Don't buy cheapo cars you can't test drive - obviously.
Discussion
I know this might seem obvious, but in my search for a cheapo second car to get me to work and back while my wife drives my newer car, I have had a few experiences with the irrationality of sellers of cheap bangers.
I'm talking cars at-or-under £1000.
Yesterday I almost bought a very cheap Dodge Caliber (I know, right) which was being sold by a salvage place. It had a bit of external damage and the inside was absolutely filthy, but the underside was rust free, the engine seemed to run nicely and it had a decent service record.
The problem - and this is a recurrent theme - was that it wasn't taxed (obviously) and the trader didn't have, or wasn't willing to offer, any insurance cover that would allow me to test drive it. The road on which the trader was situated was literally crawling with NPR police cars for whatever reason, so I was not willing to get 6 points and a £1000 fine for driving an uninsured vehicle. So I zoomed around their yard a bit to be sure it actually ran and had functional suspension, brakes etc, after the guy said it was mechanically fine.
Anyway I paid the guy and drove it out of the gates and literally had to turn around immediately and take it back because the gearbox was absolutely wrecked (wouldn't go into 2nd, sounded like a thrust bearing was gone and the remnants were smashing around inside it).
The guy tried to do the "well you did sign a sold-as-seen waiver, and accept there was no warranty... and I have to be very firm on that" schtick.
Having not read-up on consumer rights recently, I didn't respond with the 'fit-for-purpose' argument but instead made a veiled threat, posing the question of how breaking down literally outside their gates would look when I wrote reviews about them online, which seemed to be sufficient motivation for a refund after a bit of resistance. The cheeky t
t then said that nobody had actually test driven it at the traders, and that consequently the condition of the gearbox was news to him, then said "I suppose I'd better scrap it then" after happily taking a wad of cash for it from me just 4 minutes previous.
This is not the first time I've looked at cars that could not be legally test driven, and I wondered what the legal situation is in such situations?
If you are unable to test the car without taxing and insuring it yourself, and the seller tells you it works ok, what recourse or rights does one have if the car is instantly revealed to be a bag of bits the moment you attempt to drive it home?
If there's no way to tell the condition of a gearbox (for example) until legally able to drive on the road, should one assume all gearboxes in such scenarios are non-functional? If the only way to test for such things is to tax** and insure every potential purchase yourself, In which case, would that not effectively preclude the sale of any car without warranty (dealer or private)?
I'm talking cars at-or-under £1000.
Yesterday I almost bought a very cheap Dodge Caliber (I know, right) which was being sold by a salvage place. It had a bit of external damage and the inside was absolutely filthy, but the underside was rust free, the engine seemed to run nicely and it had a decent service record.
The problem - and this is a recurrent theme - was that it wasn't taxed (obviously) and the trader didn't have, or wasn't willing to offer, any insurance cover that would allow me to test drive it. The road on which the trader was situated was literally crawling with NPR police cars for whatever reason, so I was not willing to get 6 points and a £1000 fine for driving an uninsured vehicle. So I zoomed around their yard a bit to be sure it actually ran and had functional suspension, brakes etc, after the guy said it was mechanically fine.
Anyway I paid the guy and drove it out of the gates and literally had to turn around immediately and take it back because the gearbox was absolutely wrecked (wouldn't go into 2nd, sounded like a thrust bearing was gone and the remnants were smashing around inside it).
The guy tried to do the "well you did sign a sold-as-seen waiver, and accept there was no warranty... and I have to be very firm on that" schtick.
Having not read-up on consumer rights recently, I didn't respond with the 'fit-for-purpose' argument but instead made a veiled threat, posing the question of how breaking down literally outside their gates would look when I wrote reviews about them online, which seemed to be sufficient motivation for a refund after a bit of resistance. The cheeky t
t then said that nobody had actually test driven it at the traders, and that consequently the condition of the gearbox was news to him, then said "I suppose I'd better scrap it then" after happily taking a wad of cash for it from me just 4 minutes previous. This is not the first time I've looked at cars that could not be legally test driven, and I wondered what the legal situation is in such situations?
If you are unable to test the car without taxing and insuring it yourself, and the seller tells you it works ok, what recourse or rights does one have if the car is instantly revealed to be a bag of bits the moment you attempt to drive it home?
If there's no way to tell the condition of a gearbox (for example) until legally able to drive on the road, should one assume all gearboxes in such scenarios are non-functional? If the only way to test for such things is to tax** and insure every potential purchase yourself, In which case, would that not effectively preclude the sale of any car without warranty (dealer or private)?
- as I'm discovering this morning, getting your road tax back from DVLA for such a failed purchase is a nightmare, and involves writing a letter to Swansea
Sammo123 said:
You bought a car from a scrap yard and was then surprised when it was only fit for scrapping 
It wasn't a scrap yard per se. I don't recall saying it was a scrap yard.They did salvage, but also sold cars (some moderately expensive) and had a big maintenance unit for cars and lorries.
Also, I'm not sure that addresses the question I was asking.
shatners bassoon said:
If you are unable to test the car without taxing and insuring it yourself, and the seller tells you it works ok, what recourse or rights does one have if the car is instantly revealed to be a bag of bits the moment you attempt to drive it home?
The same as if you WERE able to test drive it and chose not to, surely?The seller has made an untrue claim and regardless of their status as a trader and whether you were able to test drive it beforehand, that means the law is on your side.
In my logical world - not the real one - sold as seen means that. You don’t get your money back in casino when you spin the wheel if it lands on the wrong colour.
Buying a car like the one you describe should be literally that you are buying what is physically there and not what you hope it will do.
Everyone wants to write the story “I bought this car for pennies, stuck a wing and a light on it and we’ve been running it happily for years - what a fool the trader was for not just doing those repairs.” - you’re reporting the flip side of that - exactly why the trader is selling it as a lump of metal - not a roadworthy car - for a lot less than it would be it it was a roadworthy car, sold as a car.
If you can buy something with absolutely no warranties implied or given and then change your mind when it breaks - no matter how quickly - then the world has gone mad.
Edit to say - obviously if the trader has told you the car is “perfect” or wherever then that’s totally different - it needs to do what he says it’ll do - fair enough.
Buying a car like the one you describe should be literally that you are buying what is physically there and not what you hope it will do.
Everyone wants to write the story “I bought this car for pennies, stuck a wing and a light on it and we’ve been running it happily for years - what a fool the trader was for not just doing those repairs.” - you’re reporting the flip side of that - exactly why the trader is selling it as a lump of metal - not a roadworthy car - for a lot less than it would be it it was a roadworthy car, sold as a car.
If you can buy something with absolutely no warranties implied or given and then change your mind when it breaks - no matter how quickly - then the world has gone mad.
Edit to say - obviously if the trader has told you the car is “perfect” or wherever then that’s totally different - it needs to do what he says it’ll do - fair enough.
Julian Thompson said:
In my logical world - not the real one - sold as seen means that. You don’t get your money back in casino when you spin the wheel if it lands on the wrong colour.
Buying a car like the one you describe should be literally that you are buying what is physically there and not what you hope it will do.
Everyone wants to write the story “I bought this car for pennies, stuck a wing and a light on it and we’ve been running it happily for years - what a fool the trader was for not just doing those repairs.” - you’re reporting the flip side of that - exactly why the trader is selling it as a lump of metal - not a roadworthy car - for a lot less than it would be it it was a roadworthy car, sold as a car.
If you can buy something with absolutely no warranties implied or given and then change your mind when it breaks - no matter how quickly - then the world has gone mad.
Edit to say - obviously if the trader has told you the car is “perfect” or wherever then that’s totally different - it needs to do what he says it’ll do - fair enough.
You mean exactly what happened here then, yes? Buying a car like the one you describe should be literally that you are buying what is physically there and not what you hope it will do.
Everyone wants to write the story “I bought this car for pennies, stuck a wing and a light on it and we’ve been running it happily for years - what a fool the trader was for not just doing those repairs.” - you’re reporting the flip side of that - exactly why the trader is selling it as a lump of metal - not a roadworthy car - for a lot less than it would be it it was a roadworthy car, sold as a car.
If you can buy something with absolutely no warranties implied or given and then change your mind when it breaks - no matter how quickly - then the world has gone mad.
Edit to say - obviously if the trader has told you the car is “perfect” or wherever then that’s totally different - it needs to do what he says it’ll do - fair enough.
Julian Thompson said:
In my logical world - not the real one - sold as seen means that. You don’t get your money back in casino when you spin the wheel if it lands on the wrong colour.
Buying a car like the one you describe should be literally that you are buying what is physically there and not what you hope it will do.
At a casino you know the odds before playing. My point is that, if one is unable to test drive a vehicle (and such situations are common in my experience) then you do not know the odds before playing, and are reliant on the trader's description for items that cannot be verified without a test drive. Buying a car like the one you describe should be literally that you are buying what is physically there and not what you hope it will do.
Julian Thompson said:
...you’re reporting the flip side of that - exactly why the trader is selling it as a lump of metal - not a roadworthy car - for a lot less than it would be it it was a roadworthy car, sold as a car.
If you can buy something with absolutely no warranties implied or given and then change your mind when it breaks - no matter how quickly - then the world has gone mad.
The car was sold as roadworthy, with an MOT. It was also priced at about 65% of a good one, with the reduction (to my mind) coming from the external damage and the hideous interior condition. If you can buy something with absolutely no warranties implied or given and then change your mind when it breaks - no matter how quickly - then the world has gone mad.
If I sell someone a car, I let them test drive it with me at a minimum, and if the engine explodes in the first few metres of driving it away, then I should not have been selling the car in the first place.
It's a totally different story if I the guy comes back to me 4 weeks later complaining about something.
shatners bassoon said:
At a casino you know the odds before playing. My point is that, if one is unable to test drive a vehicle (and such situations are common in my experience) then you do not know the odds before playing, and are reliant on the trader's description for items that cannot be verified without a test drive.
Then one has the option of deciding not to buy or taking a chance if one feels lucky.I think if a company wants to sell cars, they should be forced to offer some level of cover for testing them on the road.
I have third-party cover for any vehicle (subject to owners permission of use) but that vehicle has to be insured with a specific policy by someone before I can drive it legally.
My motivation for buying a banger was so not to be burdened with yet another monthly payment, which I'm sure many people in the current climate will be seeking to do. I'm trying to get two businesses off the ground and already have a new-ish car with finance remaining, so it makes no sense to spend lots on another car.
I have third-party cover for any vehicle (subject to owners permission of use) but that vehicle has to be insured with a specific policy by someone before I can drive it legally.
My motivation for buying a banger was so not to be burdened with yet another monthly payment, which I'm sure many people in the current climate will be seeking to do. I'm trying to get two businesses off the ground and already have a new-ish car with finance remaining, so it makes no sense to spend lots on another car.
Argleton said:
shatners bassoon said:
Argleton said:
You use the word 'literally' a lot. Is that to bolster you point? Which is pretty flimsy at best.
It's to differentiate my prose from the metaphorical. 
shatners bassoon said:
I know this might seem obvious, but in my search for a cheapo second car to get me to work and back while my wife drives my newer car, I have had a few experiences with the irrationality of sellers of cheap bangers.
I'm talking cars at-or-under £1000.
Yesterday I almost bought a very cheap Dodge Caliber (I know, right) which was being sold by a salvage place. It had a bit of external damage and the inside was absolutely filthy, but the underside was rust free, the engine seemed to run nicely and it had a decent service record.
The problem - and this is a recurrent theme - was that it wasn't taxed (obviously) and the trader didn't have, or wasn't willing to offer, any insurance cover that would allow me to test drive it. The road on which the trader was situated was literally crawling with NPR police cars for whatever reason, so I was not willing to get 6 points and a £1000 fine for driving an uninsured vehicle. So I zoomed around their yard a bit to be sure it actually ran and had functional suspension, brakes etc, after the guy said it was mechanically fine.
Anyway I paid the guy and drove it out of the gates and literally had to turn around immediately and take it back because the gearbox was absolutely wrecked (wouldn't go into 2nd, sounded like a thrust bearing was gone and the remnants were smashing around inside it).
The guy tried to do the "well you did sign a sold-as-seen waiver, and accept there was no warranty... and I have to be very firm on that" schtick.
Having not read-up on consumer rights recently, I didn't respond with the 'fit-for-purpose' argument but instead made a veiled threat, posing the question of how breaking down literally outside their gates would look when I wrote reviews about them online, which seemed to be sufficient motivation for a refund after a bit of resistance. The cheeky tt then said that nobody had actually test driven it at the traders, and that consequently the condition of the gearbox was news to him, then said "I suppose I'd better scrap it then" after happily taking a wad of cash for it from me just 4 minutes previous.
This is not the first time I've looked at cars that could not be legally test driven, and I wondered what the legal situation is in such situations?
If you are unable to test the car without taxing and insuring it yourself, and the seller tells you it works ok, what recourse or rights does one have if the car is instantly revealed to be a bag of bits the moment you attempt to drive it home?
If there's no way to tell the condition of a gearbox (for example) until legally able to drive on the road, should one assume all gearboxes in such scenarios are non-functional? If the only way to test for such things is to tax** and insure every potential purchase yourself, In which case, would that not effectively preclude the sale of any car without warranty (dealer or private)?
I don't think this is going quite the way the OP thought it would....I'm talking cars at-or-under £1000.
Yesterday I almost bought a very cheap Dodge Caliber (I know, right) which was being sold by a salvage place. It had a bit of external damage and the inside was absolutely filthy, but the underside was rust free, the engine seemed to run nicely and it had a decent service record.
The problem - and this is a recurrent theme - was that it wasn't taxed (obviously) and the trader didn't have, or wasn't willing to offer, any insurance cover that would allow me to test drive it. The road on which the trader was situated was literally crawling with NPR police cars for whatever reason, so I was not willing to get 6 points and a £1000 fine for driving an uninsured vehicle. So I zoomed around their yard a bit to be sure it actually ran and had functional suspension, brakes etc, after the guy said it was mechanically fine.
Anyway I paid the guy and drove it out of the gates and literally had to turn around immediately and take it back because the gearbox was absolutely wrecked (wouldn't go into 2nd, sounded like a thrust bearing was gone and the remnants were smashing around inside it).
The guy tried to do the "well you did sign a sold-as-seen waiver, and accept there was no warranty... and I have to be very firm on that" schtick.
Having not read-up on consumer rights recently, I didn't respond with the 'fit-for-purpose' argument but instead made a veiled threat, posing the question of how breaking down literally outside their gates would look when I wrote reviews about them online, which seemed to be sufficient motivation for a refund after a bit of resistance. The cheeky t
t then said that nobody had actually test driven it at the traders, and that consequently the condition of the gearbox was news to him, then said "I suppose I'd better scrap it then" after happily taking a wad of cash for it from me just 4 minutes previous. This is not the first time I've looked at cars that could not be legally test driven, and I wondered what the legal situation is in such situations?
If you are unable to test the car without taxing and insuring it yourself, and the seller tells you it works ok, what recourse or rights does one have if the car is instantly revealed to be a bag of bits the moment you attempt to drive it home?
If there's no way to tell the condition of a gearbox (for example) until legally able to drive on the road, should one assume all gearboxes in such scenarios are non-functional? If the only way to test for such things is to tax** and insure every potential purchase yourself, In which case, would that not effectively preclude the sale of any car without warranty (dealer or private)?
- as I'm discovering this morning, getting your road tax back from DVLA for such a failed purchase is a nightmare, and involves writing a letter to Swansea
Argleton said:
Monkeylegend said:
I'm an ahole
Anybody can edit other people's posts.holeYou are doing the same on the mask thread, shame you don't have anything constructive to offer other than being abusive
I have just had a thought, you can't see anything wrong with your original post can you
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff