Consumer rights when buying from trade

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

AlanD

Active Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
609
Location
London
Car
CLS55 AMG IWC
A couple of issues have come up recently, which, while not terribly costly (in the scheme of things!), don't seem very ethical for a trade sale.

I agreed a price eventually which was presented as is with a couple of known minor faults. The email with the invoice contained the language "All current and future electrical issues will be at your cost. The 3 month warranty offered covers major mechanical issues only (it does not cover wear and tear, including the suspension system, brakes or electrical issues etc).".

I could have had an inspection, but with it being trade and coming with the major parts warranty, I opted to spend the money instead on the known issues and take the car in what looked like good condition.

These are the two issues I reported back after a post-sale inspection:

1) The O/S front tyre, when examined on a ramp, had a clear and significant perishment crack extending over half of the inner circumference of the tyre. Not just an outright MOT failure (recently carried out in August), but a significant safety issue requiring immediate replacement – a blowout waiting to happen. The rim was also cracked.

2) When examining with MB Star diagnostics, it was apparent that someone had for some reason manually “un-configured” the air suspension as an option to hide it from the display unit. When turned back on as a feature, a potential reason became clear – an immediate fault displayed across the dash every time you inserted the key urging you to return to a service centre (diagnosed as an air suspension valve block).


I don’t believe a car should be sold by a business if it is unfit for road use (unless sold as such which this clearly wasn’t) and it would also seem a reasonable leap to insinuate that someone (in the not too distant past considering its service history) has deliberately hidden a fault through an engineering diagnostic re-configuration.

Is this just tough luck for taking the gamble or is it actually wrong for a trade sale?
 
My understanding of a trade sale is simply there's no warranty implied or given thus sold as seen, end of.
 
Trade to trade, sold as seen OK, but trade to Joe Public (whatever the price) still has to be road worthy/legal?
 
As whitenemesis says.

The Consumer Protection Act does not apply to Business-to-Business. (B2B) sale.

But in order for this to be the case, both buyer and seller need to be Businesses ('Trade').

In this case, if you bought the car as a private individual and not as a business, the Consumer Protection Act still applies, regardless of what the seller may have written in the invoice.

(On a related note, even when both parties are businesses, the Sale of Goods Act still applies, and provides some protection, though to a lesser extent thats the Consumer Protection Act).
 
I believe that if it can be shown, that the seller has sold goods that have been tampered with, to disguise or hide a "known" fault (your ABS) this would be seen as illegal and void any written or agreed terms. I believe that this was to get around people removing warning bulbs and the like to claim a vehicle was fault free.

The difficulty may lie in proving knowledge.

The tyre? I think you may have to live with. The seller could claim to have relied on the MOT and it is not reasonable to expect him to crawl under the car to inspect it. As with your ABS the seller may simply claim to have no knowledge of any fault or work done to "modify"the vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Alan, if you're a trader, I think you're probably stuffed. If not, the seller is liable. Even if so, actually getting redress is likely to prove difficult.
 
You would need to be able to prove that the seller to you changed the configuration in Star and not the person they bought it off. Could easily have been the previous owner hiding the issue to trade it in.
 
You would need to be able to prove that the seller to you changed the configuration in Star and not the person they bought it off. Could easily have been the previous owner hiding the issue to trade it in.

I think that the question of who tried to hide the fault is secondary.

The main issue is that there currently is a fault with the car, and the seller is liable whether he knew about it or not.

He is also liable even if the suspension is excluded from the 3rd party warranty that he supplied with the car.

And he is still liable even if he described the sale as 'Trade sale' while the buyer was in fact a private individual.
 
Thanks for all the replies. I'm not trade, I'm a private buyer. The sale was a commission sale on behalf of a private seller, though I don't believe this alters the nature of it being a trade sale since the business advertised it and took money for it, along with offering their own warranty on it.

The tyre really annoys me .. it's so easy to check on a ramp. I drove it away on the motorway with my kids in it, it could have easily landed up in a wall.
 
Thanks for all the replies. I'm not trade, I'm a private buyer. The sale was a commission sale on behalf of a private seller, though I don't believe this alters the nature of it being a trade sale since the business advertised it and took money for it, along with offering their own warranty on it.

The tyre really annoys me .. it's so easy to check on a ramp. I drove it away on the motorway with my kids in it, it could have easily landed up in a wall.

So, sold by a dealer to a private punter. Therefore it's not a 'trade' sale it's a retail sale and the Consumer Protection Act would cover you as per Markjay.
 
I guess the grey area is what "liable" means. Wear and tear isn't covered by the warranty, so a worn out tyre, as long as road legal, would certainly not be covered. But are you legally allowed to sell a car full stop as a trade seller if unfit for road and not sold as such (ie. that would imply that all trade sellers would *have* to do their own inspections to cover themselves)?

Then with the suspension, are they liable for the unscrupulous actions of a past owner since they're not MB specialists with Star to hand? If I cared about the reputation of my business and I was in their shoes, I'd come to an arrangement for the sake of that reputation and some ethical backbone!

It's frustrating - they put themselves forward as car enthusiasts and clearly are (not your average car showroom), but seem to lack the most basic business ethics when it comes to something which clearly (at least to me!) sits outside of acceptable behaviour (and maybe, particularly with the tyre, not even legal behaviour).

They suggested I contact the August MOT centre - a booking made by the private owner. Even if they're a bunch of cowboys .. so what!? They could refund the £30-50 to the previous seller for an incompetent job or I could complain to whatever regulator there is and get them struck off. Not sure I see a way it helps me!!
 
I guess the grey area is what "liable" means. Wear and tear isn't covered by the warranty, so a worn out tyre, as long as road legal, would certainly not be covered...

What the additional warranty does or does not cover is immaterial....

Assume you bought the car from a dealer, without any additional warranty apart from the minimum provided in law.

Would these items be covered? That's the only question here.

What the 3rd party warranty or other additional warranty may cover is irrelevant.

See here:

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-buyers-guide/cbg_legalrights.html

'The dealer must have the right to sell the vehicle and is liable for faults with the vehicle - that mean it was not of satisfactory quality - that were present at the time it was sold even though they may only become apparent later on."

And here:

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/legal-a...al-requirements-when-selling-second-hand-cars

'If a customer presents the dealer with a fault, after 30 days, which makes the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, not fit for a purpose or not as described, they can claim a statutory repair under the Act.

If the customer presents a further fault at a later date and they have already exercised their statutory right to repair, they can demand a refund. However, the dealer can reduce the amount of the refund to take account of the use the customer has had of the vehicle.'
 
This thread is the exact reason why most traders hate dealing with the public.

You bought a car at a greatly reduced price, (in comparison to market value) because you wanted the "trade" price of the car. Is that correct?
If no, why bother buying a car with known faults in a "trade sale"?

You are now complaining about this cheaper priced vehicle, because it has a couple of faults more which can be rectified at extra cost to you, but you still have saved significantly than if you had purchased at retail?
If no, why bother buying a car with known faults in a "trade sale"?

The motor trade, has been and always will be full of unscrupulous gits, but traders know who they are because they have dealt with them previously, at cost to themselves. It's called learning the trade.
Any bona fide trader who bought a car from a dealer, would be laughed off the pitch if he came back complaining about a tyre, or a non working window etc. You get the car at a great price, you take the risk.

You cannot reasonably expect to be treated like a trader regarding the car price and then squeal if there are a few extra faults, but, unfortunately, in this age of people not taking responsibility for their actions and needing someone to blame, people like you do expect it.
If you paid close to retail, why bother buying a car with known faults in a "trade sale"?


If you are looking at a car which is being offered by a dealer at a "trade" price, there is a reason. The car will cost too much to be prepared for retail sale hence he wants to pass the problems on to some unsuspecting punter who wants to be treated like a trader, whilst giving him a decent profit.

From what you have said in this thread you and the trader deserve each other.
You for trying to behave like a trader when buying but like a retail customer when there is a problem.
Him for trying to be a greedy smartarse by being piggy in the middle and in so doing trying to make a profit from you and the seller. There are ways to avoid liability in this for the trader, but he is obviously not as clever as he thinks he is.

In short, unless you are getting a wedge off the price, stay out of the shark pool, because you will get bitten.

Don't take this as a personal attack, just trying to be devils advocate.

Just need to wait for the indignant replies now.........
 
This thread is the exact reason why most traders hate dealing with the public.

But there is no trade without dealing with the public.

Just need to wait for the indignant replies now.........

Not from me, agree with every word.

Good stuff.
 
Was the car cheap - compared to other examples offered at retail prices/warranties etc?

Would you take a refund (if offered) and buy another one unknown or stick with what you have?

Not defending anyone here but you have to be realistic when buying old/high mileage cars especially if they're sold cheap.

So long as the rest of the car is okay, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. A new compressor isn't too expensive and to be fair the trader could have easily fitted a part worn/budget tyre for £30 or what ever to make it road legal.

Cracks in AMG wheels are really common btw.

Hope once you get these niggles ironed out you can enjoy the rest of the ownership experience :cool:
 
Why "most traders hate dealing with the public."!? Seriously!? That's what their business is .. dealing with us difficult public. Do you want another swinging generalism ... "most" car sales men are living proof that not only parking wardens are halfwits!

Now that we've both proven what is fun mature fact and not, back to the topic! :doh:

Mike, I think you may have the wrong idea about me - honestly, your post makes no sense to me in terms of what I've stated earlier. Maybe the word "trade" had been overused by me. I only meant to make it clear that it wasn't a private sale, as that has different and lesser rights.

I did look for a price a chunk below asking - not to get a bargain, not to pretend to be trade, not to be a cheeky chappy or any other such endeavour. It was massively overpriced and I could benchmark it clearly. Simple as that. I wasn't willing to drive so far to see it unless a reasonable (and actually very generous IMO) price was the baseline. In asking about the car, a couple of minor faults (parking sensor and keyless-go handle) were apparent. Judging by how well the car looked, I said I'd agree on that price if it drove well and I liked it. It did and I did.

When I got it checked, a number of issues were found (none major, but over £1k's worth in all). This I accept as the risk of not having a pre-sale inspection. What seems to be lost completely by your response is my point about the safety of a vehicle sold by a business as opposed to private and also deliberately hidden faults.

Do you think it's reasonable to sell a car "as is" or not which could kill the family driving it home? Do you think a business has a duty to ensure the car is safe?

I've paid for a new tyre and will get the suspension fixed. It's not huge money. This is a point of principle and a point of law.
 
Was the car cheap - compared to other examples offered at retail prices/warranties etc?

Nope!

Would you take a refund (if offered) and buy another one unknown or stick with what you have?

Prob stick with it .. too rare to find another

Not defending anyone here but you have to be realistic when buying old/high mileage cars especially if they're sold cheap.

Not that old or that high a mileage

So long as the rest of the car is okay, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. A new compressor isn't too expensive and to be fair the trader could have easily fitted a part worn/budget tyre for £30 or what ever to make it road legal.

You have to look at what's reasonable. At that tyre width, there's a standard level of tyre (not £30!) so no, not personal choice, but within the type of sensible limits that the legal profession is well used to setting out in disputes

Cracks in AMG wheels are really common btw.

Yes, so I believe. Not a huge problem, just need to get it welded .. couldn't at the time due to the time of day it was spotted, but not leaking air so far so hopefully ok till I get it back in for the other work

Hope once you get these niggles ironed out you can enjoy the rest of the ownership experience :cool:

I will and I'm really enjoying the car otherwise. The car is nice, actually the dealer's garage was nice, one of the partners I met was nice .. the whole thing is just a bit sour over these two things. It makes it all the more disappointing as I judge a person on how they deal with such things. If it were my loved business I would have been a lot more ethical (yes, in MY opinion) and just apologised and agreed a relatively small settlement to leave no bad feelings. It's why I sought advice here to see if I was being reasonable in my expectations or not. I already stated the other £1k of work I've accepted as the eventuality it is; this isn't a matter of being cheap!

See inline replies! :thumb:
 
Unless I'm not concentrating hard enough, have I missed the car traders reply to your requests/issues?
 
Their response was 1) say no, not covered (from sales guy) then 2) say ask the MOT centre (from Director).
 
I didn't ask for anything btw, I just put the issue to them politely asking for their response and highlighting that it was separate to the other issues I found which I was fixing myself. Again - safety and misguidance, not pay me for everything wrong.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom