Would you buy a 5 year old car with 3 previous owners?

NottinghamKnight

forgotmyname said:

NottinghamKnight said:

It's surprising, I'd expect him to buy it, numerous issues arose and post continually on here about what was wrong, how they could get fixed, how it was very complicated etc etc

Are those the common faults that are easy to spot and just as easy to fix cheaply?

I would not buy a car from the Hyundai seller. "£149 Buyers Fee. If you are not paying a buyers fee at another dealer, question yourself as to the quality of the vehicle preparation and aftercare package"

I would question them as to why they need to add a Buyers Fee and why is it not included in the screen price.

Non sequitur?

JustAnotherSaver

AdrianC said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Admittedly i haven't read the post, only the thread title because that's all i'd need to know tbh as the answer would just be no and then move on.

You would automatically and totally rule out a 5yo, 3-keeper car, solely because of three keepers?

Even if it'd been pre-reg?
Even if they'd been family members who'd simply shuffled the keepership for some reason best known to themselves? Perhaps a bereavement?

Why?

You never quoted the most important part of my post though which actually answers your question. 

Except none of the rest did explain why.

Just like when i see the term "sold as seen" in an advert. I think ... well at least they have the balls to tell you in a roundabout way they're going to con you, so i don't entertain it.

Just like when you see a car road side with a bit of paper in the window that ONLY says ... For Sale, telephone this number. No info on it, no idea of mileage, no price. Again, no matter how nice the car may look, i'll move on. Lazy advertising.

...simply applies the same "I'd walk away instantly" attitude to several unrelated situations.

Which leaves...

Each to their own.

"Because I say so" wasn't an adequate explanation when I was at primary school, and it still isn't nearly half a century later.

Well I'm afraid it'll have to do.

Thats just my decision, that's how it is, there isn't really anything to it beyond that. I would just decide that's too much, not spend any time getting involved in the whys and the why nots and I'd move on. It really is as simple as that. 

Yes there may be perfectly good reasons for it and the car may be perfectly fine and that's great. I just wouldn't bother trying to find out why it's had 3 in 5.
Likewise when I see say a 10-15 year old car which is more my budget and its had 8 owners, I walk away. It's too many for me. 
It doesn't guarantee a good car, of course not. I'm the 3rd owner of my current 14yr old car and it's a bit of a lemon. I was the 2nd owner of my previous 7yr old car and it was fantastic. 

You make your decisions and live with the outcomes. 

JonathanA

Depending on the condition of the car, absolutely. Going back a few years, I bought a 4 month old Fiesta and was the 3rd owner. It was an ex rental Channel Islands car that the supplying dealer registered into their name, so became the second keeper, then I bought it from them. No issues whatsoever, car is now 16 years old and even though I don’t have it any more, I still see it around.

verybigchris

1) pre-reg
2) first real owner, who passes away
3) relative of 2, who takes ownership before selling it on

Can't see any reason why that should put anyone off.

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

Why?

You never quoted the most important part of my post though which actually answers your question. 

Except none of the rest did explain why.
...
Which leaves...

Each to their own.

"Because I say so" wasn't an adequate explanation when I was at primary school, and it still isn't nearly half a century later.

Well I'm afraid it'll have to do.

Thats just my decision, that's how it is, there isn't really anything to it beyond that.

<shrug>
But two keepers after 5yrs would be OK?

So two identical cars, with identical ownership patterns, would be viewed inherently differently by you... just because one had been pre-reg and the other hadn't.

Grumpy_chap

AdrianC said:

So two identical cars, with identical ownership patterns, would be viewed inherently differently by you... just because one had been pre-reg and the other hadn't.

Well, that is what we are told to believe - that the discount on the pre-reg reflects the reduction in future resale value because of not being the first RK.
For example:
https://www.drivethedeal.com/Pre-Registered-Cars.aspx

JustAnotherSaver

AdrianC said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

Why?

You never quoted the most important part of my post though which actually answers your question. 

Except none of the rest did explain why.
...
Which leaves...

Each to their own.

"Because I say so" wasn't an adequate explanation when I was at primary school, and it still isn't nearly half a century later.

Well I'm afraid it'll have to do.

Thats just my decision, that's how it is, there isn't really anything to it beyond that.

<shrug>
But two keepers after 5yrs would be OK?

So two identical cars, with identical ownership patterns, would be viewed inherently differently by you... just because one had been pre-reg and the other hadn't.

But you've already gone too far in to it. You're giving a story as to how this car has x-amount of owners. 99% of the time you're looking at a car for sale you don't know the story. At best you just know it's had x-owners.

If i knew that a 5 year old car had 200 owners and the first 199 just passed it around and kept it in the same garage for 6 months and then the 200th owner did a reasonable number of miles per year and serviced it every 6 months then sure no problem with that .... but how many times do you know the story?

You don't.

And i don't bother to grill them on the history of each of the owners. I just move on.

You clearly take a different view. You seem to be challenging me as though i'm wrong, yet you'll find that i'm not. It's just my view. Yours is yours and it suits you which is great. I'm not sat here asking you why you'd start delving in to the history of the car. Whatever floats your boat. It wouldn't float mine but hey, good for you.

It's like smoking. I cannot for the life of me fathom why someone would put those cancer sticks in their mouth. Yet people do it. I don't ask these people why they do it, they just do it, it's their choice. To me the only acceptable reason would be that someone has put a gun to your head and said you'll die if you don't. Why someone would willingly at any stage of their life do it is beyond me. I can't even begin to understand it, but it's their choice not mine so it is what it is. Likewise you don't seem to be able to understand my viewpoint yet you're coming at me like i should have reasoning and like it is wrong or inferior. I don't need reasoning. It's just my viewpoint, a decision that i make. My decision works fine for me in that i'm happy with that outlook, it clearly wouldn't do for you.

AdrianC

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

AdrianC said:

Why?

You never quoted the most important part of my post though which actually answers your question. 

Except none of the rest did explain why.
...
Which leaves...

Each to their own.

"Because I say so" wasn't an adequate explanation when I was at primary school, and it still isn't nearly half a century later.

Well I'm afraid it'll have to do.

Thats just my decision, that's how it is, there isn't really anything to it beyond that.

<shrug>
But two keepers after 5yrs would be OK?

So two identical cars, with identical ownership patterns, would be viewed inherently differently by you... just because one had been pre-reg and the other hadn't.

But you've already gone too far in to it. You're giving a story as to how this car has x-amount of owners. 99% of the time you're looking at a car for sale you don't know the story. At best you just know it's had x-owners.

EXACTLY my point.

Yet you've written it off as a bad purchase, based entirely on the paperwork surrounding its first registration half a decade ago.

forgotmyname

Had several one owner vehicles 5 years old or less, that does not tell the full story though.  One was an ex-armed response vehicle.  All the

signs were there reinforced boot floor with fixing brackets.  According to the log book one owner but how many drivers?  Probably had

fewer drivers than the average patrol car but certainly not a one owner one driver vehicle.

You needed to look hard to spot where they hid the additional lights, not riddled with holes like some patrol cars.

How many drivers has your one owner car had?  How many times has someone dumped the clutch with the rev counter

bouncing off the limiter?

ontheroad1970

You could have a car that has had 1 owner in 5 years.  If it was a hire car it would have to be declared.  If it was a run around car for a garage or a courtesy car for a garage, it could have been driven by many MANY people.  You don't know if you just assume without asking.  That's why its good for sellers to keep receipts for work done.  How it has been looked after is the key...