Consumer rights when buying from trade

[mike_es]

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!

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.

I only have one question.......

If the car was not significantly cheaper, then why on earth did you buy it when there are plenty of the same model for sale at any one time in franchised dealers offering comprehensive warranties and sales invoices that are not avoiding liability?


Some people seem to be picking up on my first sentence and going for the literal translation. The actual sentiment I'm trying to convey is the fact that in the trade, the saying is "Buyers are liars" and that sentiment is wholly accurate.
It doesn't affect the way (for me at least) the way I treat customers, but it does mean I am very rarely surprised about what comes out of a customers mouth when they are trying to get something and have responses ready to combat said ****e.

One of the most common is when we get a shopper who has been to 3 other dealers and tells us the deal he has been offered, which is 9 times out of 10 the deal he wants, not the deal he has. The process is followed, every time, wasting our time because we know the deal is not feasible, we stack a deal, they want us to match "their" deal, we say no and ask them why they didn't buy from the dealer giving such a great deal, they say bad service, blah blah blah, we say go get the deal if that is the price you are looking for, they ask what we are offering, we say that's irrelevant because the deal is the most important, etc., etc...............

Every customer that does this thinks they are the first ones to do it and get uppity when we don't offer them the deal they want, which, 9 times out of 10, loses waaaaaay to much money, after DPA, finance etc are factored in. Ergo, Buyers are liars.

It's not meant to invoke hostility, merely an acknowledgement of the line we (choose to) tread.

 

[Yugguy]

Sold As Seen should still be roadworthy though.

 

[mike_es]

Sold As Seen should still be roadworthy though.

A 12 month brand new MOT is not confirmation the car is roadworthy, so why should "sold as seen" be?

From a legal standpoint any car sold in the trade to retail customers should be sold "spares or repair, no warranty given or implied" but then, the punter would not buy it, so weak traders bend over and leave themselves open for dry humping.

 

[AlanD]

I only have one question.......

If the car was not significantly cheaper, then why on earth did you buy it when there are plenty of the same model for sale at any one time in franchised dealers offering comprehensive warranties and sales invoices that are not avoiding liability?

.

1) There are only 5 in the UK and at the time this was the only one I'd ever seen for sale.

2) As I said, I'd agreed on the price knowing what needed doing. There was no disagreement over that.


Again, this is about safety and honesty. Do you think it's ok if you sell a car and kill your customer and family? Not your problem gov? What if the brakes didn't work? That ok too?

I'll answer the question for you - it's not ok. Whether or not it's illegal, I'm not too sure.

FWIW, I completely agree with you that some people take the almighty proverbial when it comes to buying cars .. houses .. just about anything! I don't believe I have done anything to deserve that implication.

 

[m2287]

What car are you talking about here?

 

[mike_es]

1) There are only 5 in the UK and at the time this was the only one I'd ever seen for sale.

2) As I said, I'd agreed on the price knowing what needed doing. There was no disagreement over that.


Again, this is about safety and honesty. Do you think it's ok if you sell a car and kill your customer and family? Not your problem gov? What if the brakes didn't work? That ok too?

If all the tyres were brand new on the car and you were doing 75 down the motorway and one of them blew causing injuries and devastation, would you still hold the seller responsible? Or.... would you hold yourself responsible, because, as the highway code states, you should check all safety related aspects of the car before every journey. Do you? Where does the seller's liability end and buyer's begin? You, and only you are responsible for ensuring your car is roadworthy prior to use. Why did you not check the tyres properly prior to purchase? Obviously the seller didn't and neither did the MOT tester, but ultimately, as I stated in my original reply, people are too happy not to take responsibility for their own actions.
Regarding the brakes, I assume you took a test drive and were able to stop at junctions etc?If you are prepared to put your family at risk by not checking a car or if you are incapable, paying someone to inspect a car on your behalf prior to purchase, how is that the seller's fault?

You seem to be getting more agitated because you are not getting the responses you want. Whose fault is that?


I'll answer the question for you - it's not ok. Whether or not it's illegal, I'm not too sure.

FWIW, I completely agree with you that some people take the almighty proverbial when it comes to buying cars .. houses .. just about anything! I don't believe I have done anything to deserve that implication.

Nothing implied. Just as you didn't imply I am a halfwit.

 

[mike_es]

What car are you talking about here?

I am curious also

 

[Yugguy]

Hmm, you can sell something sold as seen but if its a cut and shut or the rear axle is rusted through you could still be on the wrong side of the law.

 

[mike_es]

Hmm, you can sell something sold as seen but if its a cut and shut or the rear axle is rusted through you could still be on the wrong side of the law.

Are you talking about a retail sale or a dodgy dealer, snide private seller?

Retail would never pass the preparation requirements.
Snide private sellers who are "traders" no regulation, Caveat emptor.
Dodgy dealers, unless they are registered, you would have no comeback, but, anyone with any common sense knows what to look for, and if they don't they should damn well pay someone to look for them.
Again, people trying to be smartarses thinking they can then go crying to the authorities if they fail to perform their own due diligence.

 

[mike_es]

Hmm, you can sell something sold as seen but if its a cut and shut or the rear axle is rusted through you could still be on the wrong side of the law.

You also, are quick to jump on the bandwagon and give advice, but, consider this.......
What if the advice you gave to a fellow member on fuel additives turned out to be completely incorrect for his car and it caused terminal damage, or he misread the post and used the wrong one;
Would you hold your hands up and admit liability and foot the bill?
Why not?
Were you qualified to give that information or was it an opinion based on personal experience?
Did you confirm with him he read and understood the post fully before using the additive?
See? All of a sudden you would be wondering why you are getting blamed for something that he should have known and checked with an official knowledgeable source himself.

Not having a go at you, just trying to get the perspective in view.

 

[219]

A 12 month brand new MOT is not confirmation the car is roadworthy ...
.

It is on the day of issue , and certain issues ( such as corrosion ) are actionable for some time after that .

 

[mike_es]

It is on the day of issue , and certain issues ( such as corrosion ) are actionable for some time after that .

I would actually dispute that unless you have proof to the contrary. If you do, I would be interested to see it.

About this document section on MOT certificate.
Number 2. "A test certificate relates only to the condition of the components examined at the time of the test. It does not confirm the vehicle will remain roadworthy for the validity of the certificate."

The reason for this statement is due to the occurrence of people taking the car for an MOT and then changing the , for example, tyres to non legal items when they return home, in order to sell the car.
At the time the vehicle was tested, it was road legal but once the tyres are changed, it is not. Who then, is responsible?
Certainly, the testing station will deny all knowledge, the seller will also deny all knowledge so then the only option is for the buyer to make an official complaint to VOSA who would then investigate the complaint.

I would imagine that only advisories that come with the caveat of "Customer advised to rectify at earliest convenience" would be actionable, because one man's fish is another man's fowl.
Opinion is a very subjective thing, and the disparities I have seen over the years on MOT's has proven it.

 

[mike_es]

So, Pontoneer, can I see the proof you have as I do not wish to give incorrect opinions?
Also, OP, you didn't answer the question, what car did you buy?

 

[moonloops]

It is on the day of issue , and certain issues ( such as corrosion ) are actionable for some time after that .

I've seen two cars in the past year with 12 months MOT that were totally unroadworthy.. I suspect traders buy MOT's over the phone from testers.

 

[mike_es]

Still waiting, gents.

 

[AlanD]

I'm not sure why .. it's pretty apparent from the left hand side of the screen isn't it!? You'll notice I've avoided mentioning who and what to an extent; it's no accident ..

 

[mike_es]

I'm not sure why .. it's pretty apparent from the left hand side of the screen isn't it!? You'll notice I've avoided mentioning who and what to an extent; it's no accident ..

So you are telling me there was only 5 examples of a CLS AMG available for sale nationwide?

A quick basic check on autotrader a week ago showed up at least 10 of the buggers. (I had a feeling it was the CLS so had a look)



*sigh*

 

[AlanD]

Mike - I don't know you, but you're a relatively low poster and seem to enjoy antagonising people. This isn't place for ranting at other members, it's an enthusiast's forum. I suggest if you're a reseller with an axe to grind, you grind it elsewhere. Any wonder used car men get a bad rep ..

And no re CLS AMG, that's not what I meant, but it will be obvious enough to others who join pieces better .. I'd have PM'd you, but frankly I really wonder why you want to know so very much!

 

[219]

I would actually dispute that unless you have proof to the contrary. If you do, I would be interested to see it.

About this document section on MOT certificate.
Number 2. "A test certificate relates only to the condition of the components examined at the time of the test. It does not confirm the vehicle will remain roadworthy for the validity of the certificate."

The reason for this statement is due to the occurrence of people taking the car for an MOT and then changing the , for example, tyres to non legal items when they return home, in order to sell the car.
At the time the vehicle was tested, it was road legal but once the tyres are changed, it is not. Who then, is responsible?
Certainly, the testing station will deny all knowledge, the seller will also deny all knowledge so then the only option is for the buyer to make an official complaint to VOSA who would then investigate the complaint.

I would imagine that only advisories that come with the caveat of "Customer advised to rectify at earliest convenience" would be actionable, because one man's fish is another man's fowl.
Opinion is a very subjective thing, and the disparities I have seen over the years on MOT's has proven it.

Of course an MOT test is a test of the roadworthiness of a vehicle - what else do you think it is ?

It certifies that at the time of testing the vehicle met certain criteria .

If the vehicle is sold soon after the test ( on the day of the test for many items , but longer for some others ) and the buyer feels that it is not roadworthy then he can complain to DVSA and the vehicle can be examined again with a view to discovering whether the test itself was flawed or whether an unscrupulous seller , as in your example , committed a criminal offence by fitting illegal tyres after the test and misrepresenting the vehicle as being roadworthy .

Both scenarios are actionable because the certificate IS a statement of the roadworthiness of the vehicle on the day of the test , and that statement remains valid until midnight on that day . Complaints regarding matters such as corrosion can be actioned up to three months after a test since it is recognised that such defects would not arise overnight in the way that a faulty light or cracked windscreen might .

Many MOT stations have had their licences revoked following complaints and dubious traders have also been convicted for practices such as you mentioned .

Notwithstanding some fraudulent activities by criminal elements , an MOT test certificate is a legal document which attests to the roadworthiness of a vehicle on the day of testing .

Oh , and regarding your intolerant , impatient and frankly rude posts above - not all of us visit the forum daily or bother to revisit every thread when we do look in . Kindly bear that in mind in future .

 

[219]

I've seen two cars in the past year with 12 months MOT that were totally unroadworthy.. I suspect traders buy MOT's over the phone from testers.

Then you have evidence of fraudulent criminality , or at best negligence , either on the part of the seller or the test station .

The very word certificate refers to a legal document which certifies something - in this case the roadworthiness of a vehicle on the date of the test .