• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

e55 e63 more dealers unloading responsibilities?

It's just basic no frills consumer rights which are there should you choose to use them. If the dealer wants to sell a 14 year old car it must be fit for purpose the same if he or she decides to sell a 4month old car. From a dealer perspective the dealer has the option to either carry out a repair or offer a refund. Is it fair to sell a car and within seven days developes a £800 fault and wash his hands of it ?! Bare in mind i didn't buy it of eBay,as is or with a fault.

The consumer rights act of 2015 saved my butt on this occasion citizens advice were extremely helpful and I now have the working car that the dealer gave me the impression I was buying in the first place and I'm sorry but I have six kids (not all mine but they are) a 27k a year job and am in no position to walk away from an £800 bill I should never have had to pay. Money aside I sat there in his office bouncing my 4 year old daughter on my lap and he let me put her in a car he sold me that could loose power at any time with a 15 ton artic approaching on a roundabout I would have spent the next year dragging him backwards through court if I had to and claimed every expense along the way. If he thought he would win would he have paid out ? If I thought I'd loose would I have gone this far prepared to go further ?

I will do a write up as soon as I get the chance and it'll be a bit clearer.
 
This scenario has been repeated on here many times and almost warrants a "what to do when sold a lemon" 'Forum' all of it's own.

I learned a lot when I bought one of my current Mercs from a large, well known dealer - Not MB!!

The car was not "as described" or 'fit for purpose'. The dealer was originally, sympathetic and appeared helpful, until the the true £ cost of putting it right emerged (the chassis was twisted).

Eventually offering to taje the car back and refund my money, minus 20% as, "I had driven the car and had use of it for some weeks".

My neighbour is a Barrister and took a very legal and simplistic view. Which was and is the position of the courts - namely:

* Any goods sold must be fit for the purpose that they are intended for - or a car must act like a car not a steam train. A food oven should heat Food not be used to heat car parts etc.
* This applies for a period of (it was six months) after the tie of purchase and is independent of any warranty!! So, the dealer cannot fob you off onto the warranty company.
* A dealer cannot argue "How could I have known" as equally "how could you have known" They sold it they accept the law of selling, which is a contract.
* The dealer has to be given the opportunity to rectify any fault or have their agent rectify any fault, or allow you to use your agent at an agreed cost to rectify any fault. So, do not just simply drop the car into the nearest mate and ask him to fix it regardless of cost, expecting the dealer to pay for it. You would lose in court and in our wallet. You must agree on how the repairs are carried out. If you cant agree then you go to court.
* you must not be left out of pocket as a result of the transaction. You should be returned to the state you were at the time of purchase (no betterment and no minor expense claims).

When you go to buy a car. Have a look around and think. "If this goes wrong?" can or, will this dealer meet the conditions above? If you have any doubt at that point, walk away. Remember most dealers know the law and can be very adept at how they interpret it to their benefit. They do not see themselves as having any emotional attachment to you, your family, your wife, etc. The are there solely to make money and once they have your money they move on and you are forgotten.

Yes, there are exceptions and ones who genuinely want to help. But they still do not want to lose money and you are now trying to help them do exactly this, so it is a game of chess with claim and counter claim.

The bottom line is. If you you would not trust the dealer when it goes South, do not do the deal. If you do the deal!! You will enter a world of pain of regret that will ensure that you do not enjoy your new purchase and probably get to hate it.

You then up on here (as I did) writing posts to warn others, who (for the most part) will not listen. Why do they not listen? Because they get emotionally involved with the car that they have seen!! Its the car they want. The car they picture themselves driving down the road, drawing admiring glances and nice comments. Most of all.... That happened to you and not them.

In my case: It cost me money to demonstrate that the car was damaged then repaired badly, in the dealers short ownership. His claims "not to have known it was damaged" demonstrated the worst of the worst. The man was and is a liar. He lied when he advertised the car as "perfect" lied when I took it with him on a test drive. Lied when I told him about my concerns in spending such a large sum of money that I was struggling to afford, lied when contacted by my friend (the barrister). Lied to his wife, who tearfully called me up pleading with me to stop trying to ruin her husband who "was an honest man". Well honest men do not buy cars at auction, crash them, have them badly repaired, then advertise them for sale at + market value, describing them as perfect examples. Some car dealers will and do behave like this. When (in my case) the dealer was confronted with the inevitable evidence of his bodged repairs, he then tried to claim that he "improved the cars value" by respraying some panels and fitting some new suspension components and wheels (also found to be reps). No, he described the very clean underside, as signs of the car having been "lovingly looked after" and the paint as "a genuine effort to improve an already lovely car".

