Small claims court - car issue

dr78

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.  

I viewed car Monday mot was Tuesday car delivered weds. The mot is a clean sheet. Yet weirdly prob coincidence but the same tyres was a advisory last year but managed to not even make advisory sheet this time but need changing 

dr78

TheSpectator said:

My question would be why won't you give them the invoice? What difference does it make to you if there was something in it for them (unlikely btw).

My advice would be to check the company/directors on company house before spending money on legal action. It's all to easy for them to set up a new company and transfer all assets to it leaving you nothing to enforce a successful claim against. Companies house may indicate if they have had past companies.

Why should I give them my invoice? Surely they can claim something back off the work ? Can they claim tax back or anything or use that invoice to claim back expenses for a repair?

400ixl

Why do you care what they can claim back if they are going to be paying you money?

dr78

400ixl said:

Why do you care what they can claim back if they are going to be paying you money?

Because why should they claim back money for work I have paid for? They would have made enough profit out of the car I won’t let them have my invoices for work they haven’t paid for . Also I am not agreeing to give my invoices for a poor £100 towards a £430 bill I asked for half 

DullGreyGuy

dr78 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So when did you first tell them?
Has the cause of the leak from the condenser been identified? Is it stone damage? Rusted through?

As a dealer they are required to describe the vehicle accurately and it should highlight known problems. "Known problems" will be take in the context of them being professional in the motor trade and not Joe Public. This is however partially balanced by the fact you arent buying a nearly new car but one thats 10 years old so terms like "good condition" has to factor age in.

If you go to court, and you dont get to specify if its small track or fast track, a judge decides that, then it will ultimately come down to if the judge believes it was broken when you bought it or it broke afterwards. Clearly the sooner you told them the better the chances and if its corrosion and not impact damage then probably better too. 

What we dont know is what records they have. They may show it came in not working, they regassed it, checked it the next day and it was still working and no one who took it for a test drive since complained. I've no idea if that would be considered a reasonable test or if they should as professionals checked again at a later date in case it was a slow leak. 

I told them a couple of weeks ago as been arguing with them since to try and get some help to the bill. The garage didn’t say what’s caused it just that the condenser is leaking . 

I'm confused on the timeline.... you bought the car a mid Feb but you only found out the AC didnt work a couple of weeks ago? I know it's not been the weather to need the AC on all the time but it's something people would normally check when they get their secondhand car.

Ultimately it's your choice what you do, there are a lot of gaps in the story as it stands right now which may result in the judge determining that the problem occurred after you bought it. 

dr78

DullGreyGuy said:

dr78 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So when did you first tell them?
Has the cause of the leak from the condenser been identified? Is it stone damage? Rusted through?

As a dealer they are required to describe the vehicle accurately and it should highlight known problems. "Known problems" will be take in the context of them being professional in the motor trade and not Joe Public. This is however partially balanced by the fact you arent buying a nearly new car but one thats 10 years old so terms like "good condition" has to factor age in.

If you go to court, and you dont get to specify if its small track or fast track, a judge decides that, then it will ultimately come down to if the judge believes it was broken when you bought it or it broke afterwards. Clearly the sooner you told them the better the chances and if its corrosion and not impact damage then probably better too. 

What we dont know is what records they have. They may show it came in not working, they regassed it, checked it the next day and it was still working and no one who took it for a test drive since complained. I've no idea if that would be considered a reasonable test or if they should as professionals checked again at a later date in case it was a slow leak. 

I told them a couple of weeks ago as been arguing with them since to try and get some help to the bill. The garage didn’t say what’s caused it just that the condenser is leaking . 

I'm confused on the timeline.... you bought the car a mid Feb but you only found out the AC didnt work a couple of weeks ago? I know it's not been the weather to need the AC on all the time but it's something people would normally check when they get their secondhand car.

Ultimately it's your choice what you do, there are a lot of gaps in the story as it stands right now which may result in the judge determining that the problem occurred after you bought it. 

No when car was delivered I saw it wasn’t working but assumed it was just a re gas needed and as was too cold to need it I thought I’d re gas when a bit warmer. Then found out about the leak. Car has a bloody clutch judder too when car is warm. Bet warranty won’t help with that neither 

Aylesbury_Duck

Air conditioning should be used all year round.  One of the reasons gas leaks is that if not used, the system's seals dry out.  Run it all year round.  In the winter it dehumidifies the cabin.

born_again

dr78 said:

400ixl said:

Why do you care what they can claim back if they are going to be paying you money?

Because why should they claim back money for work I have paid for? They would have made enough profit out of the car I won’t let them have my invoices for work they haven’t paid for . Also I am not agreeing to give my invoices for a poor £100 towards a £430 bill I asked for half 

Look at it from their side.
No invoice means to them that you could be a chancer hoping to get some money back on the purchase.
You will be surprised how little these dealers make.
RSEV did a video on this. 

dr78

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Air conditioning should be used all year round.  One of the reasons gas leaks is that if not used, the system's seals dry out.  Run it all year round.  In the winter it dehumidifies the cabin.

It defo hasn’t been run in ages as the garage said the seals have had it and need replacing 😭

Aylesbury_Duck

dr78 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Air conditioning should be used all year round.  One of the reasons gas leaks is that if not used, the system's seals dry out.  Run it all year round.  In the winter it dehumidifies the cabin.

It defo hasn’t been run in ages as the garage said the seals have had it and need replacing 😭

Is this the same garage that claimed your brakes needed replacing?  They're doing quite well out of this...