Troublesome car dealers breaking consumer rights act
Discussion
OutInTheShed said:
The CRA obliges the dealer to sell a car that's 'fit for purpose' and 'sufficient quality'.
Fir for purpose is assumed to be 'you can drive it on the road' unless the buyer stated other purposes, like maybe 'it needs to tow 1000kg' or 'it must be ULEZ free' or something.
'Sufficient Quality' is a vague and flexible thing, if you buy a car for £30k, you can expect better quality than if you pay £300. You but a cheap old car, you should expect wear and tear, minor noises etc.
If the car is a tatty old shed which runs, drives, stops etc and is legally roadworthy with no major hidden defects then the seller may have done nothing wrong. The buyer is only entitled to reject the car if there is a significant fault with it. A fault which was obvious when the buyer chose to buy it probably doesn't count. You buy an old car with a scratch, you can't reject it for that.
The inference here is that the seller has refused rejection of the car.
How exactly has done done that?
Has he said 'the faults you moan about are not material, it's what you get in a £5000, ten year old car'?
Or has he said, yes I know the gearbox doesn't work but F&&K the CRA, I'm not giving you your money back?
One is a civil matter, a debate about quality, the other is a criminal matter for Trading Standards.
Or has the buyer not given the seller proper opportunity to fix the faults?
I don't think the buyer should generally expect to sell the car cheaply and claim his losses back, because there is some onus on him to prove the 'faults' were material and that he was entitled to reject the car. If the faults are material then the seller would normally be expected to put them right.
That might be £1000 or £100 not the £3000+ the buyer has lost.
If this went to court, who knows what would happen?
We have one side of a story without the full facts
I wonder if the OP's emails to the dealer were as vague and lacking n substance as his posts here?
Cheers for the tutorial, but I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The OP's question was 'can I still pursue legal action against the dealer in small claims court to recoup the losses I incurred, even though I've already sold the car?'. The answer to that is unequivocally 'yes'. Some people seem to think that the answer is 'no' because the Consumer Rights Act somehow compels the OP to try to reject the car, or give the dealer the chance to fix it. Those people are wrong. Fir for purpose is assumed to be 'you can drive it on the road' unless the buyer stated other purposes, like maybe 'it needs to tow 1000kg' or 'it must be ULEZ free' or something.
'Sufficient Quality' is a vague and flexible thing, if you buy a car for £30k, you can expect better quality than if you pay £300. You but a cheap old car, you should expect wear and tear, minor noises etc.
If the car is a tatty old shed which runs, drives, stops etc and is legally roadworthy with no major hidden defects then the seller may have done nothing wrong. The buyer is only entitled to reject the car if there is a significant fault with it. A fault which was obvious when the buyer chose to buy it probably doesn't count. You buy an old car with a scratch, you can't reject it for that.
The inference here is that the seller has refused rejection of the car.
How exactly has done done that?
Has he said 'the faults you moan about are not material, it's what you get in a £5000, ten year old car'?
Or has he said, yes I know the gearbox doesn't work but F&&K the CRA, I'm not giving you your money back?
One is a civil matter, a debate about quality, the other is a criminal matter for Trading Standards.
Or has the buyer not given the seller proper opportunity to fix the faults?
I don't think the buyer should generally expect to sell the car cheaply and claim his losses back, because there is some onus on him to prove the 'faults' were material and that he was entitled to reject the car. If the faults are material then the seller would normally be expected to put them right.
That might be £1000 or £100 not the £3000+ the buyer has lost.
If this went to court, who knows what would happen?
We have one side of a story without the full facts
I wonder if the OP's emails to the dealer were as vague and lacking n substance as his posts here?
You correctly say that the CRA implies a term into trader-to-consumer contracts that good supplied will be of satisfactory quality. But you then seem to be saying that because the CRA grants a right to reject, or the right to require that the supplier repairs, that means that the consumer has to give the supplier the chance to do these things in order for the consumer to have a course of action. That's wrong. The CRA specifically says, at s.19(9)-(11), that the CRA remedies are in addition to, and not a replacement for, any remedies that the OP may have under general law. The OP would have been perfectly entitled to sell the car as soon as he realised it was a dud, without any attempt to invoke his CRA rights, and still have a potential contractual claim against the dealer for any damage he suffered.
Other people seem to think that the OP is asking the separate question 'If I go to court will I win?'. He's not asking that. This is just as well since - as many people have said - there's not nearly enough detail to answer that question. But if he bought a car for £20k and it turned out to be riddled with faults, backed up by two independent inspections - then it would appear that the basics of a case are there. Maybe it will turn out to be a year-old Rolls Royce in which case he doesn't have a chance. Maybe it was something for which £20k was near enough market value in which case he does. Who knows? Maybe the OP will tell us.
The car was a 2019 plate seat bought for 18k. Advertised didn't state anything about the condition, only listed the spec and trim. Typical auto trader advert. I inspected and took the car on a test drive that was shortened due to the salesman. The body work all checked out, nothing my amateur eye could see was untoward. Paid for one of those history checks and all came back good.
Agreed the purchase price and bought the car outright, and collected the car several days later.
I have got all the dates and issues time lined for my case but all of this happened at the end of February/beginning of march.
After driving the car for 5 days, i felt that the car had a slight pull to the left so went to a local tyre shop and got them to look at the tracking. They tracked the front two wheels and off i went. Drove the car to work that night and it was still pulling so the next day went back and they put the car on the 4 wheel alignment machine and said that the back axle was out of adjustment and couldn't be adjusted due to the whole rear axle being fixed. Advised me to seek a mechanic to get them to check it out as it was above their remit as a tyre shop. At this point notified to dealer that their was an issue. They where getting me to try changing the front wheels for the back and check the tyre pressure which i did but still didn't fix the problem.
Went to my trusted mechanic who i have used for years so trust their opinion and got them to look at it. They took the car for the day, test drove it and put the car on their machine and confirmed that there was an issue with the rear axle or sub frame. They compiled a report and noted that the car wasn't handling correctly and that the issue could be one of the for mentioned issues and that further diagnostics would be needed. I notified the dealer again at this point and sent them a copy of the report. The mechanic told me in person that the car has probably been involved in an accident and to seek a refund as I had only own the car at this point for around 14 days.
The dealer tried at this point to wash their hands of it stating its a tracking issue and that's a serviceable job like tyres wearing out etc. I told them they needed to look at it as the car was tracked a couple of days ago. The agreed a date to take the car in and have their dealership mechanic look at the issue.
Around day 20 of owning the car, the car was taken in to them and left with them for 48 hours for their mechanic to have a look at it. When dropping the car off i told them i intend to have a refund as im under 30days of ownership and im not satisfied with the quality with the issues it had. I thought happy days, their mechanic is going to do the same thing, see the issue and report back and ill get a refund.
When collecting the car I was told all sorted, car is driving straight. I was told that the mechanic had undone 2 bolts on the near side, and tightened two bolts on the offside sub frame to bring the rear sub frame back into spec. Also told that using a tape measure the dealer measured the axle and sub frame and all was good. Nievely i took the car as I was happy with this outcome as it was "fixed" so it was said.
Later that day, drove the car to pick up a friend and noticed that now the pull was in both directions, there was no way for me to steer the car straight and when driving at speed the car felt like it was wobbling minor side to side. Not massively but enough to make the car uncomfortable to drive.
The afternoon of collecting the car back from the dealer i phoned them to say the problem hadn't been fixed and this is when the hostilities from the dealer began. Basically in a nut shell told me to f
k off and go find the fault. Stated that he couldn't do anything about it unless there was a diagnosed fault then he could go back to his supplier. At this point i knew i wasn't going to get any where so I did what he said and sought an independent garage.
on day 28 of owning the car the car was taken to a German car specialist who also test drove the car and compiled a report with the same findings as my mechanic. In conversation told me that the car drove like st. On the report it states that the car's handling isn't correct and that this issue may be caused by sub frame, suspension, axle, chassis damage or bushings. It also stated that a alignment was needed but this had already been done.
At this point, i contacted the dealer who had become very hostile to me, claimed all sorts that they where on holiday or at an auction and that they would deal with me. By day 30 i knew this was going to be an issue so wrote a formal letter of complaint, outlined my wish for a refund and them breaking the consumer rights act etc. Sent it recorded delivery with a copy of the second report.
I got a response several days later in writing stating that all communications should be via writing and that they don't have any responsibility for this issue as its the "Tracking" issue therefore a serviceable job. Funny thing is the car has been tracked 4 times at this point. Once by the main SEAT dealer at huge cost.
At this point i wasn't getting any where and was getting stressed out and losing sleep so decided to take a back seat, and consider my options through.
Sorry for the long read, there could be more detail but i tried to keep it as brief as possible. In conclusion, the car all within 30 days of ownership was taken to my mechanic, an independent mechanic who reported that the car had a steering issue potentially caused by an issue in the rear end. The dealer has tried to wash their hands of it. To avoid a hefty repair bill, solicitor bill i decided the best course of action was to trade in the car and get a working one as its critical to my work.
Agreed the purchase price and bought the car outright, and collected the car several days later.
I have got all the dates and issues time lined for my case but all of this happened at the end of February/beginning of march.