I would argue that this dealer is not alone. A friend who was (now retired) a "very large" dealer of 4x4's for many years. He is also very wealthy. He is wealthy at your expense, as he knew every single trick in the book to maximise his profit whilst getting the very last drop of your cash at the point of sale. He also knew who he could make a stand against and who he would lose to. Or, as he put it, who has the deepest pockets and the longest fight in them. Not many will have that desire or that cash reserve. Most preferring just to get their car fixed and back on their drive.
 
Last edited:
Why not better licensing requirements to keep the scoundrels out of the business and a clear disclaimer on whether a car comes with or without a warranty? This is what's done in Texas and works pretty well

.

In the UK a warranty isn’t a requirement by a second hand car trader – it does however have to come under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which gives the consumer recourse to reject the car if it is not as described or is faulty. It also has to comply with the Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes it an offense for a trader to sell an unroadworthy vehicle (unless it’s not going on the road!) Neither of these are applied to a private individual selling a car.

The difficulty comes in getting these rights from the motor trader and this is where local Trading Standards officers in the UK can potentially be helpful in that they can investigate these rogue traders
 
Small time car traders probably cannot afford to do the right thing and will simply go bankrupt or close their Ltd company rather than pay up.

This is why I would prefer to see quality warranties as the default position with an opt-out disclaimer for the more adventurous, I'd rather my purchase was backed by an insurance company than a back street car dealer.
 
Surly if the Small trader's put some effort into sourcing decent cars, or honouring there obligations they'd get repeat business and a decent reputation.

If they cant do the above they shouldn't be in business.
 
Surly if the Small trader's put some effort into sourcing decent cars, or honouring there obligations they'd get repeat business and a decent reputation.

If they cant do the above they shouldn't be in business.

True, however, if there is any lack of trust then you need a plan B. There's been plenty of dialogue on this thread about dealers being untrustworthy and that has always been the case. Forcing dealers to clean up their act will always be a big task and there will always be those who refuse, for that reason I'm looking at the issue from a fresh perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is also the problem that lots of dealers are aware off. That is very simply, the general car buying public are not very savvy in regards to intimidation. Be that direct or more subtle.

Many (dealers) are not averse to using threats to get you to clear off and not come back. This is often helped by their reputation of friendly but shady villains. That said I have (and I know many on here have) experienced dealers who have attempted to deal with my genuine complaint by introducing intimidation tactics. One guy actually calling me on my home number and asking if my "two young daughters were both okay?" The same guy asking "if my wife never got scared living in the Countryside with me away a lot of the time" Isolated incidents? I think not, indeed I know that they are not. Both of these incidents were from the same mahoosive dealer and both dismissed as "idle chit chat and genuine concern". The same dealer had earned a rather strange nickname of "fire starter" after several incidents of mystery car fires all with customers who were linked by the same fact. They had all lodged complaints with Trading Standards against the same dealer.

It is a large scale problem and not one that is easily regulated or kept in check.
 
Last edited:
In the UK a warranty isn’t a requirement by a second hand car trader – it does however have to come under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ...... It also has to comply with the Road Traffic Act 1988 which makes it an offense for a trader to sell an unroadworthy vehicle (unless it’s not going on the road!)

Would a valid MOT satisfy these conditions?
 
Would a valid MOT satisfy these conditions?

No. The MOT would only show the vehicle was roadworthy on the date of the MOT. Nothing to stop an unscrupulous dealer putting worn ditchfinders on after the MOT.
The MOT won't cover leaking ABC/Airmatic struts etc etc that may not be picked up during a customer inspection. The Consumer Rights Act covers cars sold by a dealer not fit for purpose, whatever its age.
I guess the US use litigation to get redress?
 
Not motoring related but i even got a 4 year old microwave refunded ( vouchers ) from Argos after a months of emailing as your covered for 6 years under consumer rights on electrical goods did you know that ? i do and now the Argos Staff and manager in Hayes does too :)

You're covered *if* you can prove that the fault was down to manufacturing fault or error, not wear and tear - that is surpringly hard to do, especially after 4 years. More likely than not, Currys gave you the voucher because it was easier and cheaper to make you shut up and go away, than to get into a protracted argument. Being vouchers you still have to make another transaction with them, which means they get to notch up another sale.

We have a similar situation from time to time - after a certain point my hours on the case cost more than to have them send the kit back for an FOC repair. Customer thinks they've bent us over a barrel when it reality it's saving us money.
 
