Small claims court - car issue

dr78

ThumbRemote said:

Legally you're entitled to it fixed. 

Realistically it sounds like you've bought from a dodgy dealer who almost certainly knew about the issues before they sold the car, and has no intention of resolving them. Who knows what other issues the car has that haven't come to light yet.

Definitely I feel it’s a dodgy dealer the mot I am quite confident was a dodgy one and car not checked. As the tyres are on wear indicator and I needed brakes soon as I got it checked out yet the mot was a clean sheet no advisories and last year advisories was two tyres and the same wheels have the low tyres now (mot was done day before I had car delivered ) so far no one has given positive advice to try court it’s more seeming its my fault for it being damaged and not knowing 

TheSpectator

dr78 said:

ThumbRemote said:

Legally you're entitled to it fixed. 

Realistically it sounds like you've bought from a dodgy dealer who almost certainly knew about the issues before they sold the car, and has no intention of resolving them. Who knows what other issues the car has that haven't come to light yet.

Definitely I feel it’s a dodgy dealer the mot I am quite confident was a dodgy one and car not checked. As the tyres are on wear indicator and I needed brakes soon as I got it checked out yet the mot was a clean sheet no advisories and last year advisories was two tyres and the same wheels have the low tyres now (mot was done day before I had car delivered ) so far no one has given positive advice to try court it’s more seeming its my fault for it being damaged and not knowing 

The problem with 'dodgy dealers' is that they know how to put any assets out the reach of any legal action.

So you know which entity you bought from, i.e. ltd company, sole trader? Have you checked companies house?

dr78

TheSpectator said:

dr78 said:

ThumbRemote said:

Legally you're entitled to it fixed. 

Realistically it sounds like you've bought from a dodgy dealer who almost certainly knew about the issues before they sold the car, and has no intention of resolving them. Who knows what other issues the car has that haven't come to light yet.

Definitely I feel it’s a dodgy dealer the mot I am quite confident was a dodgy one and car not checked. As the tyres are on wear indicator and I needed brakes soon as I got it checked out yet the mot was a clean sheet no advisories and last year advisories was two tyres and the same wheels have the low tyres now (mot was done day before I had car delivered ) so far no one has given positive advice to try court it’s more seeming its my fault for it being damaged and not knowing 

The problem with 'dodgy dealers' is that they know how to put any assets out the reach of any legal action.

So you know which entity you bought from, i.e. ltd company, sole trader? Have you 

They show as a limited company and one man running it which I believe is the man who is refusing me his email and solicitor details but only wants communication via them so is just ignoring me when I message

Aylesbury_Duck

Forget about the matter of the tyres and brakes.  Them both being near the wear limit means they were roadworthy items at the time of the MOT and purchase.  Same with the creaky suspension.  They're all things you're expected to spot as part of your regular checks and have a responsibility to replace before they wear beyond legal or safe limits.

I think you've bought a car that has several elements on their last legs.  With hindsight, you'd pick these things up when viewing and test-driving the car and either walk away or negotiate a significant price reduction in anticipation of imminent bills for tyres, brake pads, etc.  But if those items were all legally safe at the time of purchase, you have no comeback on that.

dr78

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Forget about the matter of the tyres and brakes.  Them both being near the wear limit means they were roadworthy items at the time of the MOT and purchase.  Same with the creaky suspension.  They're all things you're expected to spot as part of your regular checks and have a responsibility to replace before they wear beyond legal or safe limits.

I think you've bought a car that has several elements on their last legs.  With hindsight, you'd pick these things up when viewing and test-driving the car and either walk away or negotiate a significant price reduction in anticipation of imminent bills for tyres, brake pads, etc.  But if those items were all legally safe at the time of purchase, you have no comeback on that.

