We can't possibly comment on your solicitor's comment without seeing the whole letter. At he moment it seems that all he is saying is that a second hand car does not have to be in as good as condition as a new car in order to comply with the Act, which is quite right.
If you do not understand the letter, why don't you ask the solicitor directly?
|
|
|
The rest of the words matter!
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Hi thanks for the replies - i was just after thoughts on the comment as this relates to an unroadworthy car. This was a standalone comment.
|
Some solicitor! Some words! I always thought criteria was a plural, hence criteria "are". I suppose only one of them is a criterion ???
|
A second hand car is subject to a more lenient set of quality criteria than those which apply to a new car.
Check me out. I'm a solicitor now.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
I read it as meaning exactly what it says: the same criteria do not apply. The law accepts that things on used cars wear out and that is why they are cheaper than new ones. If the faults are roughly typical of what you could reasonably expect to be near the end of their lives at the age and mileage of the car. If a clutch failed at 2500 miles on a new car you could argue that wasn't reasonable, if it fails at 63500 miles even if it was purchased at 61000 miles you could argue it is perfectly reasonable to expect a wear item to need replacing at that mileage.
That said, no seller (private or trade) should sell an unroadworthy car unless this is specifically pointed out.
|
Thanks you for the reply.
Your last line is the most critical one in this case - whilst I expect wear and tear ( I have owned a 13 year old Pajero) I do not expect the car to be classified as unroadworthy within 2817 miles (2 months) after purchase.
Thanks
|
Newbie - it all depends on the age and mileage of the car when you bought it, and the price paid.
If you bought the car with 2mm of tread on the tyres and it had already done 70k miles or whatever then absolutely the car would be unroadworthy after 2,817 miles and I can't see how you'd have any comeback whatsoever against a trade seller, let alone a private one.
On the other hand if you bought a six month old Mercedes with 3k miles on it and the car had then done 2,817 miles, you'd have very strong grounds for complaint if the defects you've described above were present.
I think everyone agrees that there is a sliding scale of acceptability for faults, and of course you have the EU regulaitons stating that a defect that appears within the first six months will be deemed to be present at the time of sale unless the seller can show otherwise, it would be helpful to know what the car is, what its mileage was, what defects have appeared and how much you paid.
|
ok in answer to your question
Price Paid - £3295
Audi a4 Avant - 1.9 tdi
Mileage - this is now under dispute - as the engine was claimed as new but isn't
Defects - Perished brake Hoses, split CV Boots, faulty Electrics, Faulty alarm Immobiliser, Water Leak
I hope that helps
|
|
oh and been deemed as unroadworthy by two seperate organisations
|
|
Well the faults described aren't engine faults - so what's the mileage on the car? And the age? I take it that the car was bought from a dealer? Finally, has the dealer agreed to repair the car at all (but you want a refund) or is he simply washing his hands of the matter?
|
Hi the mileage is under dispute.
It is a 1997 R and yes it was bought from a Trader. He has only agreed to address 50% of the faults not water leak, electrics, alarm/immobiliser but the car is being rejected but he is unable to accept that it is not roadworthy
|
What mileage does the car currenty display?
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
|
mileage displayed is 144k
|
Even if the mileage is under dispute, the fact is that if the mileage is higher then the car is not as described (subject to the weaselly stickers that state that they don't guarantee the mileage); if it is the lower figure then that's the worst case scenario for you. Even so it'd be unusual to find one of these with less than 90k on.
Once the dealer has fixed the faults that he has agreed to, it is likely that the car will be roadworthy unless the electrics impact upon your ability to drive and use the car. Therefore the car will be fit for purpose, broadly speaking (unless for instance the alarm/immobiliser fault stops the car from being driven away.
The issue comes down to the 'satisfactory quality' limb of the SOGA tests. It depends therefore what the faults are, how serious the water leak is, etc. Alternatively, given the list of problems that the car does have, unless the dealer can show that the problems weren't there at the time of sale (e.g., a successful RAC inspection sheet) you may well have a very strong case for rejection.
Whose Solicitor has stated that different criteria apply to second hand cars than new cars?
|
I remember reading somewhere (Trading Standards website) that it is illegal to sell an unroadworthy vehicle.
Can you please tell us:
1. Where you bought the car (not a name, but an indication of size of establishment etc.)
2. Mileage - alleged at time of sale. Was this guaranteed? Is there a reason for assuming that it is incorrect?
3. Water leak - is this an engine fault, or a sunroof/window fault?
If the trader has agreed to cover the unroadworthy items, just grin and accept the fact that the immobiliser doesn't work, and move on. It'll cost you time, effort and money to beat him, and it probably isn't worth it.
|
a small company
mileage alleged 144k, engine was supposedly new, now found to be a recon
water leak - could be front window/sunroof, the leak is a very bad one - it is not liveable with
The trader will not accept the car is unroadworthy, independent reports are done, court papers have been filed, courtdate set for early next year - also the trader is being investigated by trading standards
|
>engine was supposedly new, now found to be a recon
Just focus on that. He was clearly lying, the car is in no sense as described. You will win. I think anyway.
|
>engine was supposedly new, now found to be a recon Just focus on that. He was clearly lying, the car is in no sense as described. You will win. I think anyway.
The focus is on the brake hoses and the law is on my side
heigh ho
|
If the brakes are in a condition which clearly indicates they must have been unroadworthy at the time of sale then I think you have a case. You might also have an argument of over the condition of the engine if "new engine" was a major part of the way the car was advertised or sold.
Unless offered with specifically stated warrented mileage then I think that might be more of a grey area. The other items, particualrly the electrics, I think as they've taken nearly 3000 miles to come to light and bearing in mind the age and mileage of the car are more likely to be considered things likely to fail on a complicated 8 year old high mileage car.
It also depends on what you paid for it. If you paid rock bottom price or full retail it might be viewed differently.
Whatever do be a bit careful here - I assume you're after a refund which would be better negotiated than through the courts as even if they decide on your side on the brakes the seller is entitled to elect just to repair the brakes and still leave you with all the other problems.
|
I agree with what pd has said.
I appreciate that you are more concerned on a personal level with the condition of the brakes rather than whether the engine was new or a recon. - but from a legal perspective, you won't be able to recover anything for fear or hurt feelings, etc. so, as Mapmaker says, focus on the engine not being as described because that is the easier argument to prove and should give you much the same result, namely a successful rejection of the car on those grounds. (This presumes that you can show/the dealer accepts that the car was described as having a new engine).
I also agree that whether the water leak and electrical problems are significant enough to amount to a breach of contract, i.e., the car is not of satisfactory quality - is a question of fact and not of law. That's a judgement call between you and your lawyer and it's quite understandable that the car dealer would resist that - which is not to say that I agree, merely that I can see why he would resist.
For an eight year old car like this with 144k on the clock, I'd say that £3,295 is pretty much full retail money.
|
To clarify a few things
the electrics, alarm/immobiliser he was aware of one week after delivery - he failed to remedy these problems,
Re The brakes he was notified on the day I was informed and the car deemed as unroadworthy. The fact the car is unroadworthy has not been accepted. Ot has been argued. There is nothing in writing to show the engine was sold as to me as new as this was a verbal reassurance, whereas the condition of the brakes are not acheivable doing suburban driving within the mileage I have done
Although he is under investigation purely I *think* because I am female.He has not offered a full refund but deducted lots hence why I am persuing
the car is being rejected as it is not of satisfactory quality, not as described and not fit for purpose
|
I think in the case of water leaks and electrics the dealer could justifiably argue that had the faults been present at the time of sale they would have been noticed before nearly 3000 miles had elapsed. You would have to prove that you never went out in the rain during that period or locked the car which might be a little difficult in December in the UK.
On the other hand rememeber that in the first 6 months the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove that the faults were not there. The mileage and time would give them good argument on the faults such as the ones above but on the brakes they would need something like an MOT carried out at the time of sale to have good evidence they were OK when the car was sold. As far as the misdescription is concerned the SoGA specifically says "needs to conform to any express description" so if they advertised the car as "brand new engine fitted at 90k" you have a good case. On the other hand if they said "replacement engine fitted" it might be less so.
As you have already done nearly 3000 miles I think an outright rejection under the SoGA is unlikely so you are looking at the possibilities of the dealer offering a repair of failing that a full or partial refund . Again, as you have used the car a fair bit full refund might be difficult and with a partial refund the dealer is entitled to take account of use of the car and depreciation.
I assume you are no longer using the car which puts you in a stronger position?
|
The fact that you informed them of the faults certainly puts you in a much stronger position. The only thing is: as you then did 2700 miles they could argue the car ws "fit for purpose" as it was clearly getting from A to B.
I reckon you have a good case and good luck. The only thing I would say (and this may sound harsh) but if you want easy fault and hassle free motoring do not buy an 8 year old 150k Audi. A car like this will always have potential big bills.
Similar money will get you all kinds of newer and much lower mileage cars. If you get your money back (and by the sounds of the dealer I hope you do) pick something different.
|
Having re-read this thread to be perfectly honest I'm not sure an alarm/immobiliser fault on a car of this age or miles is really to be unexpected. Were you offered a warranty at the time and was it made clear the car was sold with no warranty?
It will really come down to whether the dealer can prove the brakes were OK at the time of sale.
I must admit if they've offered to fix the brakes anyway I'd be inclined to take the offer rather then persue what might be a costly case. If you are rejecting on the basis of the brakes there are simple things which determine the outcome:
1. Can the dealer prove the brakes were OK at the time of sale? If not:
2. Is it a reasonable enough time since purchase for outright rejection? 3000 miles and 2 months might be pushing this IMO on a car this old. If not:
3. The dealer is entitled to offer a replacement or attempt a repair. If they cannot effect a repair they may offer a full or partial refund. They can make deductions for mileage and depreciation of the car while you've been using it. Alternatively, you may claim compensation from the dealer and have the repair carried out yourself.
As I wrote in another thread today: The SoGA is not some sort of hidden warranty. It exists to protect the consumer from misdescriptions, goods blatantly not fit for purpose and unfair terms and conditions. It also protects the seller from spurious claims and specifically takes account of wear and tear, age, price and circumstances of sale. This is very important as far as used cars are concerned.
As far as used cars are concerned you should expect them to be roadworthy and legal at the time of sale unless described otherwise & described correctly. It doesn't protect much beyond that and the older the car the less it protects. The protection on new cars is better but you probably have a 3 year warranty anyway so only comes into play when a fault can't be fixed.
|
|
|
