Need advice re: course of action after buying a bent car

[TroubledSoul]

Only if you gloss over the fact that I already said I don't mind people questioning me.

[TooMany2cvs]

TroubledSoul said:

Putting posters that need assistance on trial in your kangaroo court just makes you look like a bunch of s.

TroubledSoul said:

Only if you gloss over the fact that I already said I don't mind people questioning me.

<scratches head>

[TroubledSoul]

TooMany2cvs said:

<scratches head>

There's a difference between asking questions to get information and asking questions just to pick fault and be a tt.

We both know that you of all people know that

Anyway, that's it from me until there's something more to say. I'm not here to argue.

[Hainey]

TooMany2cvs said:

TroubledSoul said:

Many, many thanks to those trying to help. The rest of you should have a think about the best use of your time. Putting posters that need assistance on trial in your kangaroo court just makes you look like a bunch of s. Good day to you.

That reads as if you only want to see replies that agree with you...

He's not really looking for assistance. He's looking for assurance.

[steve-5snwi]

Have you spoken to or even contacted the seller ? It's all very well speaking to the Internet but it can only be resolved between you and the seller. I still think it's slightly different buying from a breaker rather than a trader, buying from a trader you would expect it to be fit for purpose although just because someone is a trader it wouldn't make them aware of a crashed twisted car.

For cheap px's we have them independently inspected if they have high miles or have short mot's. We had someone try and px a freelander, it looked good on the surface but when checked it had lots of gearbox fault codes rusty brakes, airbag light not working etc so we refused to take it as a px. I guess if you contact the seller they will either say let me get you a cheap gearbox or tell you to F off ....

[C70R]

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

Ive thought about this, the fact youve used it for a motorsport event is going to stuff you in the event that you go legal.

I've thought about this too, and you're completely wrong. Showing yourself up to indeed be a very "poor" car dealer.

What about "an instruction day at the local hillclimb school" implies that the car was used for a "motorsport event"?
In your infinite experience/wisdom, which law is the dealer going to use to try and weasel out of his responsibility on that basis?

Is hill climbing not motorsport ahole?

Yes, but she wasn't competing in hillclimbing, f*cknugget. She was receiving INSTRUCTION, at a hillclimb VENUE.

Good grief. No wonder you're poor if you're this thick in real life.

[C70R]

Vaud said:

gordyshreds said:

Also people referring to the seller as an 'expert', he may not be, he breaks cars and sells parts, don't need to be a master tech to do that.

Trade sellers are generally deemed to be the experts, it's a risk you take on when you start trading, it's not an option to plead naivety.

Indeed. Spot the posters who don't understand the legal definition of "expert". The only definition that matters.

[POORCARDEALER]

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

Ive thought about this, the fact youve used it for a motorsport event is going to stuff you in the event that you go legal.

I've thought about this too, and you're completely wrong. Showing yourself up to indeed be a very "poor" car dealer.

What about "an instruction day at the local hillclimb school" implies that the car was used for a "motorsport event"?
In your infinite experience/wisdom, which law is the dealer going to use to try and weasel out of his responsibility on that basis?

Is hill climbing not motorsport ahole?

Yes, but she wasn't competing in hillclimbing, f*cknugget. She was receiving INSTRUCTION, at a hillclimb VENUE.

Good grief. No wonder you're poor if you're this thick in real life.

Was she walking up the hillclimb or driving the car she/he had bought?

Learn to read.

[C70R]

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

Ive thought about this, the fact youve used it for a motorsport event is going to stuff you in the event that you go legal.

I've thought about this too, and you're completely wrong. Showing yourself up to indeed be a very "poor" car dealer.

What about "an instruction day at the local hillclimb school" implies that the car was used for a "motorsport event"?
In your infinite experience/wisdom, which law is the dealer going to use to try and weasel out of his responsibility on that basis?

Is hill climbing not motorsport ahole?

Yes, but she wasn't competing in hillclimbing, f*cknugget. She was receiving INSTRUCTION, at a hillclimb VENUE.

Good grief. No wonder you're poor if you're this thick in real life.

Was she walking up the hillclimb or driving the car she/he had bought?

Learn to read.

You're clearly hard-of-thinking. I've bolded the only word that's important.

If you don't understand that, I'll be forced to resort to crayon drawings.

[POORCARDEALER]

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

Ive thought about this, the fact youve used it for a motorsport event is going to stuff you in the event that you go legal.

I've thought about this too, and you're completely wrong. Showing yourself up to indeed be a very "poor" car dealer.

What about "an instruction day at the local hillclimb school" implies that the car was used for a "motorsport event"?
In your infinite experience/wisdom, which law is the dealer going to use to try and weasel out of his responsibility on that basis?

Is hill climbing not motorsport ahole?

Yes, but she wasn't competing in hillclimbing, f*cknugget. She was receiving INSTRUCTION, at a hillclimb VENUE.

Good grief. No wonder you're poor if you're this thick in real life.

Was she walking up the hillclimb or driving the car she/he had bought?

Learn to read.

You're clearly hard-of-thinking. I've bolded the only word that's important.

If you don't understand that, I'll be forced to resort to crayon drawings.

So, not competing, but training to compete in THAT car.

If you are a lawyer, god help your clients with the nonsense you spout, although its more than likely you are a clerk or paralegal at best.

[C70R]

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

Ive thought about this, the fact youve used it for a motorsport event is going to stuff you in the event that you go legal.

I've thought about this too, and you're completely wrong. Showing yourself up to indeed be a very "poor" car dealer.

What about "an instruction day at the local hillclimb school" implies that the car was used for a "motorsport event"?
In your infinite experience/wisdom, which law is the dealer going to use to try and weasel out of his responsibility on that basis?

Is hill climbing not motorsport ahole?

Yes, but she wasn't competing in hillclimbing, f*cknugget. She was receiving INSTRUCTION, at a hillclimb VENUE.

Good grief. No wonder you're poor if you're this thick in real life.

Was she walking up the hillclimb or driving the car she/he had bought?

Learn to read.

You're clearly hard-of-thinking. I've bolded the only word that's important.

If you don't understand that, I'll be forced to resort to crayon drawings.

So, not competing, but training to compete in THAT car.

If you are a lawyer, god help your clients with the nonsense you spout, although its more than likely you are a clerk or paralegal at best.

Right - we've established you're a retard. Let's move on from that, and I'll try and help the OP while you roll around in a puddle of your own faeces.

OP - Ignore the (very) poor dealers contributing to this. Your OH driving the car on a piece of tarmac that also happens to be used for hillclimbing doesn't constitute competing, and wouldn't invalidate even the strictest warranty terms.

I look forward to hearing the outcome - but, based on your earlier posting, please take someone with you in future. It's not OCD, it's not impulsive - it's a case of growing up a little bit and making more rational decisions.

[POORCARDEALER]

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

C70R said:

POORCARDEALER said:

Ive thought about this, the fact youve used it for a motorsport event is going to stuff you in the event that you go legal.

I've thought about this too, and you're completely wrong. Showing yourself up to indeed be a very "poor" car dealer.

What about "an instruction day at the local hillclimb school" implies that the car was used for a "motorsport event"?
In your infinite experience/wisdom, which law is the dealer going to use to try and weasel out of his responsibility on that basis?

Is hill climbing not motorsport ahole?

Yes, but she wasn't competing in hillclimbing, f*cknugget. She was receiving INSTRUCTION, at a hillclimb VENUE.

Good grief. No wonder you're poor if you're this thick in real life.

Was she walking up the hillclimb or driving the car she/he had bought?

Learn to read.

You're clearly hard-of-thinking. I've bolded the only word that's important.

If you don't understand that, I'll be forced to resort to crayon drawings.

So, not competing, but training to compete in THAT car.

If you are a lawyer, god help your clients with the nonsense you spout, although its more than likely you are a clerk or paralegal at best.

Right - we've established you're a retard. Let's move on from that, and I'll try and help the OP while you roll around in a puddle of your own faeces.

OP - Ignore the (very) poor dealers contributing to this. Your OH driving the car on a piece of tarmac that also happens to be used for hillclimbing doesn't constitute competing, and wouldn't invalidate even the strictest warranty terms.

I look forward to hearing the outcome - but, based on your earlier posting, please take someone with you in future. It's not OCD, it's not impulsive - it's a case of growing up a little bit and making more rational decisions.

More nonsense.

OP I really do suggest you dont listen to this clown.

I am actually laughing here, he clearly has zero experience in dealing with warranty companies to come out with that statement above.

OP...best of luck in getting this sorted out.

[Red Devil]

C70R said:

Your OH driving the car on a piece of tarmac that also happens to be used for hillclimbing doesn't constitute competing, and wouldn't invalidate even the strictest warranty terms.

OK, try this one for size. What kind of instruction which involves taking the car to the redline do you think would be taking place at a hill climb venue? AFAICS it appears to be indistinguishable from having an instructor sitting beside you at a track day taster session.

In a previous post you appear to be fixated on the word competition. I trust you realise that track days do not fall under that definition. You can do one of those on a normal D/L: a MSA one is not required.

[C70R]

Oh dear. Yet more fumbling and desperate thrusting. It's like teenage sex...

We're now at the stage of inventing scenarios that don't bear relation to the OP's actual experience, in a bid to contravene the strictest manufacturer warranty terms available.

For my last post on the matter, until the OP has anything to contribute.
In short, non-competitively driving a car on a piece of tarmac that also gets used for hillclimbing is not going to be an issue when rejecting the car under the CRA.
In the unlikely event that the trader had any way of proving it ever happened, he would be hard pressed to prove the extent to which the car was used, nor the legislation that (with said use) allows him to circumvent the CRA.

Some of the replies here, particularly from those in the trade, are really quite embarrassing.

Edited by C70R on Monday 29th August 14:02

[cmaguire]

Red Devil said:

OK, try this one for size. What kind of instruction which involves taking the car to the redline do you think would be taking place at a hill climb venue? AFAICS it appears to be indistinguishable from having an instructor sitting beside you at a track day taster session.

In a previous post you appear to be fixated on the word competition. I trust you realise that track days do not fall under that definition. You can do one of those on a normal D/L: a MSA one is not required.

Either way, if the car is bent as suspected who cares about what happened on the 'Run wot you brung' day anyway? Particularly as the trader/expert/chancer/all-round-good-egg (delete as appropriate) won't even know about it unless he's on here and twigs.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Does the seller even know the op has a problem with the car ?

And is it up to the seller now to remove all the new parts etc that the op has done to the car since he bought it ?

[Red Devil]

C70R said:

Oh dear. Yet more fumbling and desperate thrusting. It's like teenage sex...

We're now at the stage of inventing scenarios that don't bear relation to the OP's actual experience, in a bid to contravene the strictest manufacturer warranty terms available.

For my last post on the matter, until the OP has anything to contribute.
In short, non-competitively driving a car on a piece of tarmac that also gets used for hillclimbing is not going to be an issue when rejecting the car under the CRA.

Try reading the OP again.

TroubledSoul said:

my Mrs took the car on an instruction day at the local hillclimb school

I'll put money on the instruction being this - http://www.harewoodhill.com/competitors/school/

As far as any warranty is concerned I'm quite certain it would come under the list of exclusions. However I very much doubt any breaker is ever going to offer one. As far as CRA statutory rights are concerned these are far more likely to be engaged if there was a material misdescription of the condition of the gearbox. It depends on the precise wording. Worn synchros (4th to 5th) at the redline doesn't necessarily, of itself, completely negate the 'fully working' tag line.

cmaguire said:

Either way, if the car is bent as suspected who cares about what happened on the 'Run wot you brung' day anyway? Particularly as the trader/expert/chancer/all-round-good-egg (delete as appropriate) won't even know about it unless he's on here and twigs.

Quite. A distorted shell is an order of magnitude different from worn synchro rings. I still stand by my earlier point. The car was in a breakers yard for a reason. Accident damage is always going to be a possibility. No way would I expect to buy a roadworthy car from such a source without a proper inspection. If I didn't have the requisite knowledge of how to look for the telltale signs I would take someone with me who did.

[andymc]

C70R said:

Oh dear. Yet more fumbling and desperate thrusting. It's like teenage sex...

We're now at the stage of inventing scenarios that don't bear relation to the OP's actual experience, in a bid to contravene the strictest manufacturer warranty terms available.

For my last post on the matter, until the OP has anything to contribute.
In short, non-competitively driving a car on a piece of tarmac that also gets used for hillclimbing is not going to be an issue when rejecting the car under the CRA.
In the unlikely event that the trader had any way of proving it ever happened, he would be hard pressed to prove the extent to which the car was used, nor the legislation that (with said use) allows him to circumvent the CRA.

Some of the replies here, particularly from those in the trade, are really quite embarrassing.

Edited by C70R on Monday 29th August 14:02

the replies from the trade who have years and years of warranty company experience, you should write a book "when is a track day not a track day", so what is your area of expertise?

[TooMany2cvs]

Umm, guys... You know all this argument over whether some random warranty wording excludes motorsport, and whether the hillclimb instruction day fell into that exclusion or not?

Well, if we look back a few pages, it also included...
"or by driving schools"

So if the logic is that the hillclimb day was instruction, not competition, then...

[cmaguire]

The seller is a car breaker/dismantler that happened to think the car in question was "too good to break".
What the hell does a warranty have to do with anything?