The tyres are on the wear indicator. And brakes garage who checked car over changed brakes before handing car back to me as said they was too bad to leave. Mot was done the day before. It’s so easy for these garages to get their cars passed for mot with their friendly mot garage. Disagree all the things would be picked up on test drive as brakes felt ok and there was no creeks as the test drive small area they took me on was flat so no creeks happened. But they got car passed on their mot so there isn’t nothing  I can do re brakes and tyres and suspension hence why not asking about it. I’m only wanting to possibly go to court over the ac issue as the rest as they managed to get car mot passed without even an advisories for the tyres ? I can’t argue it. But I just know they should have failed or been advisory if on wear indicator ? But I want to get help with the ac issue if I can 

TheSpectator

If you thing it should have failed then report the garage that did the MOT. Did the 'brakes garage' give you the pads back as proof or are you accepting their word?

The whole issue of only letting you drive it round the block would have been a red flag for me and walked away. Did you even test the aircon that day?

Aylesbury_Duck

dr78 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Forget about the matter of the tyres and brakes.  Them both being near the wear limit means they were roadworthy items at the time of the MOT and purchase.  Same with the creaky suspension.  They're all things you're expected to spot as part of your regular checks and have a responsibility to replace before they wear beyond legal or safe limits.

I think you've bought a car that has several elements on their last legs.  With hindsight, you'd pick these things up when viewing and test-driving the car and either walk away or negotiate a significant price reduction in anticipation of imminent bills for tyres, brake pads, etc.  But if those items were all legally safe at the time of purchase, you have no comeback on that.

The tyres are on the wear indicator. And brakes garage who checked car over changed brakes before handing car back to me as said they was too bad to leave. Mot was done the day before. It’s so easy for these garages to get their cars passed for mot with their friendly mot garage. Disagree all the things would be picked up on test drive as brakes felt ok and there was no creeks as the test drive small area they took me on was flat so no creeks happened

The tyre wear indicator indicates when a tyre has worn to the minimum legal tread depth. In other words, the tyres may have been legal (just) when the MOT was done and when you purchased the car.  Presumably they're an advisory on the MOT? 

The second garage's opinion was that the brake pads needed changing, but you should have given the selling garage the chance to remedy that if they genuinely needed changing.  

With respect, it doesn't sound as if you're mechanically experienced enough to assess these things on the basis of "they looked and felt ok" on what you admit was an inadequate test drive.  You're not expected to be an expert consumer, but basic checks of safety-critical items like tyres is your responsibility as an owner, so it's reasonable to expect you to check them before purchase.  Tyres worn close to the legal limit are visually obvious.  How would you fulfil your ongoing responsibility to check they're safe if you can't do that on the sales forecourt?

Anyway, to get back to the main point, it does sound as if the dealer sold a car with known and imminent problems.  The MOT certificate may well have been dodgy, too.  What you need to do is to gather the evidence you have and decide if you wish to take them to court.

Edited:  I see you've added to your post and that the tyres didn't appear as an advisory on the MOT.  I'd report the issuing garage for that.  

dr78

TheSpectator said:

If you thing it should have failed then report the garage that did the MOT.

The whole issue of only letting you drive it round the block would have been a red flag for me and walked away. Did you even test the aircon that day?

Thanks for replying. I have to admit I didn’t check air con till it was delivered as found being on my own I felt pressured them following me around the car so much when I was viewing. The garage looks professional and decent etc and car sales man was nice but I felt awkward trying everything  so have to Admit I forgot the air con. I was more trying to make sure things like the heated seats and reverse camera worked to be honest so my fault for not checking. I think if I have some chance it’s worth paying the £35 to fight it in court. I can see garage is defo a bit dodgy as they offered me only £100 to help towards the £430 bill. But then retracted offer when I refused to let them have my invoice for brakes repair . I don’t get why they want my brake invoice. I can only assume they can claim something back off it ?  I think I just went for a dealer with warranty as thought was my best bet but turns out warranty is pointless as can’t use it. Like they cover air con but they said they want photos of condenser and if see a stone chip mark it’s not covered. Yet most condenser issues are caused by stone chips 

Aylesbury_Duck

They want the brake invoice to check you're not pulling a fast one and claiming for work you haven't had done.  And to check that the brake work carried out wasn't excessive or excessively charged.

dr78

Aylesbury_Duck said:

They want the brake invoice to check you're not pulling a fast one and claiming for work you haven't had done.  And to check that the brake work carried out wasn't excessive or excessively charged.

But they didn’t pay for breaks though ?