(Any respectable car dealer will give at least 3 months warranty on a used car ( unless advertised as spares / repairs )
Sadly that's the whole point of my original post ,in law it's not possible for a dealer to sell a car to a private buyer and agree with a buyer to sign away his consumer rights ,there is no such thing as trade sale ,spares and repairs etc between a private buyer and a trade seller .
Consumer legislation says that a private buyer lacks sufficient knowledge to enter into an agreement with a professional car dealer on that basis .
And that's the point that irritates me ,a consumer can make stupid and reckless decisions and when the very cheap car turns into a disaster ,the dealer can be pilloried in court .
Common sense ,should play a much larger part in car purchasing ,a car that cost £20 ,25k when new ,thats 10 years old and costs £2k just can't be a good car .To me that's common sense ,isn't it .
|
Common sense ,should play a much larger part in car purchasing ,a car that cost £20 ,25k when new ,thats 10 years old and costs £2k just can't be a good car .To me that's common sense ,isn't it .
Can't argue with any of that, except it applies more so to the dealer as the expert, he should know to keep such specialist temperamental and fussy cars at the end of a very long barge pole and not to deal in them unless he's specialising, play with fire and it will bite eventually.
|
|
|
Common sense ,should play a much larger part in car purchasing ,a car that cost £20 ,25k when new ,thats 10 years old and costs £2k just can't be a good car .To me that's common sense ,isn't it .
Sorry, but I cannot agree with your comment. If you applied that logic to every cheap used car for sale, there would be a lot of "lemons" left sitting on dealers forcourts because people would be too scared to buy them.
Some cars do have a reputation as being unreliable, expensive to run, difficult to work on or get spares for, but that's why they should be researched before commuting to buy. Alas, the heart sometimes over rules the head and that dream car that you've lusted over just has to be yours irrespectively. Going by your reckoning, my Seat Leon which originally retailed for £14,670 should be an absolute wreck due the fact I paid "only" £950 for it !!
Most people can't afford to buy a new or nearly new car from a franchised dealer and have to rely on the Indy dealers for something cheaper. I think you are being on the verge of coming across as arrogant with your comments that a perceived bargain priced used car that was expensive when new is going to be trouble and basically telling the OP tough, you've made your bed now lie in it.
The dealer who sold the car is under obligation to repair, replace or refund if it has a serious fault within the timescale pointed out. At the end of the day, he sold the car, he deals in used cars, he must know that the RX8 is not without it's faults, yet he still took good money for it.
Edited by The-Mechanic on 04/10/2013 at 19:06
|
|
|
And that's the point that irritates me ,a consumer can make stupid and reckless decisions and when the very cheap car turns into a disaster ,the dealer can be pilloried in court .
The car dealers should not be selling these types of cars, The dealer as the professional should be making sure the cars he sells are going to be fit for purpose.
A potential buyer who knows little to nothing about cars might go looking in autotrader and other publications, Then have come to the conclusion that these cars just have this value of around £2k.
Lets look at it another way, If you got a plumber to supply and install a boiler, Then that boiler was too small to heat your house, It is the buyers fault or the sellers fault?
|
Lets look at it another way, If you got a plumber to supply and install a boiler, Then that boiler was too small to heat your house, It is the buyers fault or the sellers fault?
The buyer's if you tell the plumber which model to install !
The OP chose to buy a 10-year old RX-8 at a price that reflects the general distrust of old rotary-engined cars.
|
The OP chose to buy a 10-year old RX-8 at a price that reflects the general distrust of old rotary-engined cars.
And your point is.........?
What difference does it make what car the OP chose to buy ? The point is it was bought in good faith from a dealer. Obviously the dealer sold it in good faith ( you would assume ), but any used car dealer will be taking a chance on every car he sells will not have any serious fault(s). It's the chance he takes. He chose to make a business out of selling used cars and therefore must be expected to put right faults on the car(s) that he must know are at higher risk of problems. Used car dealers know the score with what cars can be problematic, they aren't that "green" or blind to them.
|
|
|
Lets look at it another way, If you got a plumber to supply and install a boiler, Then that boiler was too small to heat your house, It is the buyers fault or the sellers fault?
The buyer's if you tell the plumber which model to install !
The correct answer is a true professional would not supply and fit something that is not fit for purpose.
The same as a good honest car dealer would not be dealing in problem cars unless he was a specialist in that specific car.
Like has been pointed out, He probably got it silly cheap as a PX or at an auction and sold it making a good profit. The correct thing for him to do would be to refund the purchaser and then to sell the car for scrap metal and put it down to experience.
a, It is the right thing to do
and
b, That customer won't be going around telling everyone the dealer is a shark and can't be trusted.
|
|
|
|
The car dealers should not be selling these types of cars, The dealer as the professional should be making sure the cars he sells are going to be fit for purpose.
And how would a dealer do this to a fussy buyer's satisfaction, other than by driving it himself for a week or two? Would that make sense, and would such a buyer be happy if it had happened? It's not like me to plead a dealer's case, but ....
Sorry, if you pay less than a tenth of a new car's price, it's going too far to expect full compensation for everything that happens afterwards.
|
How would a dealer do this to a fussy buyer's satisfaction, other than by driving it himself for a week or two?
Sorry, if you pay less than a tenth of a new car's price, it's going too far to expect full compensation for everything that happens afterwards.
Two points I feel I must pick up on.
You mention fussy buyer : when is a used car buyer not fussy about the car he chooses ? You can check the condition visually, check service history etc but usually you rely on the dealer, who at the end of the day, is selling it to be honest and truthful in it's description. After all, he wouldn't have bought it "blind", he would surely know if it was a good or bad 'un. Like I said earlier, they ain't that green as to know they are a problem car, probably took it in P/ex for a lot less than he sold it for, thought " Yeah, these are a bit high risk, but its a clean 'un" and took the chance.
Which brings me onto your second point : What does it matter about the original cost of the car new ? Apply that logic to a 10 year old Lexus, Audi, Jaguar etc etc and see if it still holds true ! Cars like these depreciate like a lead balloon, all cars depreciate ( with some exceptions ) to a greater or lesser extent, but that's where SOGA steps in to protect the buyer, who is always deemed to be unknowledgeable. It's up to the dealer to ensure the car(s) he sells are fit for purpose and whilst he can't drive every car for a few weeks to check them, HE takes the chance and therefore must adhere to SOGA regulations.
|
|
How is he a "fussy buyer "?
I would not call him a fussy buyer, He is not complaining about a few scratches to the paint work or a tear in the seat cloth.
He is complaining that the car is not useable and therefore not fit for purpose.
I have no sympathy with car dealers, They make plenty on selling used cars and they have to realise that occassional they'll have to take a hit and refund someone. They should know the risk, If they don't like it - Don't sell used cars! Simples!
|
How is he a "fussy buyer "?
I would not call him a fussy buyer, He is not complaining about a few scratches to the paint work or a tear in the seat cloth.
Sorry, I was not accusing anyone of being 'fussy'. Some buyers are more particular (or knowledgeable) than others, that's all. They don't usually end up with the dodgy or problematic cars. But some buyers clearly do or we wouldn't be having this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
"It's up to the dealer to ensure the car(s) he sells are fit for purpose and whilst he can't drive every car for a few weeks to check them, HE takes the chance and therefore must adhere to SOGA regulations."
But if a cheap car cost, say, £1200, and developed a fault costing more than that to fix, no dealer can be expected to fix it, surely? The most he would do is buy the car back for full refund. Of course the original cost is relevant, especially if some buyers think their cheap bargain should be equally perfect.
|
|
Judge judging on SOGA would take into account the price of the car and the age of it and how long it took for a fault to develop and probably find favour with the seller. What is more, the seller may show evidence that this is in the vehicle's nature and features. Rather like buying a steam engine and then complaining about the smoke....
As others have said check out reviews before buying a car to make sure it suits you....
"I would never ever buy a mazda ever again i would be better off just burning my money....Everything went wrong with it. to the point that it needed a new engine when it only had 40000 miles on it. after i bough this car i realised how many people had problems with this car. The renesis engine is actually nicknamed the nemesis engine. it is that bad. allot of customers took mazda to court over this. but u live and learn i'm sticking with hondas.
"The car has had an intermittent misfire since I've bought it and Mazda have yet to identify the cause. Some items of interior trim have broken, and the 5th gear synchro is worn out after 52,000."
|
|
|
But if a cheap car cost, say, £1200, and developed a fault costing more than that to fix, no dealer can be expected to fix it, surely? The most he would do is buy the car back for full refund.
To which the SOGA states a car should be :
"Of satisfactory quality - this covers minor and cosmetic defects as well as substantial problems. It also means that products must last a reasonable time. But it doesn't give your customer any rights if a fault was obvious or pointed out to them at point of sale. If you sell a vehicle to a customer that doesn't conform to the above conditions you are legally obliged to resolve the problem if they seek redress."
Additionally a dealer must be aware that if they don't :
"All customers can make a claim for compensation at any time until six years after purchase (in Scotland, five years from discovery of the problem) as this is the legal limit on court claims for breach of contract. During this period, you need to consider any claim of breach of contract"
If the dealer disputes a customers claims :
"Under the amendments to Sale of Goods Act (EC Directive 1999/44/EC) if you want to dispute a claim by a customer it's up to you for the first six months to prove that the fault was not present at the time of sale. However, after the six months is it's up to your customer to prove the vehicle was faulty when sold"
So basically, what your saying is after just four weeks of ownership of a "cheap" car the OP should just forget about it ? I don't have two grand to throw away, and I'm sure many of us haven't either ?
|
|
"So basically, what your saying is after just four weeks of ownership of a "cheap" car the OP should just forget about it ? I don't have two grand to throw away, and I'm sure many of us haven't either ? "
Of course not. But we all recognise that cars, like many other things, are deteriorating assets. 'Cheap' cars are cheap because deterioration has, or is presumed to have, seriously reduced its market value. A seller cannot reasonably be asked to spend more fixing a fault than he has taken in the sale. Like returning a faulty item to a shop for a full refund, except that the cheap car is second-hand and not nearly-new.
I suspect any reasonable SOGA judge would take a similar view.
|
|
|
(The mechanic
To which the SOGA states a car should be :) ad nauseum etc .
I'm sure that most of the posters on HJ know what the soga says ,
my point is ,that is that's its ridiculous that consumers are protected from their own stupidity .
I remember when nsu tried to make the rotary engine viable ,it put nsu into liquidation .At 3 years old most nsu RO 80 were refitted with ford v4 engines .As a concept the rotary engine has never been viable ,and that's been the case for thirty years .
So anyone buying a rotary engine car must ,or should know what a risk they're taking , they shouldn't expect the car dealer to compensate them ,the law is simply wrong and needs changing .
|
... its ridiculous that consumers are protected from their own stupidity.... they shouldn't expect the car dealer to compensate them ,the law is simply wrong and needs changing.
I doubt that this situation really exists. You are placing too much faith in the views of the SOGA fanatics who interpret a legal statute as an absolute rule. Each case is judged on its merit with the aim of being fair to all parties. As Andrew-T said, it is very unlikely that any SOGA judge would expect the dealer to spend several times the price of the car to fix it.
If the OP was deliberately mislead he is entitled to return the car, otherwise he has only himself to blame. An interesting aside is that he has not been back to answer numerous questions since his initial post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense ,should play a much larger part in car purchasing ,a car that cost £20 ,25k when new ,thats 10 years old and costs £2k just can't be a good car .To me that's common sense ,isn't it .
With that being the case, the dealer shouldn't be buying in cars that are prone to trouble in the first place, if he doesn't want his bottom kicked later on.
The fact that the car might be garbage does not in any way absolve a dealer of his responsibilities. If he doesn't want the financial cost of providing support for an RX8, he should put an RX8 into his fleet in the first place. No use whining later on.
|
Common sense ,should play a much larger part in car purchasing ,a car that cost £20 ,25k when new ,thats 10 years old and costs £2k just can't be a good car .To me that's common sense ,isn't it .
With that being the case, the dealer shouldn't be buying in cars that are prone to trouble in the first place, if he doesn't want his bottom kicked later on.
The fact that the car might be garbage does not in any way absolve a dealer of his responsibilities. If he doesn't want the financial cost of providing support for an RX8, he should put an RX8 into his fleet in the first place. No use whining later on.
The trader is most likely not "buying in" but trading on a part-exchange. To suggest they shouldn't sell such cars on would knock the bottom out of the bangernomics market - so many cars would go to auction so as not to be traded on after being taken as p/x they'd only fetch scrap weight value - or owners of older cars wouldn't be able to trade them in, so suffering the same fate.
It's simply not practical to expect traders to provide protection against the unknown at that price level.
I generally have no time or sympathy with the motor trade but I'm with Tony G on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
