Advice as to costs prior to looking for someone to do it Please

[Alan22]

As above.

The seller can call it 'trade sale' all day long, but it isn't a trade sale in the eyes of the law, unless you bought the car as a business and not as a private individual.

That said, if more than a year passed since you bought the car, it may be difficult to claim your consumer rights now.

You replied while I was typing lol, typing with 3 pairs of gloves on is a real challenge, but yes it's as I had just said, but I don't know if I can force the credit card to step up, after they said no prior, claiming it would be too difficult to trace the seller as it was via another company, and when I sent in evidence that they are the same company going by company's house, they won't even reply, the story of my life really, Thanks for the help.

 

[John]

As far as I am aware, the trader could only sell it as "Spares or Repair" or similar to avoid putting a warranty on it and supporting it after the event.

 

[amazighman]

How much did you pay for it? Mind me asking?

I hate rogue motor traders , Absolute vermine.
That car should have been taken off the road and recycled , not sold on to innocent , unsuspecting buyers .

I remember few years ago went to look at a CLK in B'Ham , arrived at the dealership , car wasn't there , He went to get it from home , bells started ringing .

After inspection the car had water ingress and it is all musky and mouldy , seller said just valeted.
Coolant was leaking , seller said oh its just screen wash.
I Said just be honest , tell me the full story , this car of yours is a scrapper , He turned around and said , I bought it from somebody , engine gone bust on the way , had a replacement engine fitted by some back street mechanic and the car isnt running as it should,
Would you like to buy it with a great discount? I ll do you a special price my friend!!!

No thanks , I am off to Milton Keynes to see another.

Dont let him get away with it , take him to court , that car isnt safe and not fit for road

 

[pmcgsmurf]

Can you post up the reg please?

 

[Alan22]

As above (£2k), but any place that sells cars etc, it is commonplace for them to claim them as trade sales only to clear, what they gain is not much against what they gave for it against another vehicle I'm sure, they also do it that way to avoid any come back, which is exactly why I paid with a credit card, because they can trade sell it to the end of the world, they can still find themselves caught out, because if you use a credit card, if a vehicle is "not fit for the purpose" then they have breached the sale of goods act, which is covered in law, the problem is, my credit card refused to take action because they used 2 trading names during it all, so I am screwed basically, I thought I would be OK by using the credit card, but they refused.

The reg is the only thing I can get out of it, as it's a personalized reg, nothing special, but I'd always fancied one.

 

[markjay]

Any place that sells cars etc, it is commonplace for them to claim them as trade sales only to clear, what they gain is not much against what they gave for it against another vehicle I'm sure, they also do it that way to avoid any come back, which is exactly why I paid with a credit card, because they can trade sell it to the end of the world, they can still find themselves caught out, because if you use a credit card, if a vehicle is "not fit for the purpose" then they have

Again, they can say what they want, it is not a trade sale, unless you bought the car as a business. It's your call if you choose not to act on it, but just to be clear, also to others who may be reading this and are not in the know, calling something a 'trade sale' means nothing, it does not relieve the seller of any of his obligations under the Consumer Protection Act.

There is no way a dealer can legally sell a car with significant faults to a private buyer in the UK, unless it's Spares or Repair sale.

As for the credit card company... it's all down to how you present the situation to them. Their obligation under the law is to honour the T&Cs of the sale as originally agreed with the seller, and uphold your Consumer Rights (in case of a conflict, the latter takes precedence).

 

[Alan22]

Ah I didn't know you had to be a trader yourself to qualify it, but I did know that the idea is to sell them on to traders\dealers, but the phrase I used above is key, it has to be fit for the purpose, this was sold as an immaculate car with a full-service history, no parts or spares, there is no question he is as guilty as .

The problem is that the credit card company didn't want to know, I gave them all the pictures you have seen, and a shed load more, but on AutoTrader, they used their trade account to advertise this car, but the payment was taken by their parent company's office and said it would be too hard to prove it, yet I went to company's house, and low and behold, both businesses are under the same company registration number, I wonder if it's worth taking them to the ombudsman, can't hurt, so fingers crossed.

Thanks guy's.

 

[pmcgsmurf]

.........
Thanks guy's.

Can you post up the reg. please?
Car I'm getting up showed as 204k miles which is why I'm asking.

 

[markjay]

Ah I didn't know you had to be a trader yourself to qualify it, but I did know that the idea is to sell them on to traders\dealers, but the phrase I used above is key, it has to be fit for the purpose, this was sold as an immaculate car with a full-service history, no parts or spares, there is no question he is as guilty as .