After driving the car for 5 days, i felt that the car had a slight pull to the left so went to a local tyre shop and got them to look at the tracking. They tracked the front two wheels and off i went. Drove the car to work that night and it was still pulling so the next day went back and they put the car on the 4 wheel alignment machine and said that the back axle was out of adjustment and couldn't be adjusted due to the whole rear axle being fixed. Advised me to seek a mechanic to get them to check it out as it was above their remit as a tyre shop. At this point notified to dealer that their was an issue. They where getting me to try changing the front wheels for the back and check the tyre pressure which i did but still didn't fix the problem.
Went to my trusted mechanic who i have used for years so trust their opinion and got them to look at it. They took the car for the day, test drove it and put the car on their machine and confirmed that there was an issue with the rear axle or sub frame. They compiled a report and noted that the car wasn't handling correctly and that the issue could be one of the for mentioned issues and that further diagnostics would be needed. I notified the dealer again at this point and sent them a copy of the report. The mechanic told me in person that the car has probably been involved in an accident and to seek a refund as I had only own the car at this point for around 14 days.
The dealer tried at this point to wash their hands of it stating its a tracking issue and that's a serviceable job like tyres wearing out etc. I told them they needed to look at it as the car was tracked a couple of days ago. The agreed a date to take the car in and have their dealership mechanic look at the issue.
Around day 20 of owning the car, the car was taken in to them and left with them for 48 hours for their mechanic to have a look at it. When dropping the car off i told them i intend to have a refund as im under 30days of ownership and im not satisfied with the quality with the issues it had. I thought happy days, their mechanic is going to do the same thing, see the issue and report back and ill get a refund.
When collecting the car I was told all sorted, car is driving straight. I was told that the mechanic had undone 2 bolts on the near side, and tightened two bolts on the offside sub frame to bring the rear sub frame back into spec. Also told that using a tape measure the dealer measured the axle and sub frame and all was good. Nievely i took the car as I was happy with this outcome as it was "fixed" so it was said.
Later that day, drove the car to pick up a friend and noticed that now the pull was in both directions, there was no way for me to steer the car straight and when driving at speed the car felt like it was wobbling minor side to side. Not massively but enough to make the car uncomfortable to drive.
The afternoon of collecting the car back from the dealer i phoned them to say the problem hadn't been fixed and this is when the hostilities from the dealer began. Basically in a nut shell told me to f
k off and go find the fault. Stated that he couldn't do anything about it unless there was a diagnosed fault then he could go back to his supplier. At this point i knew i wasn't going to get any where so I did what he said and sought an independent garage. on day 28 of owning the car the car was taken to a German car specialist who also test drove the car and compiled a report with the same findings as my mechanic. In conversation told me that the car drove like s
t. On the report it states that the car's handling isn't correct and that this issue may be caused by sub frame, suspension, axle, chassis damage or bushings. It also stated that a alignment was needed but this had already been done. At this point, i contacted the dealer who had become very hostile to me, claimed all sorts that they where on holiday or at an auction and that they would deal with me. By day 30 i knew this was going to be an issue so wrote a formal letter of complaint, outlined my wish for a refund and them breaking the consumer rights act etc. Sent it recorded delivery with a copy of the second report.
I got a response several days later in writing stating that all communications should be via writing and that they don't have any responsibility for this issue as its the "Tracking" issue therefore a serviceable job. Funny thing is the car has been tracked 4 times at this point. Once by the main SEAT dealer at huge cost.
At this point i wasn't getting any where and was getting stressed out and losing sleep so decided to take a back seat, and consider my options through.
Sorry for the long read, there could be more detail but i tried to keep it as brief as possible. In conclusion, the car all within 30 days of ownership was taken to my mechanic, an independent mechanic who reported that the car had a steering issue potentially caused by an issue in the rear end. The dealer has tried to wash their hands of it. To avoid a hefty repair bill, solicitor bill i decided the best course of action was to trade in the car and get a working one as its critical to my work.
AtillaVHung said:
On day 28 of owning the car the car was taken to a German car specialist who also test drove the car and compiled a report with the same findings as my mechanic. In conversation told me that the car drove like st. On the report it states that the car's handling isn't correct and that this issue may be caused by sub frame, suspension, axle, chassis damage or bushings. It also stated that a alignment was needed but this had already been done.
"May be caused"t. On the report it states that the car's handling isn't correct and that this issue may be caused by sub frame, suspension, axle, chassis damage or bushings. It also stated that a alignment was needed but this had already been done. This could be a problem for you, it's not a definetive diagnosis.
To fix the fault i was told that the whole rear sub frame would have to be changed and even then it might not have cured it as the fault could have been one of the other suspension components. I had warranty purchased separate which was meant to be quite good as they pretty much covered everything but of course when speaking to them you need to have a diagnosed component failure for them to get involved.
I think the best thing was unloading the car, if i had gone down the litigation route then this could have cost thousands upon thousands to try and recover my money.
I'm going to think about small claims court as the cost to recover what i feel lost isn't a great deal and worth a punt. Reading through the comments i guess i have a 50/50 chance.
I think the best thing was unloading the car, if i had gone down the litigation route then this could have cost thousands upon thousands to try and recover my money.
I'm going to think about small claims court as the cost to recover what i feel lost isn't a great deal and worth a punt. Reading through the comments i guess i have a 50/50 chance.
Roger Irrelevant said:
Cheers for the tutorial, but I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The OP's question was 'can I still pursue legal action against the dealer in small claims court to recoup the losses I incurred, even though I've already sold the car?'. The answer to that is unequivocally 'yes'. Some people seem to think that the answer is 'no' because the Consumer Rights Act somehow compels the OP to try to reject the car, or give the dealer the chance to fix it. Those people are wrong.
You correctly say that the CRA implies a term into trader-to-consumer contracts that good supplied will be of satisfactory quality. But you then seem to be saying that because the CRA grants a right to reject, or the right to require that the supplier repairs, that means that the consumer has to give the supplier the chance to do these things in order for the consumer to have a course of action. That's wrong. The CRA specifically says, at s.19(9)-(11), that the CRA remedies are in addition to, and not a replacement for, any remedies that the OP may have under general law. The OP would have been perfectly entitled to sell the car as soon as he realised it was a dud, without any attempt to invoke his CRA rights, and still have a potential contractual claim against the dealer for any damage he suffered.
Other people seem to think that the OP is asking the separate question 'If I go to court will I win?'. He's not asking that. This is just as well since - as many people have said - there's not nearly enough detail to answer that question. But if he bought a car for £20k and it turned out to be riddled with faults, backed up by two independent inspections - then it would appear that the basics of a case are there. Maybe it will turn out to be a year-old Rolls Royce in which case he doesn't have a chance. Maybe it was something for which £20k was near enough market value in which case he does. Who knows? Maybe the OP will tell us.
Well yes, anybody can take anybody else to court.You correctly say that the CRA implies a term into trader-to-consumer contracts that good supplied will be of satisfactory quality. But you then seem to be saying that because the CRA grants a right to reject, or the right to require that the supplier repairs, that means that the consumer has to give the supplier the chance to do these things in order for the consumer to have a course of action. That's wrong. The CRA specifically says, at s.19(9)-(11), that the CRA remedies are in addition to, and not a replacement for, any remedies that the OP may have under general law. The OP would have been perfectly entitled to sell the car as soon as he realised it was a dud, without any attempt to invoke his CRA rights, and still have a potential contractual claim against the dealer for any damage he suffered.
Other people seem to think that the OP is asking the separate question 'If I go to court will I win?'. He's not asking that. This is just as well since - as many people have said - there's not nearly enough detail to answer that question. But if he bought a car for £20k and it turned out to be riddled with faults, backed up by two independent inspections - then it would appear that the basics of a case are there. Maybe it will turn out to be a year-old Rolls Royce in which case he doesn't have a chance. Maybe it was something for which £20k was near enough market value in which case he does. Who knows? Maybe the OP will tell us.
If you want to look at operating beyond the CRA, a buyer's rights under general contract law are what exactly?
Somewhere between 'sold as seen' and the rights you'd have buying a car privately?
In general cvontract law terms, the buyer offered to buy a certain used car, the seller delivered that.
What terms were implicitly or explicitly in the contract?
How is your general contract law view of things different to a private sale?
If some complete tit buys your car privately and 'suffers a loss' as a consequence of that, how liable are you?
You buy my shed for £500, you later decide the seat isn't comfortable and get £100 on ebay, would your loss be my problem?
I don't think there is much in 'general contract law' which protects the unwary from paying too much for things which are not what they hope them to be. The goods would need to be 'as described' so the seller must not make any claims for the goods which he doesn't warrant. The advert would form part of the contract. So the seller advertises Ford Mondeo, 100k miles, new MoT, FSH, yellow, the buyer inspects it and a deal is done?
Outside the CRA, it's pretty much Caveat Emptor, which is why dealers and other retailers need to charge more than private sellers.
Inside the CRA, your remedies are defined.
Always lots of people on the internet encouraging people to go to court and stick it to the man....
AtillaVHung said:
I'm going to think about small claims court as the cost to recover what i feel lost isn't a great deal and worth a punt. Reading through the comments i guess i have a 50/50 chance.
Without a definitive diagnosis you'll be wasting your time.In my opinion.
I welcome anyone else who might think more positively though
AtillaVHung said:
The car was a 2019 plate seat bought for 18k. Advertised didn't state anything about the condition, only listed the spec and trim. Typical auto trader advert. I inspected and took the car on a test drive that was shortened due to the salesman. The body work all checked out, nothing my amateur eye could see was untoward. Paid for one of those history checks and all came back good.
Agreed the purchase price and bought the car outright, and collected the car several days later.
I have got all the dates and issues time lined for my case but all of this happened at the end of February/beginning of march.
After driving the car for 5 days, i felt that the car had a slight pull to the left so went to a local tyre shop and got them to look at the tracking. They tracked the front two wheels and off i went. Drove the car to work that night and it was still pulling so the next day went back and they put the car on the 4 wheel alignment machine and said that the back axle was out of adjustment and couldn't be adjusted due to the whole rear axle being fixed. Advised me to seek a mechanic to get them to check it out as it was above their remit as a tyre shop. At this point notified to dealer that their was an issue. They where getting me to try changing the front wheels for the back and check the tyre pressure which i did but still didn't fix the problem.
Went to my trusted mechanic who i have used for years so trust their opinion and got them to look at it. They took the car for the day, test drove it and put the car on their machine and confirmed that there was an issue with the rear axle or sub frame. They compiled a report and noted that the car wasn't handling correctly and that the issue could be one of the for mentioned issues and that further diagnostics would be needed. I notified the dealer again at this point and sent them a copy of the report. The mechanic told me in person that the car has probably been involved in an accident and to seek a refund as I had only own the car at this point for around 14 days.
The dealer tried at this point to wash their hands of it stating its a tracking issue and that's a serviceable job like tyres wearing out etc. I told them they needed to look at it as the car was tracked a couple of days ago. The agreed a date to take the car in and have their dealership mechanic look at the issue.
Around day 20 of owning the car, the car was taken in to them and left with them for 48 hours for their mechanic to have a look at it. When dropping the car off i told them i intend to have a refund as im under 30days of ownership and im not satisfied with the quality with the issues it had. I thought happy days, their mechanic is going to do the same thing, see the issue and report back and ill get a refund.
When collecting the car I was told all sorted, car is driving straight. I was told that the mechanic had undone 2 bolts on the near side, and tightened two bolts on the offside sub frame to bring the rear sub frame back into spec. Also told that using a tape measure the dealer measured the axle and sub frame and all was good. Nievely i took the car as I was happy with this outcome as it was "fixed" so it was said.
Later that day, drove the car to pick up a friend and noticed that now the pull was in both directions, there was no way for me to steer the car straight and when driving at speed the car felt like it was wobbling minor side to side. Not massively but enough to make the car uncomfortable to drive.
The afternoon of collecting the car back from the dealer i phoned them to say the problem hadn't been fixed and this is when the hostilities from the dealer began. Basically in a nut shell told me to fk off and go find the fault. Stated that he couldn't do anything about it unless there was a diagnosed fault then he could go back to his supplier. At this point i knew i wasn't going to get any where so I did what he said and sought an independent garage.
on day 28 of owning the car the car was taken to a German car specialist who also test drove the car and compiled a report with the same findings as my mechanic. In conversation told me that the car drove like st. On the report it states that the car's handling isn't correct and that this issue may be caused by sub frame, suspension, axle, chassis damage or bushings. It also stated that a alignment was needed but this had already been done.
At this point, i contacted the dealer who had become very hostile to me, claimed all sorts that they where on holiday or at an auction and that they would deal with me. By day 30 i knew this was going to be an issue so wrote a formal letter of complaint, outlined my wish for a refund and them breaking the consumer rights act etc. Sent it recorded delivery with a copy of the second report.
I got a response several days later in writing stating that all communications should be via writing and that they don't have any responsibility for this issue as its the "Tracking" issue therefore a serviceable job. Funny thing is the car has been tracked 4 times at this point. Once by the main SEAT dealer at huge cost.
At this point i wasn't getting any where and was getting stressed out and losing sleep so decided to take a back seat, and consider my options through.
Sorry for the long read, there could be more detail but i tried to keep it as brief as possible. In conclusion, the car all within 30 days of ownership was taken to my mechanic, an independent mechanic who reported that the car had a steering issue potentially caused by an issue in the rear end. The dealer has tried to wash their hands of it. To avoid a hefty repair bill, solicitor bill i decided the best course of action was to trade in the car and get a working one as its critical to my work.
This sounds like basically a Trading Standards issue, they've sold you an unroadworthy car.Agreed the purchase price and bought the car outright, and collected the car several days later.
I have got all the dates and issues time lined for my case but all of this happened at the end of February/beginning of march.
After driving the car for 5 days, i felt that the car had a slight pull to the left so went to a local tyre shop and got them to look at the tracking. They tracked the front two wheels and off i went. Drove the car to work that night and it was still pulling so the next day went back and they put the car on the 4 wheel alignment machine and said that the back axle was out of adjustment and couldn't be adjusted due to the whole rear axle being fixed. Advised me to seek a mechanic to get them to check it out as it was above their remit as a tyre shop. At this point notified to dealer that their was an issue. They where getting me to try changing the front wheels for the back and check the tyre pressure which i did but still didn't fix the problem.
Went to my trusted mechanic who i have used for years so trust their opinion and got them to look at it. They took the car for the day, test drove it and put the car on their machine and confirmed that there was an issue with the rear axle or sub frame. They compiled a report and noted that the car wasn't handling correctly and that the issue could be one of the for mentioned issues and that further diagnostics would be needed. I notified the dealer again at this point and sent them a copy of the report. The mechanic told me in person that the car has probably been involved in an accident and to seek a refund as I had only own the car at this point for around 14 days.
The dealer tried at this point to wash their hands of it stating its a tracking issue and that's a serviceable job like tyres wearing out etc. I told them they needed to look at it as the car was tracked a couple of days ago. The agreed a date to take the car in and have their dealership mechanic look at the issue.
Around day 20 of owning the car, the car was taken in to them and left with them for 48 hours for their mechanic to have a look at it. When dropping the car off i told them i intend to have a refund as im under 30days of ownership and im not satisfied with the quality with the issues it had. I thought happy days, their mechanic is going to do the same thing, see the issue and report back and ill get a refund.
When collecting the car I was told all sorted, car is driving straight. I was told that the mechanic had undone 2 bolts on the near side, and tightened two bolts on the offside sub frame to bring the rear sub frame back into spec. Also told that using a tape measure the dealer measured the axle and sub frame and all was good. Nievely i took the car as I was happy with this outcome as it was "fixed" so it was said.
Later that day, drove the car to pick up a friend and noticed that now the pull was in both directions, there was no way for me to steer the car straight and when driving at speed the car felt like it was wobbling minor side to side. Not massively but enough to make the car uncomfortable to drive.
The afternoon of collecting the car back from the dealer i phoned them to say the problem hadn't been fixed and this is when the hostilities from the dealer began. Basically in a nut shell told me to f
k off and go find the fault. Stated that he couldn't do anything about it unless there was a diagnosed fault then he could go back to his supplier. At this point i knew i wasn't going to get any where so I did what he said and sought an independent garage. on day 28 of owning the car the car was taken to a German car specialist who also test drove the car and compiled a report with the same findings as my mechanic. In conversation told me that the car drove like s
t. On the report it states that the car's handling isn't correct and that this issue may be caused by sub frame, suspension, axle, chassis damage or bushings. It also stated that a alignment was needed but this had already been done. At this point, i contacted the dealer who had become very hostile to me, claimed all sorts that they where on holiday or at an auction and that they would deal with me. By day 30 i knew this was going to be an issue so wrote a formal letter of complaint, outlined my wish for a refund and them breaking the consumer rights act etc. Sent it recorded delivery with a copy of the second report.
I got a response several days later in writing stating that all communications should be via writing and that they don't have any responsibility for this issue as its the "Tracking" issue therefore a serviceable job. Funny thing is the car has been tracked 4 times at this point. Once by the main SEAT dealer at huge cost.
At this point i wasn't getting any where and was getting stressed out and losing sleep so decided to take a back seat, and consider my options through.
Sorry for the long read, there could be more detail but i tried to keep it as brief as possible. In conclusion, the car all within 30 days of ownership was taken to my mechanic, an independent mechanic who reported that the car had a steering issue potentially caused by an issue in the rear end. The dealer has tried to wash their hands of it. To avoid a hefty repair bill, solicitor bill i decided the best course of action was to trade in the car and get a working one as its critical to my work.
They've also refused to honour their obligations under the CRA, TS should take a keen interest in that.
It helps to have that refusal in writing/email.
Both of these things are criminal law issues.
Did you declare these issues when you traded in the car?
I don't exactly feel you've done motoring a service by putting the car back into the trade for the next mug.
If you were open about the faults, I think you got a good deal if you only lost a few £k.
In a lifetime of motoring, most people probably buy something that's something less than a great buy.
ISTM that had you followed the CRA path and insited on returnng the car, the seller would simply have sold it to someone else of course, so the car would still be out there on the road.
OutInTheShed said:
Well yes, anybody can take anybody else to court.
If you want to look at operating beyond the CRA, a buyer's rights under general contract law are what exactly?
Somewhere between 'sold as seen' and the rights you'd have buying a car privately?
In general cvontract law terms, the buyer offered to buy a certain used car, the seller delivered that.
What terms were implicitly or explicitly in the contract?
How is your general contract law view of things different to a private sale?
If some complete tit buys your car privately and 'suffers a loss' as a consequence of that, how liable are you?
You buy my shed for £500, you later decide the seat isn't comfortable and get £100 on ebay, would your loss be my problem?
I don't think there is much in 'general contract law' which protects the unwary from paying too much for things which are not what they hope them to be. The goods would need to be 'as described' so the seller must not make any claims for the goods which he doesn't warrant. The advert would form part of the contract. So the seller advertises Ford Mondeo, 100k miles, new MoT, FSH, yellow, the buyer inspects it and a deal is done?
Outside the CRA, it's pretty much Caveat Emptor, which is why dealers and other retailers need to charge more than private sellers.
Inside the CRA, your remedies are defined.
Always lots of people on the internet encouraging people to go to court and stick it to the man....
OK. I'll have one more go. If you want to look at operating beyond the CRA, a buyer's rights under general contract law are what exactly?
Somewhere between 'sold as seen' and the rights you'd have buying a car privately?
In general cvontract law terms, the buyer offered to buy a certain used car, the seller delivered that.
What terms were implicitly or explicitly in the contract?
How is your general contract law view of things different to a private sale?
If some complete tit buys your car privately and 'suffers a loss' as a consequence of that, how liable are you?
You buy my shed for £500, you later decide the seat isn't comfortable and get £100 on ebay, would your loss be my problem?
I don't think there is much in 'general contract law' which protects the unwary from paying too much for things which are not what they hope them to be. The goods would need to be 'as described' so the seller must not make any claims for the goods which he doesn't warrant. The advert would form part of the contract. So the seller advertises Ford Mondeo, 100k miles, new MoT, FSH, yellow, the buyer inspects it and a deal is done?
Outside the CRA, it's pretty much Caveat Emptor, which is why dealers and other retailers need to charge more than private sellers.
Inside the CRA, your remedies are defined.
Always lots of people on the internet encouraging people to go to court and stick it to the man....
The term implied by the CRA (s9(1)) that the goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality is implied whether or not you pursue a remedy introduced by the CRA. The CRA makes that very clear and I've already quoted the section that provides for that. It is not the case that you are either 'inside the CRA' - where you get the CRA-implied terms but have to go for a CRA-introduced remedy, or 'outside the CRA' - where you can pursue a remedy under general contact law but don't get the benefit of the CRA-implied terms.
So the OP still has the benefit of the implied term re satisfactory quality even if he didn't pursue one of the remedies introduced by the CRA. I can't make it clearer than that.
I think the blob you made, which we can all sympathise with, was selling the car.
What evidence have you got that the garage told you to fk off?
Why didn't you leave the car with the garage if you believed it was unsafe, not of suitable quality etc.
How and to whom, with what description did you sell on the car and for how much?
My advice now, depending on how much you've actually lost on everything, is to go and engage professional legal help and get of the internet forums.
Unless it's a couple of grand, then chalk it up and move on with your life.
We've all been ripped off buying cars, personally, several times, pants down and everything, but only you know whether it's worth it.
What evidence have you got that the garage told you to f
k off?Why didn't you leave the car with the garage if you believed it was unsafe, not of suitable quality etc.
How and to whom, with what description did you sell on the car and for how much?
My advice now, depending on how much you've actually lost on everything, is to go and engage professional legal help and get of the internet forums.
Unless it's a couple of grand, then chalk it up and move on with your life.
We've all been ripped off buying cars, personally, several times, pants down and everything, but only you know whether it's worth it.
dundarach said:
I think the blob you made, which we can all sympathise with, was selling the car.
What evidence have you got that the garage told you to fk off?
Why didn't you leave the car with the garage if you believed it was unsafe, not of suitable quality etc.
How and to whom, with what description did you sell on the car and for how much?
My advice now, depending on how much you've actually lost on everything, is to go and engage professional legal help and get of the internet forums.
Unless it's a couple of grand, then chalk it up and move on with your life.
We've all been ripped off buying cars, personally, several times, pants down and everything, but only you know whether it's worth it.
He has explained in detail now why he took the car away - hoping it was OK as the garage said they had sorted it.What evidence have you got that the garage told you to f
k off?Why didn't you leave the car with the garage if you believed it was unsafe, not of suitable quality etc.
How and to whom, with what description did you sell on the car and for how much?
My advice now, depending on how much you've actually lost on everything, is to go and engage professional legal help and get of the internet forums.
Unless it's a couple of grand, then chalk it up and move on with your life.
We've all been ripped off buying cars, personally, several times, pants down and everything, but only you know whether it's worth it.
Be interesting to understand why they then turned real nasty quite quickly, however I think he would be best advised to write to them wanting a response and offer in say 1 week or will take legal action and copy his solicitor in. Beyond that I would go to a no win no fee lawyer and let them cause the garage a load of grief.
Trevor555 said:
AtillaVHung said:
I'm going to think about small claims court as the cost to recover what i feel lost isn't a great deal and worth a punt. Reading through the comments i guess i have a 50/50 chance.
Without a definitive diagnosis you'll be wasting your time.In my opinion.
I welcome anyone else who might think more positively though
The info about the rear axle suggests that the car has been in a major accident - indeed I once bought a Cat D Jaguar which had a s/h rear axle fitted. Luckily that was fine and I knew it was Cat D when I bought it. Point is - should this car have had a damage category?
Simpo Two said:
Trevor555 said:
AtillaVHung said:
I'm going to think about small claims court as the cost to recover what i feel lost isn't a great deal and worth a punt. Reading through the comments i guess i have a 50/50 chance.
Without a definitive diagnosis you'll be wasting your time.In my opinion.
I welcome anyone else who might think more positively though
The info about the rear axle suggests that the car has been in a major accident - indeed I once bought a Cat D Jaguar which had a s/h rear axle fitted. Luckily that was fine and I knew it was Cat D when I bought it. Point is - should this car have had a damage category?
If the dealer was to pay out for repairs, they'd need to know what/how much?
If the car passed an MOT it's roadworthy?
All parties would need to know the exact problems with the car to address them.
OP went part way to this, but got a "maybe" from the specialist. He then gave up and disposed of it.
If OP's litigation was to be successful I'm sure he'd have needed to set out exactly what he wanted from the dealer, and ask them to resolve it with a deadline.
Is rejecting a car on a "maybe it's this" good enough?
Trevor555 said:
Simpo Two said:
Trevor555 said:
AtillaVHung said:
I'm going to think about small claims court as the cost to recover what i feel lost isn't a great deal and worth a punt. Reading through the comments i guess i have a 50/50 chance.
Without a definitive diagnosis you'll be wasting your time.In my opinion.
I welcome anyone else who might think more positively though
The info about the rear axle suggests that the car has been in a major accident - indeed I once bought a Cat D Jaguar which had a s/h rear axle fitted. Luckily that was fine and I knew it was Cat D when I bought it. Point is - should this car have had a damage category?
If the dealer was to pay out for repairs, they'd need to know what/how much?
If the car passed an MOT it's roadworthy?
All parties would need to know the exact problems with the car to address them.
OP went part way to this, but got a "maybe" from the specialist. He then gave up and disposed of it.
If OP's litigation was to be successful I'm sure he'd have needed to set out exactly what he wanted from the dealer, and ask them to resolve it with a deadline.
Is rejecting a car on a "maybe it's this" good enough?
So he didn't "give up" rather than have no other choice.
Muzzer79 said:
Trevor555 said:
Simpo Two said:
Trevor555 said:
AtillaVHung said:
I'm going to think about small claims court as the cost to recover what i feel lost isn't a great deal and worth a punt. Reading through the comments i guess i have a 50/50 chance.
Without a definitive diagnosis you'll be wasting your time.In my opinion.
I welcome anyone else who might think more positively though
The info about the rear axle suggests that the car has been in a major accident - indeed I once bought a Cat D Jaguar which had a s/h rear axle fitted. Luckily that was fine and I knew it was Cat D when I bought it. Point is - should this car have had a damage category?
If the dealer was to pay out for repairs, they'd need to know what/how much?
If the car passed an MOT it's roadworthy?
All parties would need to know the exact problems with the car to address them.
OP went part way to this, but got a "maybe" from the specialist. He then gave up and disposed of it.
If OP's litigation was to be successful I'm sure he'd have needed to set out exactly what he wanted from the dealer, and ask them to resolve it with a deadline.
Is rejecting a car on a "maybe it's this" good enough?
So he didn't "give up" rather than have no other choice.
After 5 days he reported a fault.
But what exactly was that fault?
As far as I can see, he has a specialist dealer's report saying "it drives like s
t" "it's maybe this, maybe that"Car now sold, and gone, so a proper diagnosis now impossible.
Glad I'm not a judge.
Edited by Trevor555 on Tuesday 30th April 10:29
Simpo Two said:
Would the case require an expert to say 'The cause is X', or would 'The car does not drive correctly' be enough? The fact that the car doesn't drive correctly is the issue surely, not the exact nut or bolt that may be causing the issue.
The info about the rear axle suggests that the car has been in a major accident - indeed I once bought a Cat D Jaguar which had a s/h rear axle fitted. Luckily that was fine and I knew it was Cat D when I bought it. Point is - should this car have had a damage category?
It would be useful to know if the car had an accident history.The info about the rear axle suggests that the car has been in a major accident - indeed I once bought a Cat D Jaguar which had a s/h rear axle fitted. Luckily that was fine and I knew it was Cat D when I bought it. Point is - should this car have had a damage category?
You can't rely on a 'cat free' car being OK.
Put 'unrecorded damage' into a search for cars on ebay and prepare to be either shocked or depressed.
I'm also a little disappointed that a 4-wheel alignment place looked at this car and didn't find the cause. and also that they let it back on the road.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff