Car has 9 inch rust hole 8 months after buying from a dealer

[SMcP114]

In the time it took to read this thread you could have welded a patch over it and undersealed it.

I'd be more shocked if I bought a Shogun and it didn't have a hole in the inner wing.

[Vaud]

unrepentant said:

There is but I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

There is no legal difference for SOGA.

There is a difference in how they operate but I can't find a formal definition of a "dealer" that sets the two apart. Common usage would imply that a dealer is typically a "branded dealer" and a trader is a multi brand used reseller, but this is general usage.

[unrepentant]

Vaud said:

unrepentant said:

There is but I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

There is no legal difference for SOGA.

There is a difference in how they operate but I can't find a formal definition of a "dealer" that sets the two apart. Common usage would imply that a dealer is typically a "branded dealer" and a trader is a multi brand used reseller, but this is general usage.

For fks sake! The point I made twice, which has nothing to do with SOGA, was that these kind of cars are sold by backstreet traders not by high street dealers.

Of course the best solution would be to adopt what we have in the USA and allow dealers and traders to sell cars "AS IS" with no warranty, implied or otherwise. Then everyone would know where they stand.

[Devil2575]

unrepentant said:

Devil2575 said:

But we all know what he means regardless of semantics.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he bought it from a main dealer, but whether you refer to a back street car lot that sells older cars as a dealer or a trader is neither here nor there.

There's a world of difference. You can set up Devil motors from a vacant lot or your garage and sell old beaters. A dealer has usually invested millions in building a business and a reputation and would probably send said beaters straight to auction or call Devil motors and offload to them rather than risk his reputation retailing them.

The point is that we all knew what kind of place the OP bought his car from regardless of the words he used.

[drew.h]

CRA1G said:

Sounds to me like the other OP will be seeking to buy something more expensive in the near future.....



Because I'm sure he will be seeking compensation for his obligatory whiplash " No Fault" accident with claim....

No whiplash, try chest injury, caused by seat belt and steering wheel. As for compensation, have I been paid for the few days I had off work, no. Did I take lots of time off work and claim for it, no, because my chest hurt the same sat at home as it did at work, so I kept working.

Was I able to ride my motorbike this year, no. My shire horse, no, in fact I had re-home him. Did I get my TVR on the road, no, I wouldn't have been able to drive without power steering. Was I able to work on my garden or the land I own, no. Have I claimed for any of this, NO!

What have I got? A constant reminder of the day a drunken OAP forgot what side of the road he drove on, every time I take a breath, and don't forget the rust bucket to replace the well maintained Jumbuck I was driving.

Sorry, rant over.

[RemyMartin]

drew.h said:

CRA1G said:

Sounds to me like the other OP will be seeking to buy something more expensive in the near future.....



Because I'm sure he will be seeking compensation for his obligatory whiplash " No Fault" accident with claim....

No whiplash, try chest injury, caused by seat belt and steering wheel. As for compensation, have I been paid for the few days I had off work, no. Did I take lots of time off work and claim for it, no, because my chest hurt the same sat at home as it did at work, so I kept working.

Was I able to ride my motorbike this year, no. My shire horse, no, in fact I had re-home him. Did I get my TVR on the road, no, I wouldn't have been able to drive without power steering. Was I able to work on my garden or the land I own, no. Have I claimed for any of this, NO!

What have I got? A constant reminder of the day a drunken OAP forgot what side of the road he drove on, every time I take a breath, and don't forget the rust bucket to replace the well maintained Jumbuck I was driving.

Sorry, rant over.

Your rant reads as I'm pissed off with my bad luck, therefore someone has to pay.
You could in loads of generic variables, still glossing over the fact you have bought a stter that needs work and you want someone else to pay for your error of not viewing it or having it inspected on your behalf.

[s3fella]

Op, I feel for your predicament, but think you're approaching this wrong. IMHO an 8 inch hole on an inner wing of a shogun, provided it is accessible for welding, should cost about 80 to 150 quid to get welded up.

This is a 14 year old car. To put it in perspective, my 7 year old polo has had a 650 quid bill for one injector in november and a 200 quid bill for front springs after one broke over Xmas. All on a car worth 1500 quid.

Cars cost money to keep going. And some not like me that will spend it, and then use the car to get use out of it, will just chop it in at a dealer to give them the problem.!

I always consider ANY car at a dealer to be one with potential problems that someone chopped in! So inspect them well or don't buy.

But in your case, 8 months and it needs 150 quid of welding, you ain't doing bad imho.

[drew.h]

The dealer did not put 12 months MOT on the car as he originally agreed, because my wife haggled the price down. So MOT not done by his garage.

I would normally refer to a main dealer as a dealership, to me a car dealer is someone who makes money buying and selling cars and should know what they are doing. Hence why I feel there should be some recompense when they sell a lemon. Isn't part of their markup on a car because you are paying for their expertise as a professional?

Quote from their web site "ALL OUR VEHICLES COME PRE-CHECKED M.O.T CERTIFICATE FULLY VALETED. HPI CHECKED."

I've emailed the garage, but no reply yet, if I get time I'll phone them tomorrow. I'll have my local MOT station take a look and quote for the repair.

The wire brush was hand held, not powered.

[Engineer1]

greggy50 said:

SpeckledJim said:

What does "full" MOT mean?

At best it's got 25% of an MOT, no?

Lets see a photo of the problem OP.

Had the car for 9 months and it would not pass an MOT so assume upon purchase it was very close to having a full 12 month ticket no?

Therefore does raise the question it may have been a slightly dodgy MOT and chucked on the forecourt cheap to get rid of it...

Back in the late 90s my first car would need welding every MOT, so it is possible to go from a pass to a fail inside a year, if it wasn't no car would fail an MOT as the problem would never happen

[drew.h]

RemyMartin said:

Your rant reads as I'm pissed off with my bad luck, therefore someone has to pay.
You could in loads of generic variables, still glossing over the fact you have bought a stter that needs work and you want someone else to pay for your error of not viewing it or having it inspected on your behalf.

As my post above, when buying from a dealer shouldn't I expect that his markup is going towards paying for his expertise and paying for him to inspect it for me?

I'd feel silly asking a car dealer if its OK to have one of his cars AA inspected, but looks like thats the best thing to do in future.

There are other faults with the car, including the exhaust blowing from the manifold, popped bulbs, part of the dash warped in the summer heat, etc, which aren't something I'd expect the dealer to repair 8 months on, but I believe this rust to be more serious.

[unrepentant]

drew.h said:

As my post above, when buying from a dealer shouldn't I expect that his markup is going towards paying for his expertise and paying for him to inspect it for me?

I dunno? How much was his markup? If he didn't make anything after your wife haggled him down does that exempt him from doing an inspection? After all you expect his markup to pay for an inspection. What level of inspection do you expect on a cheap, old car? How much did you pay for the extended warranty that you clearly think you have?

You bought a cheap old car and 8 months later you founds some rust. Whoopee doo...

[silentbrown]

drew.h said:

That looks about 4 inches. Or are we into School of Comparative Anatomy jokes?

[Vaud]

drew.h said:

As my post above, when buying from a dealer shouldn't I expect that his markup is going towards paying for his expertise and paying for him to inspect it for me?

I'd feel silly asking a car dealer if its OK to have one of his cars AA inspected, but looks like thats the best thing to do in future.

There are other faults with the car, including the exhaust blowing from the manifold, popped bulbs, part of the dash warped in the summer heat, etc, which aren't something I'd expect the dealer to repair 8 months on, but I believe this rust to be more serious.

It does look pretty bad. I think at the £500-£2k part of the market taking a savvy friend along is key. Above that, outside of the main branded dealer network, an RAC/AA/indy inspection might have value, but still provides no recourse if they miss something.

Tricky given you were in a pressured buying situation without the benefit of time.

Edit to add: have you spoken to the trader yet?

[Vaud]

unrepentant said:

For fks sake! The point I made twice, which has nothing to do with SOGA, was that these kind of cars are sold by backstreet traders not by high street dealers.

Of course the best solution would be to adopt what we have in the USA and allow dealers and traders to sell cars "AS IS" with no warranty, implied or otherwise. Then everyone would know where they stand.

Or licence them and mandate statutory warranties - with the cost of the licence going towards some reasonable, recourse mechanisms that don't rely on the courts?

[unrepentant]

Vaud said:

unrepentant said:

For fks sake! The point I made twice, which has nothing to do with SOGA, was that these kind of cars are sold by backstreet traders not by high street dealers.

Of course the best solution would be to adopt what we have in the USA and allow dealers and traders to sell cars "AS IS" with no warranty, implied or otherwise. Then everyone would know where they stand.

Or licence them and mandate statutory warranties - with the cost of the licence going towards some reasonable, recourse mechanisms that don't rely on the courts?

That just makes cheap cars more expensive. Shouldn't be necessary when selling to adults.

Our system works fine. The old cars are sold AS IS or as "Mechanics Specials". No recourse on the dealer, the punter gets a cheap car, everyone knows what they are doing and what they are getting. We don't get too many of these but sometimes we get a trade. We give them a safety inspection (if they fail that they go straight to auction) then we park them off to the side in beaters row. If they don't sell in 30 days or so they go to auction. We sell them with no warranty whatsoever and everyone's happy. The bill of sale is marked AS IS and the buyer signs to say he understands that.

I personally don't like selling them but I have on occasion. I always tell the customer "this car is AS IS, if you cross the kerb and it breaks into two congratulations, you own both halves".

[Vaud]

unrepentant said:

That just makes cheap cars more expensive. Shouldn't be necessary when selling to adults.

Our system works fine. The old cars are sold AS IS or as "Mechanics Specials". No recourse on the dealer, the punter gets a cheap car, everyone knows what they are doing and what they are getting. We don't get too many of these but sometimes we get a trade. We give them a safety inspection (if they fail that they go straight to auction) then we park them off to the side in beaters row. If they don't sell in 30 days or so they go to auction. We sell them with no warranty whatsoever and everyone's happy. The bill of sale is marked AS IS and the buyer signs to say he understands that.

I personally don't like selling them but I have on occasion. I always tell the customer "this car is AS IS, if you cross the kerb and it breaks into two congratulations, you own both halves".

Seems fair in a country that places the onus always on the consumer (don't get me wrong, I like the US approach as a relatively well informed buyer) - but it is a baseline expectation that it is a consumerist society with little safety net.

I'm just not sure it would work in the UK where at the younger end you have the "entitled generation" and the upper end the "things should last and have a service equivalent to Harrods" - both groups jointly empowered by the Internet as a cost point...

[silentbrown]

Vaud said:

Or licence them and mandate statutory warranties

How do you warrant a 14 year-old car against going rusty? I'm not aware of any warranty that would cover such a thing...

[Vaud]

silentbrown said:

How do you warrant a 14 year-old car against going rusty? I'm not aware of any warranty that would cover such a thing...

In this case it wouldn't, but it is a system that might protect the middle band of trading better.

http://www.mynrma.com.au/motoring-services/buy-sel...

3. Used car statutory warranty
Applies to all dealer-sold passenger cars with less than 160,000km and under 10 years old and not exceeding the luxury car tax threshold. The warranty is valid for three months or 5,000km from date of purchase. This warranty will cover most items on a car relating to safety, reliability and roadworthiness.

That said, I am quite taken by Unrepentant's view.

[unrepentant]

Vaud said:

That said, I am quite taken by Unrepentant's view.

Most people end up on the dark side eventually.

[MGJohn]

silentbrown said:

d: "On a suspension strut" - No, on the inner wing last I heard, and it's not clear that's structural yet.

e: He's had the car for 8 months: Plenty long enough from a car to go from "roadworthy" to "not roadworthy". (And there's no stage in between those two)

Agreed. About to post something on those same lines. Saved me a job. ..