Faulty car.

13

Comments

  • smnb08
    smnb08 Posts: 488 Forumite
    waamo wrote: »
    Nobody said it was acceptable. Unless you have a very good crystal ball how do you know those cars won't develop faults soon after purchase?

    I don’t, it’s a risk you take but then I would never expect it to be delivered with them.
    sealed pot challenge member #920
  • smnb08
    smnb08 Posts: 488 Forumite
    Not at all. You've completely misunderstood the point I made. My point was that at £600, it's unlikely that a car is going to remain trouble-free for long. That's not a comment on your rights in your situation, it was a more general comment. If the car was sold to you as 'fault-free', you have a case to reject it.

    I wasn’t expecting it to last long, just bought initially to get my daughter driving, was planning for her to use it until the mot expires in March 2020

    Why am I wrong? Just because there are 8,119 cars for sale under £500 doesn't mean they're all in good condition and going to last for a long time. When you buy a car for several hundred pounds, you have to budget for expected problems that you probably have less need to budget for on a car priced at several thousand pounds. What's 'wrong' about that?

    People buy run around cars all the time, I know people with expensive cars that have had things go wrong with them and iv known people buy cars for under a thousand pounds that have gone on and on.
    sealed pot challenge member #920
  • smnb08
    smnb08 Posts: 488 Forumite
    macman wrote: »
    OP, what was the exact wording of the ad re 'no faults'? No dealer would be stupid enough to claim that on a £600 car. The OP bought it unseen, undriven, and without apparently asking any questions. And paid for it to be delivered, so couldn't have inspected it prior to delivery.
    If it really said that, and has covered no mileage since delivery, then you should reject it under CRA 2015. You need to do this within 30 days, in writing. Forget phoning or texting.

    It doesnt state it has no faults but then it doesn’t state it has any either.

    This is the description.....

    Peugeot 206 1.1 Zest, Little Run Around Ideal For A First Time Driver Car, 2 Keys, Central Locking, Long MOT, HPI Clear, Electric Windows, Air Conditioning, CD player, Low Insurance Group and Tax, Next MOT due 20/05/2020, Air-Conditioning, Electric Windows (Front), In Car Entertainment (Radio/CD). Silver, Viewing Strictly By Appointment Only Please Call Beforehand to Ensure You Receive Our Full Attention, £575

    I paid £600...the extra was for delivery.

    Iv looked and looked and can see nowhere it saying the head gasket has gone??
    sealed pot challenge member #920
  • smnb08 wrote: »
    People buy run around cars all the time, I know people with expensive cars that have had things go wrong with them and iv known people buy cars for under a thousand pounds that have gone on and on.
    And that's why I said it's a lottery.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.
  • smnb08
    smnb08 Posts: 488 Forumite
    And that's why I said it's a lottery.

    No, You said......

    I agree, but a £600 car having no faults at the time of sale is quite likely to have faults not long afterwards.

    Thus implying that all cars that cost £600 are going to be no good.
    sealed pot challenge member #920
  • hollydays
    hollydays Posts: 19,812 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    edited 9 September 2019 at 10:17PM
    smnb08 wrote: »
    People buy run around cars all the time, I know people with expensive cars that have had things go wrong with them and iv known people buy cars for under a thousand pounds that have gone on and on.

    Do you really want your daughter driving a potential death trap?
    Invest more to get something better.
  • hollydays
    hollydays Posts: 19,812 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    smnb08 wrote: »
    And that's why I said it's a lottery.

    No, You said......

    I agree, but a £600 car having no faults at the time of sale is quite likely to have faults not long afterwards.

    Thus implying that all cars that cost £600 are going to be no good.

    It doesn't matter what you think he's implying.
    It's a big risk you are taking with your daughter.
    You're not doing her a favours I'm afraid.
  • smnb08 wrote: »
    And that's why I said it's a lottery.

    No, You said......

    I agree, but a £600 car having no faults at the time of sale is quite likely to have faults not long afterwards.

    Thus implying that all cars that cost £600 are going to be no good.
    You can infer all you like, but that's not what I was implying. Do you understand what "quite likely" means? It's somewhat different to "definitely".

    Think of it the other way round. If all cars costing £600 are going to be good, reliable cars for a reasonable period of time, why do people spend thousands on cars that are 5-10 years old?

    You've paid about a little as is possible to get a working car. You'll be fortunate if it doesn't need reasonable expenditure in the coming months (aside from consumables and any due service). It's a gamble, a lottery, a risk. That doesn't excuse it having a failed head gasket if it was described as being in reasonable condition.

    You need to understand what you've bought and adjust your expectations.
  • macman
    macman Posts: 53,098 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    It wasn't described as being 'in reasonable condition' though. The description does not mention age, mileage, service history, or condition. In fact, nothing of practical help whatsoever. It could be, and probably is, a complete heap of junk. It only has 9m MOT, too. Probably a long list of advisories on the last one?
    The head gasket is a separate issue, as that makes it unroadworthy, so that's the key to a claim under CRA 2015, if indeed it is the head gasket.
    I cannot see the point of buying a vehicle like this for £600, when the insurance is probably going to be over 1K a year for a young learner?
    No free lunch, and no free laptop ;)
  • smnb08
    smnb08 Posts: 488 Forumite
    macman wrote: »
    It wasn't described as being 'in reasonable condition' though. The description does not mention age, mileage, service history, or condition. In fact, nothing of practical help whatsoever. It could be, and probably is, a complete heap of junk. It only has 9m MOT, too. Probably a long list of advisories on the last one?
    The head gasket is a separate issue, as that makes it unroadworthy, so that's the key to a claim under CRA 2015, if indeed it is the head gasket.
    I cannot see the point of buying a vehicle like this for £600, when the insurance is probably going to be over 1K a year for a young learner?

    The car has done 85,000 miles. I only printed the description.
    9 months mot = plenty of time to learn to drive and get test passed whilst saving for something more reliable.
    P.s the insurance is £339 a year for her to learn to drive in it!
    sealed pot challenge member #920
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards