rejecting used car after 2 months?
Discussion
having a bit of hassle with the used car dealer so im wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction?
collected an 02 plate renault laguna on 1st august. negotiated a deal with dealer to tax it and put full MOT on for us. anyway, it needed 2 rear tyres for MOT, which he had replaced. The garage he used couldnt remove / broke the tyre pressure sensors. the wife collects the car, dealer tells her warning light is on - dont worry. i go to investigate, garage has lost locking wheelnut key. i go into dealer, threaten to return car unless they pay for the tyre sensors to be replaced, and to have new locking nuts fitted. after an hour of arguing they agree. so far so good.
today i hear an odd noise so have it looked at. turns out that the rear suspension bushes are shot, and that one or both of the front cv joints are shot as well, due to insecure cv boots (plastic cable tied on). The car is covered by AA warranty, who now say that they wont pay on either problem as bushes are wear n tear, and cv boot has caused cv joint(s) to wear out. dealer not interested in sorting it out - said warranty covers what it covers.
can i reject the car still? can i demand that the dealer repairs these faults as they have definitely not occured within the 2 months / 1500 miles i have owned the car. i cant afford a long drawn out battle over this, and dont have the cash to pay these repairs myself, and dont see why i should. what can i do, other than sit outside the dealers all weekend putting off potential customers.
sorry its so long, so much to explain!
collected an 02 plate renault laguna on 1st august. negotiated a deal with dealer to tax it and put full MOT on for us. anyway, it needed 2 rear tyres for MOT, which he had replaced. The garage he used couldnt remove / broke the tyre pressure sensors. the wife collects the car, dealer tells her warning light is on - dont worry. i go to investigate, garage has lost locking wheelnut key. i go into dealer, threaten to return car unless they pay for the tyre sensors to be replaced, and to have new locking nuts fitted. after an hour of arguing they agree. so far so good.
today i hear an odd noise so have it looked at. turns out that the rear suspension bushes are shot, and that one or both of the front cv joints are shot as well, due to insecure cv boots (plastic cable tied on). The car is covered by AA warranty, who now say that they wont pay on either problem as bushes are wear n tear, and cv boot has caused cv joint(s) to wear out. dealer not interested in sorting it out - said warranty covers what it covers.
can i reject the car still? can i demand that the dealer repairs these faults as they have definitely not occured within the 2 months / 1500 miles i have owned the car. i cant afford a long drawn out battle over this, and dont have the cash to pay these repairs myself, and dont see why i should. what can i do, other than sit outside the dealers all weekend putting off potential customers.
sorry its so long, so much to explain!
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if the warranty doesnt cover it, then you are going to have to pay.
You have bought a five year old car, you cannot expect it to be in brand new condition.
The situation is know as 'caveat emptor' - let the buyer beware. That is, if you are buying something second hand, as long as you have not been misrepresented to the condition or specification of the car then from that second if you find a fault, then it is your problem, as you bought the car 'as is'.
Now, some dealers will offer a warranty, but this will of course only cover what the warranty covers, it is again your responsibility to check the warranty out when you buy the car to assess it's suitability.
Sorry I can't add anything more positive!
You have bought a five year old car, you cannot expect it to be in brand new condition.
The situation is know as 'caveat emptor' - let the buyer beware. That is, if you are buying something second hand, as long as you have not been misrepresented to the condition or specification of the car then from that second if you find a fault, then it is your problem, as you bought the car 'as is'.
Now, some dealers will offer a warranty, but this will of course only cover what the warranty covers, it is again your responsibility to check the warranty out when you buy the car to assess it's suitability.
Sorry I can't add anything more positive!
i am pretty sure i can get the cv joints sorted FOC as my brother is a mechanic. can get the bushes from ebay for £40 each plus fitting - not sure how big a job, but dont think its a DIY job.
Although i was not expecting a perfect car, i just dont expect to have to be replacing bushes and cv joints 2 months after i bought it. the MOT centre i took it to today have said that the car shouldn't have passed the MOT as the problems are not new, and should have picked up. the MOT place they used passed it with a wheel bolt missing, which shows how thorough they were!!!
Although i was not expecting a perfect car, i just dont expect to have to be replacing bushes and cv joints 2 months after i bought it. the MOT centre i took it to today have said that the car shouldn't have passed the MOT as the problems are not new, and should have picked up. the MOT place they used passed it with a wheel bolt missing, which shows how thorough they were!!!
Forget the warranty because as was said, it covers what it does.
From what you've said it seems that the dealer has some links with a dodgy MOT place who'll pass their motors for a small sweetener.
The key thing is that the dealer has agreed to sell you a car of an MOT worthy standard, which it isn't. It is therefore upto you to prove that this damage hasn't occured in the time you have it. If the new MOT center reckons this is the case then presumably any independent expert mechanic would say the same.
So I would threaten small claims court action regarding the mis-selling. In addition threaten to shop the MOT place to the relavant authorities and let them know why. They may be willing to then do the work because court threats (send a filled out form) often stop companies dragging their heals and also they wouldn't want to sour relations with their local bent MOT place.
Also with the small claims court you only pay an admin fee and for the witness, which if you win will be refunded to you. You can also do the work in the meantime and claim for the cost of these, I believe.
In future though just take somebody like your bro with you or get an AA inspection done on it.
From what you've said it seems that the dealer has some links with a dodgy MOT place who'll pass their motors for a small sweetener.
The key thing is that the dealer has agreed to sell you a car of an MOT worthy standard, which it isn't. It is therefore upto you to prove that this damage hasn't occured in the time you have it. If the new MOT center reckons this is the case then presumably any independent expert mechanic would say the same.
So I would threaten small claims court action regarding the mis-selling. In addition threaten to shop the MOT place to the relavant authorities and let them know why. They may be willing to then do the work because court threats (send a filled out form) often stop companies dragging their heals and also they wouldn't want to sour relations with their local bent MOT place.
Also with the small claims court you only pay an admin fee and for the witness, which if you win will be refunded to you. You can also do the work in the meantime and claim for the cost of these, I believe.
In future though just take somebody like your bro with you or get an AA inspection done on it.
JustinP1 said:
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if the warranty doesnt cover it, then you are going to have to pay.
You have bought a five year old car, you cannot expect it to be in brand new condition.
The situation is know as 'caveat emptor' - let the buyer beware. That is, if you are buying something second hand, as long as you have not been misrepresented to the condition or specification of the car then from that second if you find a fault, then it is your problem, as you bought the car 'as is'.
Now, some dealers will offer a warranty, but this will of course only cover what the warranty covers, it is again your responsibility to check the warranty out when you buy the car to assess it's suitability.
Sorry I can't add anything more positive!
Ahem.......you sir, are FOS.You have bought a five year old car, you cannot expect it to be in brand new condition.
The situation is know as 'caveat emptor' - let the buyer beware. That is, if you are buying something second hand, as long as you have not been misrepresented to the condition or specification of the car then from that second if you find a fault, then it is your problem, as you bought the car 'as is'.
Now, some dealers will offer a warranty, but this will of course only cover what the warranty covers, it is again your responsibility to check the warranty out when you buy the car to assess it's suitability.
Sorry I can't add anything more positive!
As a matter of legality, the vehicle has to be sold in a safe and roadworthy condition, this applies regardless of any warranties.
Has anyone here ever tried to get a car through an MOT with suspension bushes that even look like they won't last 12 months?
The same applies for the cv joints being shot due to insecure cv boots (plastic cable tied on)!
The dealer could well argue that the MOT station was at fault and he would have a point.
Contact your local trading standards agency and fill them in on events.
I can tell you one thing, had you been involved in a serious accident, the police would come down hard on you for these serious defects that most certainly effect the handling of your vehicle!
Stickers said:
JustinP1 said:
..stuff...!
Ahem.......you sir, are FOS....The chances of the dealer backing down on this are slim to none. The chances of trading standards being able to gain any kind of indesputable evidence against the dealer are none. They will say they gave a waranty with the car and also got it MOT'd prior to the car being bought.
Whilst it may be the case that much of the wear WAS there when the car was bought, who can prove it was unroadworthy two months ago, especially when they have an MOT to support their case? IMHO that will not provide what the OP wants as the dealer still wont back down and Trading Standards wont have the evidence to take things further.
JustinP1 said:
Stickers said:
JustinP1 said:
..stuff...!
Ahem.......you sir, are FOS....Stickers said:
JustinP1 said:
Stickers said:
JustinP1 said:
..stuff...!
Ahem.......you sir, are FOS....The car is 5 years old - as such SOME wear and tear is obviously expected. The warranty is there, and does cover certain things, but not all.
The dealer will say Caveat Emptor applies - you bought an old car at a good price, "what did you expect"?, however - there is some evidence that the MOT centre might be a little 'dodgy' and therefore the car might not have been in a fit state at the point of purchase.
So, while any legal action may end up being drawn out and not give the desired result - the threat of it may well be enough.
I'd also definitely consider reporting the MOT centre involve to ?VOSA
To the OP - keep us informed, and good luck getting it sorted.
tigger1 said:
The dealer will say Caveat Emptor applies - you bought an old car at a good price, "what did you expect"?, however - there is some evidence that the MOT centre might be a little 'dodgy' and therefore the car might not have been in a fit state at the point of purchase.
Cav Empt does NOT apply to a sale where a dealer sells to a consumer.However, 2 months after purchase will be a challenge Unless you can get some type of expert to state that the bushes etc.. will not wear in such a space of time, i.e. an RAC inspection or the like. You can tell the dealer that, in the event of a continuing dispute, you will instruct such an independant inspection, and in the event that said dealer is found to be in the wrong, issue a small claims case for the cost of the repairs, and the cost of the report.
J500ANT said:
Sale of Goods act states that on a used car, any fault that appears in the first 6 months of ownership is deemed to have been there from the start.
Shirley that can't be entirely correct? Is there a little more to this?Punctures? Dents in body work? They are faults that I wouldn't expect a dealer to have to correct 5 months later.
Stickers said:
JustinP1 said:
Stickers said:
JustinP1 said:
..stuff...!
Ahem.......you sir, are FOS....By all means he could do both until he is blue in the face, but in the meantime he has a car he can't use. The dealer has already made their attitude clear. IMHO Trading Standards may not have enough to go on either as the dealer has been diligent (ass covering) enough to get the car MOT'd.
Thus, I believe the OP leaving the car off the road for a few weeks whilst he pays a few hundred quid for an independant (and court worthy) engineers report, speaking to Trading Standards and then court fees going to reclaim the amount of money involved - all with no guarantee and in fact a good chance that all of the action will fail leaving the OP with the car off the road for weeks and further out of pocket.
If the OP can get the problems fixed through a friend pretty cheaply then that is a brilliant way forward for him. I would have the rest of the car given a check over too... and remember never to buy a car from there again!
Jasandjules said:
tigger1 said:
The dealer will say Caveat Emptor applies - you bought an old car at a good price, "what did you expect"?, however - there is some evidence that the MOT centre might be a little 'dodgy' and therefore the car might not have been in a fit state at the point of purchase.
Cav Empt does NOT apply to a sale where a dealer sells to a consumer.However, 2 months after purchase will be a challenge Unless you can get some type of expert to state that the bushes etc.. will not wear in such a space of time, i.e. an RAC inspection or the like. You can tell the dealer that, in the event of a continuing dispute, you will instruct such an independant inspection, and in the event that said dealer is found to be in the wrong, issue a small claims case for the cost of the repairs, and the cost of the report.
I still think the full and formal legal route may not be fruitful. However, if the OP could get someone competant to state, write of come with them to the dealer to state that there was a *defect* when the car was bought which caused the premature wear, and warn that they will be taking the case to Trading Standards if it is not repaired then the dealer may buckle.
J500ANT said:
Sale of Goods act states that on a used car, any fault that appears in the first 6 months of ownership is deemed to have been there from the start.
No it doesn't, it says that any goods sold have to be of satisfactory quality. It will be up to the OP to prove that the vehicle wasn't of satisfactory quality. It will be a matter of evidence as to whether it was (and the MOT is good evidence that it was roadworthy at least, which goes some way to demonstrating it was satisfactory).SJobson said:
J500ANT said:
Sale of Goods act states that on a used car, any fault that appears in the first 6 months of ownership is deemed to have been there from the start.
No it doesn't, it says that any goods sold have to be of satisfactory quality. It will be up to the OP to prove that the vehicle wasn't of satisfactory quality. It will be a matter of evidence as to whether it was (and the MOT is good evidence that it was roadworthy at least, which goes some way to demonstrating it was satisfactory).The 6 month rule applies to new goods, I don't think it applies to used.
My point though was that if an independent expert is to state that this wear wouldn't have occured in the time he had the car the clearly the MOT station is bent. Dealer wouldn't want to sour such a relationship and may well buckle when such things are threatened.
My point though was that if an independent expert is to state that this wear wouldn't have occured in the time he had the car the clearly the MOT station is bent. Dealer wouldn't want to sour such a relationship and may well buckle when such things are threatened.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff