear and tear clause.
What is the car, miles, service history, owners, type of dealer bought  from, but 9 months down the road, anything thing can happen and it is reasonable to for the garage or anyone to be aware of faults.

Dear Op the best you can get is a good will discount from that garage IMO

ontheroad1970

CarBase is a car supermarket. 2.5k is a lot for repairs. No matter where the repair has been taken to I can’t see the car supermarket covering it. They have no legal standing for a claim. Which is the Answer to the question the OP is asking. 

A second opinion for the repairs and quotation might get savings however

frost500

No chance. The dealer couldn't legally accept responsibility. The car is no longer absolutely nothing to do with them at all. What will they get back from covering the repair costs?

George_Michael

frost500 said:

The car is no longer absolutely nothing to do with them at all.

Surely "no longer nothing to do with them" means that it is to do with them.

frost500

Sorry george, I am confused?