Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
What do you think of Elon Musk? Have your say | No thanks
View Threaded
Sat 5 May 2012 11:42
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - bananastand

This isn't a name and shame, it's just a name, as I am only repeating what is stated very boldly in a very big notice in Evans Halshaw up and down the land. They tell you flatly that their "approved used cars come with three months complimentary guarantee."

Also: "The maximum value of any one claim is £500 inc VAT".

These are verbatim quotations from the sign so there is no understanding here. However, as most of you chaps will know, if you buy a car for say £9,000 and the cylinder head goes after 4 months, you will quite properly be able to tell them to fix it free of charge regardless of the cost. HJ's FAQs are unequivocal on the subject. So I'm nonplussed by the whole thing. I won't comment further, I simply present it for your wise consideration.

Thanking you.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 12:02
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - madf

I think you will find many dealers do that. I bought my last car from a delaer approved by Trading Standards - so they did not.

I just ignore what anyone says selling a car.. ...most times it's selling patter and if I do my research properly, as a buyer I should know more about the car than a seller does.

But many people don't know their rights, don't do any research and get the wool pulled over their eyes.

You can lead a horse to water.. etc

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 12:09
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - bananastand

Salesmen will also tell you breathlessly that you need a warranty and virtually burst into tears if they think you don't want one. Not thinking of any dealer in particular here obviouslam.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 12:33
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - Avant

That's fine - nothing defamatory there!

It would be interesting if someone went in to a dealer - any dealer stating a maximum claim like that - and challenged them with the Sale of Goods Act, and see what they say.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 12:39
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - bananastand

I've got a photo of the sign on my phone and I copied it out v e e e r y carefully

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 15:20
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - pd

A warranty is a defined contract between two parties stating the terms of coverage, procedure and amounts etc.

The SoGA is a vague bit of legislattion worded only really for new goods and very difficult to apply consistantly to used ones which you'd need to go to court to assert. The two are totally different.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 16:11
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - madf

A warranty is a defined contract between two parties stating the terms of coverage, procedure and amounts etc.

The SoGA is a vague bit of legislattion worded only really for new goods and very difficult to apply consistantly to used ones which you'd need to go to court to assert. The two are totally different.

Hmm..

As gods sold have to be "of merchantable quality"...taht applies to second hand cars as well. Which is why delaer margins are much higher on used cars: to pay for the repairs..

A Small Claims Court will largely pass judgement for a private buyer if the case is well documented - and of course under £5k...

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 18:00
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - pd

A Small Claims Court will largely pass judgement for a private buyer if the case is well documented - and of course under £5k...

That is, frankly, rubbish. So much depends on the age, mileage, value, circumstances and price paid making a sweeping statement like that is just plain misleading. Most cases never get to court where the buyer stands no chance as someone sensible tells them they have no hope. The only cases which get to court tend to be ones where the buyer has a very good case and the dealer is being stupid.

There is such a massive diffference in how a £15k 3 year old car would be treated to how a £2k 10 year old car would making any sort of generalisations is silly.

"Merchantable quality" can mean that a car for the price of a train ticket can manage roughly the length of a train journey and no more.

Some are under the illusion (or give the impression to others) the SoGA means buyers can go and buy any old cheap tat from anywhere and magically run it for nothing for 6 months. That is not the case.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 5 May 2012 21:46
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - madf

I suggest pd reads today's Telegraph Moting Supplement and HJ's letters. Specifically "Flog on the Tyne" page M8.

And then apologise.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 6 May 2012 13:03
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - bananastand

madf is correct. Anyone contradicting him or me obviously is not a regular reader of HJ's problem page. An old banger for a grand is obviously shaky ground but - oh really I don't need to repeat it. HJ knows his onions so arguing is futile, tbh.

Edited by bananastand on 06/05/2012 at 13:03

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 6 May 2012 19:52
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - Brit_in_Germany

Would that be "complimentary" as in "in addition to your legal rights"? As pd rightly points out, there is a world of difference between a guarantee and a claim under the SOGA. If, for example, your seat heating fails after 5 months, you will have great difficulty proving that it was defective at the date of purchase or not fit for purpose but, provided it is not exluded, a warranty would cover it. See particularly the exclusion of S. 48A(4).

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 6 May 2012 22:52
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - bananastand

for the avoidance of doubt I will post a link to the sign tomorrow 8-D

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 7 May 2012 10:32
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - bananastand

for the avoidance of doubt I will post a link to the sign tomorrow 8-D

I won't actually, you'll just have to trust me.

It's all very well quoting borderline cases like a heating element failing after five months, but I'm talking about something blaringly obvious. The sign gives the customer three months guarantee with a maximum claim of £500 (per claim). However most of us will agree that if the cylinder head fails at FOUR months and costs £1000 to fix, they will have to do it for nothing, even though the sign IMPLIES that they won't. Thanking you.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 7 May 2012 11:33
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - pd

Sorry, but I do not agree with a lot of HJ's views on some things. He is just a man with an opinion and on some things in my view is just plain wrong, on others he is right just like any other two people with opinions.

The cylinder head issue is not blaringly obvious depending on the value of the car in the first place. In the case of a relatively expensive car then yes it probably is, in the case of a cheaper car it is not.

My main issue is with calling anything relating to SoGA a "warranty". This is misleading to people and implies they have rights which they do not and is poor advice in my opinion.

Working in the motor trade I need to know the SoGA and it is frankly a wrotten bit of legislation both for the seller and buyer on used things (not just cars) as the only way to reach a firm conclusion is to get a judge to rule and every case is different. The only way to approach it is for both seller and buyer to always try and act in a reasonable way to each other which, fortunately, happens in 99% of cases - it is only when one or both are a t*t the SoGA needs to come into play.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 7 May 2012 11:35
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - pd

Just to add on the £500 claim limit originally posted - the offer of any sort of warranty or statements like that do not effect your statuory rights so such a statement is irrelevant to any rights you have under SoGA.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 7 May 2012 12:56
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - madf

"Working in the motor trade I need to know the SoGA"

I gathered that from your dismissive remark about SOGA..

Seems to be the view of the Motor Trade to disparage all consumer legislation. No wonder the Motor Trade has a repoutation for thieves , shady practise and poor service. - not an opinion on mine but factual : see

http://www.motor-trade-insider.com/index.php/2010/10/franchised-car-dealers-and-customer-disservice/


Edited by madf on 07/05/2012 at 12:56

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 7 May 2012 13:46
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - Avant

I agree with PD that the implied terms, stated in the SOGA, of a sale contract, aren't a warranty in the way consumers interpret that word - but that doesn't make the legislation useless. The implied term 'satisfactory quality' (a 1990s amendment to the original, more memorable, 'merchantable quality'), is the one that's most argued about.

Every case is different and all that the law can do is uphold that which is reasonable. The implication of 'reasonable' for used goods is that their condition is what a reasonable person might expect given the age of the goods and the use to which they've been put.

Court action is avoided if both seller and buyer both behave reasonably.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 7 May 2012 20:15
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - pd

I agree with PD that the implied terms, stated in the SOGA, of a sale contract, aren't a warranty in the way consumers interpret that word - but that doesn't make the legislation useless. The implied term 'satisfactory quality' (a 1990s amendment to the original, more memorable, 'merchantable quality'), is the one that's most argued about.

Every case is different and all that the law can do is uphold that which is reasonable. The implication of 'reasonable' for used goods is that their condition is what a reasonable person might expect given the age of the goods and the use to which they've been put.

Court action is avoided if both seller and buyer both behave reasonably.

Would happily agree with all of that. The SoGA lays down some rough guidelines for reasonable behavious and is designed to try and ensure both SELLER and BUYER act in a reasonable manner. It is there to protect the seller as well as the buyer.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 7 May 2012 20:14
Dealers contradicting HJ's advice on liability - pd

Seems to be the view of the Motor Trade to disparage all consumer legislation. No wonder the Motor Trade has a repoutation for thieves , shady practise and poor service. - not an opinion on mine but factual : see


The motor trade is well aware of consumer legislation and know it is pretty much a load of rubbish and they can get away with a lot because it offers nothing like the protection in the real world people on car internet forums think it does. Most dealers try and keep customers happy and be reasonable with them because of their reputation and not wanting irate customers - not legislation. If a customer's opening gambit to me is to go all legal and start spouting SoGA I am inclined to follow it to the letter which means I usually have to do sweet b****r all. In reality I do not want to treat people like that so, like most people in the motor trade, go way beyind what I have to do by law.

Unfortunaley, however, it is not easy when the consumer (or 95% anyway) is motivated primarily by price and will happily forgoe and sort of decent customer service for the sake of even a £100 saving. :(

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

We give you the low down on how to save on insurance, little-known tricks and tips, what insurance groups mean and how to use insurance aggregators to beat insurers.

Insurance group finder and how to save on insurance