Last edited:
That's unfortunate, from everything discussed on this thread, the law seems counter productive with the end result being that it will force small businesses out of the industry and older cars off the road prematurely. Only franchised dealers will win by selling new cars. To quote the leader of the free world.... "sad"

The US actually does a good job with licensing that keeps the trash out of the business, but in the OP's example of getting surrounded? That kind of sh1t will get someone shot.

No. The MOT would only show the vehicle was roadworthy on the date of the MOT. Nothing to stop an unscrupulous dealer putting worn ditchfinders on after the MOT.
The MOT won't cover leaking ABC/Airmatic struts etc etc that may not be picked up during a customer inspection. The Consumer Rights Act covers cars sold by a dealer not fit for purpose, whatever its age.
I guess the US use litigation to get redress?
 
What is it with Scumbag Dealers, 1st, everyone i've recently come across are giving/stating 3 months warranty? i thought this was meant tobe And 2nd, "i maybe wrong" 6 months?? Statuary?

And then the old Spares or Repairs add......

2004 MERCEDES E55K AMG - SILVER WITH BLACK LEATHER - e63 s55 s63 c63 C55 C32 | eBay

2007 MERCEDES E63 AMG - BLACK WITH BLACK LEATHER - e55 s55 s63 c63 | eBay

Sounds to me like they're trying to avoid buyers like you. These were $90,000 cars when new. If you're going to buy a 14 year old one with 107000 miles for 1/10th price, you need to expect risk and this is what the seller stated in his auction. Why call him a scumbag?
The seller seems very up front in his description and reasoning. No reason to trash his business. He's just trying to make a living like the rest of us and you can always look somewhere else. If you really need a warranty, I'm sure you can get a new Dacia for the same price.
 
Last edited:
Your Answer lays within this thread
 
Last edited:
Anybody in the UK, can be a car trader/dealer and that is the heart of the problem. There are so many out there that any idea of 'self regulation' has long since disappeared. Good dealers/traders (and there are many on here) are normally identified by their customer reputation and reviews, along with 'word of mouth'. Good dealers have worked out, that selling 'good cars' at a good price is a good business model. Bad dealers sell bad cars at a bad price and have zero interest in any business model.

The buying public have expectations that often are simply unreasonable. A good dealer will help re0set those expectations. A bad dealer will will agree with everything you say, just to get the sale.

Customer: What about this is it okay?
Good Dealer: That does need attention and we can do that for XXX or offer you YYY.
Bad Dealer: Not a problem that will be just fine, don't worry about it.

Favourite phrases to watch out for.

What did you expect?
They all do that?
It should be like that?
If I had a pound for every customer that said that?
Here is your warranty, do not call them for two weeks?
No test drive, you can see what the car looks like?

There are so many cars out there (including the one you want) try not fall in love with a particular car in a particular dealers lot. That is where the problems start. The heart starts to rule the head and convinces you that all will be okay. It will not be okay unless you shell out large amounts of cash to another garage to put it right.
 
If you really need a warranty, I'm sure you can get a new Dacia for the same price.

I like them! and no i'm not James May's secret love child. They didn't have an Auto gearbox option when i looked though.
 
The idea of warranty on 10+ year old cars is now daft in this country. You see enough threads on this forum from people who expect every small thing to be right or rectified on something they've just bought that's got over 100,000 miles on it, patchy service history and cost a tenth of the price when new.

Sure consumers need protection from rogue traders but this has got a little bit daft now. I'd not be a used car trader these days in the UK.

Also the idea of "fit for purpose" on an older car is so open to interpretation that it's basically pointless as a point of law.

I'd like to see longer manufacturer warranties. Kia with 7 years and Hyundai with 5 years are a good starting point.

We extended the warranty on our Audi to five years as an option when bought new (for £1300) which seemed like a no brainer as we intend to keep it that long.

If we continue down this path all this will do is make used cars that have no warranty virtually valueless and only worth parting out or scrapping.
 
My latest E320 CDI came with a three-month warranty, and when it needed something done, the warranty had not yet been activated; or to put it another way, if I'd not needed to claim, the dealer would have 'forgotten' to send off the paperwork and, crucially, make the necessary payment. I wonder how many dealers offering aftermarket warranties on cars at the lower end of the market do this; a very high proportion, I suspect.

Red C220 makes a very valid point, though, and I read something recently that resonated: 'A car with faults is not necessarily a faulty car'. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a high-mileage old banger to be fault-free unless you paid way over the odds for it.

Whenever I buy a car I expect it to need some money spending on it to bring it up to snuff; it is a bonus if nothing is needed, and on the (rare) occasions I buy from a dealer, I only go back to him if I feel I've had to shell out more than is reasonable considering the price I paid.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom