Granddad put deposit down on car - Changed mind!

[renault12ts]

Tut , 2p's worth and low blow.. Give the op a break, he his within his rights as imo the dealer would have had an idea of the bush an mot due date! If it was me I'd straight up refuse paying anything.

Huh?

 

[Meldrew2]

One thing that this topic demonstrates is that UK consumer legislation is heavily weighted in favour of the consumer and against the business owner.

I know there are plenty of cowboys out there - but there are also plenty of honest traders struggling against over-entitled customers.

 

[flango]

One thing that this topic demonstrates is that UK consumer legislation is heavily weighted in favour of the consumer and against the business owner.

I know there are plenty of cowboys out there - but there are also plenty of honest traders struggling against over-entitled customers.

Exactly and that was one of the reasons we decided to sell up the garage because of people who misinterpret consumer law. The genuine ones you don't mind helping and agree to replace or come to a compromise then you have the t*ssers that want wiper blades changing after six months. Even had one switch number plates to an identical Audi tt and bring it back saying clutch had failed don't they know that's why cars have vin numbers or did they think we were too stupid to check. I just love the moaners who get short shrift and if they are that aggrieved they can see me in court. It's people like that who's business you don't want.

 

[Deleted member 11979]

Who'd sell used cars for a living??

I think one has to be reasonable about these things, if after buying a fairly old and pretty well used car for not a huge amount of money, I found it needed a bush to get through the mot is class that as a success !!!!!

The op wants to buy a used w211 and immediately find out it needs a new gearbox and torque convertor as I did to realign his expectations

 

[Delayed Steve]

couldn't agree more.


And stay away from that dealer.

+1

 

[219]

I think the trader should give you a full refund and your grandad gets to keep the car, probably a tank full of fuel too for the absolutely despicable way he's been treated.

I mean, expecting to pay for a bush on a nine year old car he's had for three month is just terrible.

Especially since he had covered a whopping 300 miles in it !

 

[John Jones Jr]

It doesn't matter if the car has covered 3 or 3,000 miles. All that matters is whether the dealer is legally obliged to supply an MOT as per originally advertised and repair any fault. Now, personally I think it's gone past all of the above, as mentioned by lewyboy the Grandfather really doesn't need any of the hassle. I also think the first post sums up the dealer in question. Time to move on pay up and forget for the old boys sake.

 

[219]

It doesn't matter if the car has covered 3 or 3,000 miles. All that matters is whether the dealer is legally obliged to supply an MOT as per originally advertised and repair any fault. Now, personally I think it's gone past all of the above, as mentioned by lewyboy the Grandfather really doesn't need any of the hassle. I also think the first post sums up the dealer in question. Time to move on pay up and forget for the old boys sake.

With respect , while I agree the legal position is clear , and also the old gent doesn't need the hassle , I do think the low use is relevant .

Suppose someone had bought the car , then proceeded to cover 10,000 miles in the three months - I don't think anyone would think some reasonable wear and tear not to be expected and this should not be the responsibility of the dealer .

In this case , the car was 9 years old but below average mileage and sold as being in excellent condition for what seems like fair market value - I think it is a reasonable expectation that it should cover more than 300 miles without going wrong .

I do think the amount of use the customer gets out of a vehicle is relevant , and should be considered as part of the 'reasonable expectation' part of the law .

 

[John Jones Jr]

I do think the low use is relevant .

Derek, it's certainly not with that dealer.

 

[GDAWG10]

So Aunt ended up going to collect the car and pay the £140...

Typically speaking, would a worn/damaged front bush fail an MOT? And is it £140 to repair? Just thinking out loud, because obviously it was advertised with a new one year MOT, then the dealer said he would arrange/pay for the MOT when it was due this month.....

Also still trying to figure out at what stage in the process it went from the dealer stating to take the car to him to get the MOT done, and then also saying upon inspection it was a bush that needs to be replaced and he will sort it out and pay for it, to him requesting £140 but I didn't deal with it because there was my mum, aunt, dad all taking various calls due to one other being busy or at work...oh well, what's done has been done!

 

[a111r]

For starters and clutching at straws, you need a better technical description of the fault.
'Front bush' means nowt.

 

[jonnyboy]

Just read this thread from start to finish. Cracks me up.


OP - you've said that there was at least three people involved in taking calls about this (presumably from this dreadful dealer).
Perhaps the point at which he decided to charge for the works was when the three people all got involved. Just a thought??
I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve by the posts about MOT/bush?
Are you planning on getting involved now as well and demanding £140 back from the dealer on the strength of the do's/dont's on an internet forum?

Of course your elderly grandad could have just taken the car to Kwikfit or the likes and returned ££££'s lighter after they failed it on a million and one things. Food for thought perhaps?

 

[def90cars]

Of course your elderly grandad could have just taken the car to Kwikfit or the likes and returned ££££'s lighter after they failed it on a million and one things. Food for thought perhaps?

Wiper blades and headlight alignment... Halfords standard.