Help-valve through cylinder after 400miles....

[Fittster]

So if a dealer takes an expensive/complicated car in as a trade in can he sell it cheaply to a member of the public if the buyer accepts he is getting the car at a low price as there is no guarente it won't blow up 5 miles down the road?

If not then surely a second hand car dealer can only sell cars at a high price with a warranty?

[Calorus]

Fittster said:

So if a dealer takes an expensive/complicated car in as a trade in can he sell it cheaply to a member of the public if the buyer accepts he is getting the car at a low price as there is no guarente it won't blow up 5 miles down the road?

If not then surely a second hand car dealer can only sell cars at a high price with a warranty?

My question is how does a Second hand Car dealer, even buy it, if he's a Sole trader - why not just buy it as an indiidual and past any warranty issues back to the last limited company who owned it?

[Silent1]

Calorus said:

Silent1 said:

That states that it isn't legal to state sold as seen and as such a dealer giving 'discount' in return for no warranty is complete and utter rubbish and they have no recourse.

Writing on the receipt means nothing in legal terms you could argue it's immoral but that's an entirely different matter

Fair enough. Well, sort of. I don't like to see unfortunate things happening to people, but I must admit this smacks of Americanesque litgiousness. I think the phrase is my word is my bond. I'd still personally cut my losses get the block honed and the valves, rods & piston replaced and have more fun.

But it's to him to work out how much he wants to gamble on the letter of the law versus the spirit. I don't think the onus should be on a seller to verify a purchaser's credentials i think anyone pretending to be motor trade should be treated as motor trade - I mean, many motor traders are Sole Proprietors so there's a lot of potential for problems if the can plead "public!"

I agree with you on that but 400 miles is a bit short, i would cut my losses if it had done a few more miles but 400 miles really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things which would suggest to me the dealer knew there was a fault and as such discounted it as a 'trade sale' in the hope he could palm the work off to someone else

[bimsb6]

i'm amazed with the trading standards information posted at the start of this some of you are still arguing the toss over the buyers rights ! it's clear, you buy a vehicle from a dealer it blows up in a spectacular way after 400 miles
it is not fit for purpose i.e it is undriveable .the dealer is responsible .if a dealer wants to wash his hands of a
car he needs to scrap it or trade it ,you can only trade a vehicle to trade not a member of the public.you have all seen the signs " this does not affect you statutory rights " what do you think that means ?

[Silent1]

bimsb6 said:

i'm amazed with the trading standards information posted at the start of this some of you are still arguing the toss over the buyers rights ! it's clear, you buy a vehicle from a dealer it blows up in a spectacular way after 400 miles
it is not fit for purpose i.e it is undriveable .the dealer is responsible .if a dealer wants to wash his hands of a
car he needs to scrap it or trade it ,you can only trade a vehicle to trade not a member of the public.you have all seen the signs " this does not affect you statutory rights " what do you think that means ?

The argument seems to not be over the legalities of it but the morality of it and they are arguing it's not right to go back after buying it 'trade'

[bimsb6]

Silent1 said:

bimsb6 said:

i'm amazed with the trading standards information posted at the start of this some of you are still arguing the toss over the buyers rights ! it's clear, you buy a vehicle from a dealer it blows up in a spectacular way after 400 miles
it is not fit for purpose i.e it is undriveable .the dealer is responsible .if a dealer wants to wash his hands of a
car he needs to scrap it or trade it ,you can only trade a vehicle to trade not a member of the public.you have all seen the signs " this does not affect you statutory rights " what do you think that means ?

The argument seems to not be over the legalities of it but the morality of it and they are arguing it's not right to go back after buying it 'trade'

dealers problem, they know the rules or should do !

[billflin]

bimsb6 said:

Silent1 said:

bimsb6 said:

i'm amazed with the trading standards information posted at the start of this some of you are still arguing the toss over the buyers rights ! it's clear, you buy a vehicle from a dealer it blows up in a spectacular way after 400 miles
it is not fit for purpose i.e it is undriveable .the dealer is responsible .if a dealer wants to wash his hands of a
car he needs to scrap it or trade it ,you can only trade a vehicle to trade not a member of the public.you have all seen the signs " this does not affect you statutory rights " what do you think that means ?

The argument seems to not be over the legalities of it but the morality of it and they are arguing it's not right to go back after buying it 'trade'

dealers problem, they know the rules or should do !

Or consumers trying to get the best of both worlds - cheap car, full warranty? Not that the OP has done this, but that is the idea of your post it seems. Moral is - tell a dealer you're buying trade, screw the price down and then go back if it breaks and get him to fix it!

[Calorus]

billflin said:

bimsb6 said:

Silent1 said:

bimsb6 said:

i'm amazed with the trading standards information posted at the start of this some of you are still arguing the toss over the buyers rights ! it's clear, you buy a vehicle from a dealer it blows up in a spectacular way after 400 miles
it is not fit for purpose i.e it is undriveable .the dealer is responsible .if a dealer wants to wash his hands of a
car he needs to scrap it or trade it ,you can only trade a vehicle to trade not a member of the public.you have all seen the signs " this does not affect you statutory rights " what do you think that means ?

The argument seems to not be over the legalities of it but the morality of it and they are arguing it's not right to go back after buying it 'trade'

dealers problem, they know the rules or should do !

Or consumers trying to get the best of both worlds - cheap car, full warranty? Not that the OP has done this, but that is the idea of your post it seems. Moral is - tell a dealer you're buying trade, screw the price down and then go back if it breaks and get him to fix it!

I agree. Question: when you first went to the car, was it full price, with a full warranty?

[bimsb6]

billflin said:

bimsb6 said:

Silent1 said:

bimsb6 said:

i'm amazed with the trading standards information posted at the start of this some of you are still arguing the toss over the buyers rights ! it's clear, you buy a vehicle from a dealer it blows up in a spectacular way after 400 miles
it is not fit for purpose i.e it is undriveable .the dealer is responsible .if a dealer wants to wash his hands of a
car he needs to scrap it or trade it ,you can only trade a vehicle to trade not a member of the public.you have all seen the signs " this does not affect you statutory rights " what do you think that means ?

The argument seems to not be over the legalities of it but the morality of it and they are arguing it's not right to go back after buying it 'trade'

dealers problem, they know the rules or should do !

Or consumers trying to get the best of both worlds - cheap car, full warranty? Not that the OP has done this, but that is the idea of your post it seems. Moral is - tell a dealer you're buying trade, screw the price down and then go back if it breaks and get him to fix it!

who said the car was cheap ?
the dealer has the choice sell or not ,a dealer has no obligation to sell a car "trade" and they are alledgedly the experts and have time to look over a vehicle before putting it up for sale .why did they not offer a paid for warrenty on it ? the law is very clear trading standards can verify .

Edited by bimsb6 on Thursday 8th February 18:41

[GasMonkey]

AlastairM said:

...i've done less than 400 miles since i purchased an Audi S8 2000 model (75k miles full Audi S/H)and it's managed to break a bit off the valve which then went down with the piston and on the way back up smashed into the hydraulic tappet and then out of the cylinder block!................ -i assume i can't reject the car?

Appologies if someone has already said this,

1. You need to put in writing your reason for rejection, mis-led by advert (partial Audi Serv History) and major componant failure after just 400 miles.

2. I would also contact your local trading standards and get them on side. Or even a solicitor.
Tell the dealer that they have 14 days to respond to your letter or you will reject the vehicle under the sale of goods (and services) act.

Personally, I would try to get the dealer to repair the engine (FOC to yourself) or you will formally reject the vehicle.

As previously stated 'Sold as seen' / trade sale / no warranty implied or given means nothing - just means that they do not have to warranty the vehicle. The used (75k mile) car you bought should clearly have lasted more than 400 miles before failing, the law states that it should be 'reasonable'. The dealer knows this and are tyring thier luck, stand your ground and you will get an engine rebuild at the very least.

I worked for a car manufacturer, dealing with 'buy-backs' or rejections, though only on cars sold new, used cars were seen as the dealers responsibility.

Hope that helps, feel free to PM me if you want any further info

HTH

[Locoblade]

Agree completely with bimsb6, there's nobody with a shotgun to the dealer's head saying he has to sell it at trade price with a warranty, if he's ignorant of the law then its his tough luck. More likely is that he takes a gamble getting shot of the cars as a "trade sale" whilst not having to fork out for a warranty hoping that the majority a) won't go wrong in the first few weeks / months anyway, and b) that if it does, most buyer won't be clued up enough to know what their rights are, and/or won't take it as far as court anyway.

Edited by Locoblade on Thursday 8th February 18:54

[Fittster]

Well if dealers can't get rid of cars cheaply without the buyer having a come back I don't think we can complain to heavily when they offer low p/x values.

[billflin]

Locoblade said:

Agree completely with bimsb6, there's nobody with a shotgun to the dealer's head saying he has to sell it at trade price with a warranty, if he's ignorant of the law then its his tough luck. More likely is that he takes a gamble getting shot of the cars as a "trade sale" whilst not having to fork out for a warranty hoping that the majority a) won't go wrong in the first few weeks / months anyway, and b) that if it does, most buyer won't be clued up enough to know what their rights are, and/or won't take it as far as court anyway.

Edited by Locoblade on Thursday 8th February 18:54

There's nothing forcing to buyer to buy a 'trade sale' car either, unless it's just the fact that they are getting a good price/deal - and with that should come increased risk. If the buyer doesn't want the risk, the buyer should buy a full price, fully warranted car. Granted that isn't how it works - but it should be. If the dealer is willing to take a low price (slow month, lots of stock, crappy p/ex not worth prepping) then the buyer should accept it as seen. If it's trade price it should be trade terms, simple as that - and no one would be forced to buy one.

[emicen]

Can we clarify something, in a futher post to your original one you stated you'd asked him what his lowest price was and he'd told you and stated that was without warranty.

My reading of this is, you phoned the guy and basically said, "i'm interested in x, whats the lowest you're willing to accept". He said, "I'll take £n for it, but thats rock bottom and without warranty".

Most 2nd hand car places dont do their own warranties, they sell them as an extra and they are provided by a 3rd party supplier.

So rather than a "trade sale" you just got the guy down to his bottom line acceptable offer and he didnt give you a warranty. I dont see how he's tried to strip you of any statutory rights and has offered to contribute towards the repair.

Hard facts are whats needed here, not pitchforks and burning at the steak.

Question for everyone: how, exactly, would you determine your car was about to pop the head off a valve? (sounds like this is whats happened from the description)

[ATG]

The dealer has sold a car to a consumer. The consumer's statutory rights cannot be waived. Therefore if the car blows up after a few days and 400 miles it is entirely the dealer's problem. Offering to make a contribution is not good enough.

[Nick_F]

There is a fundamental difference between any warranty that the dealer may offer - either voluntarily as an incentive or as an additional purchase - and the statutory right of the consumer to expect goods to be fit for purpose.

The former may be withdrawn by the dealer as a condition of sale, the latter may not.

[Wacky Racer]

AlastairM said:

. I purchased this car from a dealer on the 17th Jan but as a trade sale ie no warranty.

Sorry, seems to me you have hung yourself with your own rope.......

Good luck though......

[Equinox]

You go to the dealers and they will say no warranty as you know. You then will go to trading standards who will advise you and also advise the dealer, if they know the dealer well or the dealer is in any Trading standards approval scheme then they will probably advise the dealer better than you. The dealer will say again, no warranty regardless.
You then end up having to take the dealers to court over it, it will take ages & cost you (all while your car is broken, unless you pay to get it repaired and claim the costs back as you are entitled) when at court its still a long shot regardless of what everyone has said so far in this thread and will all come down the the judge on the day. He may say as you knew no warranty or may go with you and say is their fault.

It could take ages & cost lots for no gain!!

Good luck, sounds like you'll need it.

Equinox

[Equinox]

So: with reference to some previous posts.

If I go to A dealers and buy A vehicle thats 3 years old and done 100k for example, screw them on the price and get it with NO WARRANTY, go away with the vehicle.

A week later, I over rev the engine by buzzing a gear (Not that I am saying thats whats happened here, but as an example), knock the head off a valve or two and destroy the engine, then I am perfectly entitled to go and cry warranty and not fit for purpose (Because obviously it wasnt done deliberatly) and they (the dealers) have the obligation to replace the engine for me Free of charge as it's destroyed. !!

Come on guys think about it really.

Equinox

Edited by Equinox on Thursday 8th February 22:43

[Biker's Nemesis]

Charming