With respect, I think you are missing the point here. It does not matter how the dealer described the car. Also the 'not as described' or 'not fit for purpose' aren't the issue here. Instead, the issue is that the car was not of 'satisfactory quality'.

The difference is that 'not as described' or 'not fit for purpose' are dependant on what has been discussed/agreed during the sale, while 'satisfactory quality' is an absolute minimal requirement that is not dependant on anything that has been agreed between you and the seller.

The dealer simply cannot sell a car with known (major) faults to a private buyer, under any circumstances, and if sold, they should be rectified by the seller free of charge.

The seller may have told you he was selling it to you at 'trade price', as opposed to 'trade sale'? The former has no legal meaning, the latter has no legal standing.

I think you should seek advice from a Citizens Advice bureau and/or a solicitor. See also:

Your rights if something is wrong with your car | MoneyHelper

Find out what rights you have when buying a used car from a dealer, private seller or auction. Learn more about what to do if your used car is faulty.

www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk

The problem is that the credit card company didn't want to know, I gave them all the pictures you have seen, and a shed load more, but on AutoTrader, they used their trade account to advertise this car, but the payment was taken by their parent company's office and said it would be too hard to prove it, yet I went to company's house, and low and behold, both businesses are under the same company registration number, I wonder if it's worth taking them to the ombudsman, can't hurt, so fingers crossed.

Thanks guy's.

Yes, a complaint to the Ombudsman might be a good idea, though you should have a 'deadlock' letter from the credit cars issuer (saying that this is their final deduction) before taking it further.

 

[markjay]

Incidentally, when buying second hand cars, I take some pleasure in informing the dealer that the reason I reject their offer for an after-market warranty is that I don't need one - they are obliged to provide me with a warranty anyway under the Consumer Protection Act. I am aware that after-market warranty may be more comprehensive and may offer good value for those who are interested in them, but I am annoyed at the fact that dealers keep very quiet about the fact that they are obliged in law to provide a warranty, or that the after-market warranty paid by the customer is on fact protecting them just as much as it protects the customer, probably more...

 

[Alan22]

Ho guy's, to begin with, I am so sorry for taking so long to reply, my stomach has now become too weak to support me, as I have a very rare muscle-wasting disease, which affects every muscle in the body, not just select areas, so I have been pretty bad for some time now, and will only ever get worse, but hey, happens., now to catch up

Can you post up the reg. please?
Car I'm getting up showed as 204k miles which is why I'm asking.

Yeah, they are puzzling as to why that has happened, but if you use "GY52 BFN" (even more confusing on a 52 plate, yet is a 2004 reg) you will see all the info, it's this that gave me the confidence to buy the car, as I Always, check the MoT history before anything else, I don't waste time on the actual MoT check site, This Site, gives you everything ever recorded in the MoT's it has ever had, I use it to see how long an advisory is left for before they get the work done because if it's always been done before the next MoT, you have half a chance of getting a car that's been looked after, I just wish I could get the MoT place done because I swear it was done as a favour for them, as they must push a shed load of motors their way, so it doesn't take much to see why I suspect this, would love to prove it though, but at least you can see what you are after now, but if you check on the Merc site (but dammed if I can find where I saw it), they are probably where you went, becasue as you say, they put the milage a lot higher, but the specialest service centre said it's something they have seen more than once.

With respect, I think you are missing the point here. It does not matter how the dealer described the car. Also the 'not as described' or 'not fit for purpose' aren't the issue here. Instead, the issue is that the car was not of 'satisfactory quality'.

The difference is that 'not as described' or 'not fit for purpose' are dependant on what has been discussed/agreed during the sale, while 'satisfactory quality' is an absolute minimal requirement that is not dependant on anything that has been agreed between you and the seller.

The dealer simply cannot sell a car with known (major) faults to a private buyer, under any circumstances, and if sold, they should be rectified by the seller free of charge.

The seller may have told you he was selling it to you at 'trade price', as opposed to 'trade sale'? The former has no legal meaning, the latter has no legal standing.

I think you should seek advice from a Citizens Advice bureau and/or a solicitor. See also:

Your rights if something is wrong with your car | MoneyHelper

Find out what rights you have when buying a used car from a dealer, private seller or auction. Learn more about what to do if your used car is faulty.

www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk

Yes, a complaint to the Ombudsman might be a good idea, though you should have a 'deadlock' letter from the credit cars issuer (saying that this is their final deduction) before taking it further.

Yeah I think I did that soon after my previous post, and yes I had a, we won't do any more (or whatever it says), but it clearly states they won't do anything further, isn't it great that you always seem to have to do so-called professionals work for them, they wrote me off by saying they can't prove who sold it, as money was taken via the main site, Not, the site that 'sold it' even though they are the site they flog off the trade in's from the main site, and to add to that, I looked at 3 websites, took minutes to do, and I pulled up details that show from their own websites, that there is 1 single company registered at company's house, which is the same company registration for both the main site that took the car in as a trade-in, and the same for the 'sister' site, so they are 1 single company, it doesn't matter what the site name has to do with anything, there is only 1 single registration at company's house which both their sites trde under, as the codes are visible to any one, so I can't see why there is a problem.
Thanks for the clarification on the terms used, I don't have the knowledge to that kind of exactness, but I know what I mean lol, but my pain level stops me from getting my head around them all, but the term I used was the one I have only ever seen mentioned when people talk about these things, I don't know if it being a car changes that in any way?

Incidentally, when buying second hand cars, I take some pleasure in informing the dealer that the reason I reject their offer for an after-market warranty is that I don't need one - they are obliged to provide me with a warranty anyway under the Consumer Protection Act. I am aware that after-market warranty may be more comprehensive and may offer good value for those who are interested in them, but I am annoyed at the fact that dealers keep very quiet about the fact that they are obliged in law to provide a warranty, or that the after-market warranty paid by the customer is on fact protecting them just as much as it protects the customer, probably more...

Yeah I know they are still liable for certain faults, with the grey area of 'must have been present at the time of sale' line, and it's only for major issues such as engine and gearbox, but other parts\area's are also included like steering and suspension, but other areas are not, but I can't think of anymore offhand, and as far as I can recall it only lasts for 6 months?
But as far as I am concerned these warranty places are a rip-off, they do your work for you and charge you accordingly, I got cover on my previous car, and the lights weren't right, so rang the company, and they did squat, they said because the wiring had been touched they refused to touch it (the Halfords crud centre), then the warranty people started out with I wasn't to know that had been done, and they should do it, then the next day they said it was not covered so they can't do anything about it, lovely.


Thanks for all the help guys, and sorry again for such a long time since I last replied, but your reply's are very much appreciated.

 

[zipdip]

Well Alan while it still has a MOT I would trade it in,you have bought badly,and the car is as you say in your first post a money pit,now you payed 2 grand for it ,I have no idea if that is a lot of money to you or not,but in the car buying world paying that sort of money you are in shark infested waters,my honest advice is in the first few words I wrote,you have bought a bad car get it traded in.

 

[W1ghty]

Have you still got intentions to keep ploughing money into this wreck ?

 

[NJSS]

I am clearly missing something. Maybe I'm a bit slow this morning.

This is what shows for CLK 320 GY52 BFN :-

 

[pmcgsmurf]

Ho guy's, to begin with, I am so sorry for taking so long to reply, my stomach has now become too weak to support me, as I have a very rare muscle-wasting disease, which affects every muscle in the body, not just select areas, so I have been pretty bad for some time now, and will only ever get worse, but hey, happens., now to catch up



Yeah, they are puzzling as to why that has happened, but if you use "GY52 BFN" (even more confusing on a 52 plate, yet is a 2004 reg) you will see all the info, it's this that gave me the confidence to buy the car...........

Very strange then, as pointed out shows no MOT since 2008....................

 

[markjay]

....."GY52 BFN" (even more confusing on a 52 plate, yet is a 2004 reg)...

Very strange then, as pointed out shows no MOT since 2008....................

So is it possible that this plate doesn't actually belong to that car......?

 

[NJSS]

Clearly the car has had at least two registration numbers; the OP Alan22 has been asked for the current one but seems to be rather shy about telling us what it is, which makes it difficult to help.

I think the OP Alan22 needs to check the VIN on the various MoT test certificates in his possession.

In similar circumstances with a suspect rather older car I built an Excel spreadsheet listing:-

Date of test
VIN
Registration number
Mileage

This made the discrepancies jump out - I didn't buy the car despite the vendor's assertions that the discrepancies were typos in 4 out of 16 MoTs.

NJSS

 

[markjay]

...the vendor's assertions that the discrepancies were typos in 4 out of 16 MoTs.

 

[NJSS]

I did say " This made the discrepancies jump out " not fly away

 

[W1ghty]

Mmmmmm Bacon