Rejecting a used car with issues

[300bhp/ton]

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

What the trader is supposed to do is to point out the issues with the car

Really...?

Yes... If they know that the car has a fault, they should disclose it to the customer. Guess what happens if they don't?

No...

Come on, don't be daft. There is no legal obligation for a trader to produce a list of faults. Can you supply an example to counter this?

What they cannot do is lie about the condition, however this can be open to interpretation and can be difficult to prove.

Actively 'hiding' a fault would count as lying. And is completely different to not going round a car saying "there is a dent here, a scratch on this panel, a more heavily worn tyre on this corner and a slight knocking sound when you turn right".

[BMWBen]

300bhp/ton said:

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

What the trader is supposed to do is to point out the issues with the car

Really...?

Yes... If they know that the car has a fault, they should disclose it to the customer. Guess what happens if they don't?

No...

Come on, don't be daft. There is no legal obligation for a trader to produce a list of faults. Can you supply an example to counter this?

What they cannot do is lie about the condition, however this can be open to interpretation and can be difficult to prove.

Actively 'hiding' a fault would count as lying. And is completely different to not going round a car saying "there is a dent here, a scratch on this panel, a more heavily worn tyre on this corner and a slight knocking sound when you turn right".

You've missed the point - the consumer protection law is there for precisely this situation. If they haven't given you a list of faults that they know about, and you find a fault in the first x months, you can reject the car. If they did, and you bought it knowing that it had the fault then...

The implication of the law is that car dealers have to act responsibly and fairly, if they do, they don't fall foul of it and get cars handed back to them.

Edited by BMWBen on Wednesday 19th April 12:56

[BMWBen]

HantsRat said:

BMWBen said:

Yes... If they know that the car has a fault, they should disclose it to the customer. Guess what happens if they don't?

The dealer will simply say they did not know there was a fault. (Even if they did) How could you prove they knew?

No, the customer gets to hand the car back to them and get their money back. The consumer protection law is there because of the way dealers behave.

[300bhp/ton]

BMWBen said:

You've missed the point - the consumer protection law is there for precisely this situation. If they haven't given you a list of faults that they know about, and you find a fault in the first x months, you can reject the car. If they did, and you bought it knowing that it had the fault then...

The op claims the noise is there when you drive car, they drove car before buying. Ignorance is not a defense that they failed to notice a potential issue with the car that was there open to see/hear before they purchased. The fact the seller didn't tap them on the shoulder and say "do you hear that noise..." has no bearing on it.

[BMWBen]

300bhp/ton said:

BMWBen said:

You've missed the point - the consumer protection law is there for precisely this situation. If they haven't given you a list of faults that they know about, and you find a fault in the first x months, you can reject the car. If they did, and you bought it knowing that it had the fault then...

The op claims the noise is there when you drive car, they drove car before buying. Ignorance is not a defense that they failed to notice a potential issue with the car that was there open to see/hear before they purchased. The fact the seller didn't tap them on the shoulder and say "do you hear that noise..." has no bearing on it.

It does, because it wasn't a private sale. It was a sale from a dealer, and if they didn't do that then he has every right to hand the car back. The OP has even documented that the dealer actively hid the noise from him.

This situation is precisely why the law is the way it is. It stops dealers like this one from completely taking the piss. I don't know why you'd look at this consumer protection and decide that it was a bad thing when all it does is try and get people who know what they're doing to act responsibly and fairly.

[300bhp/ton]

BMWBen said:

It does, because it wasn't a private sale. It was a sale from a dealer, and if they didn't do that then he has every right to hand the car back. The OP has even documented that the dealer actively hid the noise from him.

This situation is precisely why the law is the way it is. It stops dealers like this one from completely taking the piss.

Sorry, I just don't agree. We do not know the dealer was taking the piss either, all we know is a line of text on a screen posted by a username..... Hardly rock solid evidence is it.

If the passenger door was stoved in and you didn't walk round that side of the vehicle, bought it. Then the next day went and noticed it, do you really think that would be the sellers fault?

[BMWBen]

300bhp/ton said:

BMWBen said:

It does, because it wasn't a private sale. It was a sale from a dealer, and if they didn't do that then he has every right to hand the car back. The OP has even documented that the dealer actively hid the noise from him.

This situation is precisely why the law is the way it is. It stops dealers like this one from completely taking the piss.

Sorry, I just don't agree. We do not know the dealer was taking the piss either, all we know is a line of text on a screen posted by a username..... Hardly rock solid evidence is it.

If the passenger door was stoved in and you didn't walk round that side of the vehicle, bought it. Then the next day went and noticed it, do you really think that would be the sellers fault?

If we're questioning whether the OP is being truthful then there's no point having a discussion about the facts in this thread. I was assuming we were taking it at face value.

A passenger door obviously being stoved in is a completely different situation, and not the one we were discussing here.

[Monkeylegend]

BMWBen said:

It does, because it wasn't a private sale. It was a sale from a dealer, and if they didn't do that then he has every right to hand the car back. The OP has even documented that the dealer actively hid the noise from him.

.

Cash in hand and no receipt or paperwork might make it difficult to prove it was a trade sale.

The seller was just showing OP that the radio worked

[BMWBen]

Monkeylegend said:

BMWBen said:

It does, because it wasn't a private sale. It was a sale from a dealer, and if they didn't do that then he has every right to hand the car back. The OP has even documented that the dealer actively hid the noise from him.

.

Cash in hand and no receipt or paperwork might make it difficult to prove it was a trade sale.

The seller was just showing OP that the radio worked

If there's no paperwork he can't prove he even owns the car which is a different problem entirely! If it was a trade sale (which I believe any sale by a trader is, they can't try and shirk it) then the consumer law is there to protect him from exactly this kind of underhand and dishonest behaviour.

[TooMany2cvs]

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

What the trader is supposed to do is to point out the issues with the car

Really...?

Yes... If they know that the car has a fault, they should disclose it to the customer. Guess what happens if they don't?

And where in the legislation does it say that?

[BMWBen]

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

What the trader is supposed to do is to point out the issues with the car

Really...?

Yes... If they know that the car has a fault, they should disclose it to the customer. Guess what happens if they don't?

And where in the legislation does it say that?

It doesn't. It's implied, because if they don't then the customer can reject the car when they discover it. If they don't want to be getting cars back, they'd better be honest. That's why the legislation is there, it's not because someone thought "wouldn't it be a great idea to let idiots hand stuff they bought back to the retailer for any reason" it's because retailers try and rip people off by selling them junk passed off as something it isn't. It's good for the economy too, because it frees people to actually go out and buy expensive things. Without it, nobody would ever buy anything because it would be too risky.

Edited by BMWBen on Wednesday 19th April 14:22

[TooMany2cvs]

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

What the trader is supposed to do is to point out the issues with the car

Really...?

Yes... If they know that the car has a fault, they should disclose it to the customer. Guess what happens if they don't?

And where in the legislation does it say that?

It doesn't.

There we go, then.

BMWBen said:

It's implied

No, it's your inferral, not their implication. Legislators don't imply things.

[BMWBen]

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

BMWBen said:

What the trader is supposed to do is to point out the issues with the car

Really...?

Yes... If they know that the car has a fault, they should disclose it to the customer. Guess what happens if they don't?

And where in the legislation does it say that?

It doesn't.

There we go, then.

BMWBen said:

It's implied

No, it's your inferral, not their implication. Legislators don't imply things.

No they don't, but reality does. I'm not really sure what your point is?

Car dealers can choose not to infer that and get cars handed back to them. I'm not sure what sympathy they deserve when that happens given that the inferral is a fairly obvious one.


That was the point I was making in response to people moaning about the consumer protection legislation...

Edited by BMWBen on Wednesday 19th April 14:33

[kevcomdude]

Hi all

Thank you for the different views/advice on this matter, it has been helpful. I wanted to see if anyone had been in a similar position and what their outcome was?

The Law is there to protect us as buyers, I understand its an older car and that it may have age related issues. In hindsight I should have taken it for a longer test drive to let this issue rear it ugly head, lesson learned.

[9xxNick]

As a first step, why not try to find a decent independent specialist in that type of car who would be willing to identify the cause of the noise and the cost to fix it. You may of course have to pay for this service. Then at least you'll have a more defensible diagnosis with which to approach the seller, and also an idea of how much effort you're willing to put in to get some recompense for the problem.

[Mr Taxpayer]

Moving on...

I bought a car (2011 A4 Avant)in London on Wednesday, got home and took it out with the family yesterday. Tried to adjust the driver's seatbelt height to make it more comfortable. It wouldn't move; when I applied a bit of gumption, the trim panel came off to reveal there is NO UPPER ANCHORAGE POINT!!! and the belt is just threaded through the trim.

Dealer has agreed to accept the vehicle back and give a full refund. However I'm in Hereford and not driving 130 miles in a car with no working drivers seat belt. I am happy to arrange a local recovery firm to return the car, but feel it should be them paying for it to be returned.

Who should pay for the return costs?

[TooMany2cvs]

Mr Taxpayer said:

Moving on...

I bought a car (2011 A4 Avant)in London on Wednesday, got home and took it out with the family yesterday. Tried to adjust the driver's seatbelt height to make it more comfortable. It wouldn't move; when I applied a bit of gumption, the trim panel came off to reveal there is NO UPPER ANCHORAGE POINT!!! and the belt is just threaded through the trim.

Dealer has agreed to accept the vehicle back and give a full refund. However I'm in Hereford and not driving 130 miles in a car with no working drivers seat belt. I am happy to arrange a local recovery firm to return the car, but feel it should be them paying for it to be returned.

Who should pay for the return costs?

Return costs are up to the buyer, who chose to buy a car from 130 miles away.

[Trabi601]

Surely sourcing a bolt and spring washer would be significantly less hassle!

I'd hope the vendor would chuck you some money by way of an apology, but it's the work of just a few minutes to re-bolt it to the pillar.

[Mr Taxpayer]

Trabi601 said:

Surely sourcing a bolt and spring washer would be significantly less hassle!

I'd hope the vendor would chuck you some money by way of an apology, but it's the work of just a few minutes to re-bolt it to the pillar.

There are other issues. This was the reason for rejection.

[Mr Taxpayer]

TooMany2cvs said:

Mr Taxpayer said:

Moving on...

I bought a car (2011 A4 Avant)in London on Wednesday, got home and took it out with the family yesterday. Tried to adjust the driver's seatbelt height to make it more comfortable. It wouldn't move; when I applied a bit of gumption, the trim panel came off to reveal there is NO UPPER ANCHORAGE POINT!!! and the belt is just threaded through the trim.

Dealer has agreed to accept the vehicle back and give a full refund. However I'm in Hereford and not driving 130 miles in a car with no working drivers seat belt. I am happy to arrange a local recovery firm to return the car, but feel it should be them paying for it to be returned.

Who should pay for the return costs?

Return costs are up to the buyer, who chose to buy a car from 130 miles away.

Lots of people buy cars from a long way away. Especially when Auto trader only has 2 for sale.
Btw, on return costs, www.legislation.gov.uk is very useful. Section 20(8) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015...[i]Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.[i]