Once again it depends on a couple of factors as to whether you will be able to sue the garage. Unfortunately for your claim under SOGA to be valid you have to prove that the head gasket failure makes the car of an unsatisfactory quality. Unfortunately, a HGF on a Rover K Series is pretty much par for the course and as such you may struggle to prove in a court of law that HGF is unacceptable on a second hand Rover. I wish you every luck though!
|
|
The selling garage probably also get a percentage on any "warranty" policy they sell just as they do with paint and upholstery "sealers".
|
The warranty is irrelevant here - remember the phrase that you often see at the bottom of decent company's documents "warranty is in addition to your statutory rights".
As the car was bought less than 6 mths ago then the burden of proof to show that it wasn't faulty at the time of sale falls on the garage. In this case it was only 2 mths max so there shouldn't be any issue there at all. Speak to trading Standards.
|
Just from the opposite side, for a point of view, which I know will infuriate a lot and bring people out in their droves quoting soga act etc.
the trader sold the car 2 months ago without a head gasket fault. it has now happened?
Why is that the traders fault? Cars do go wrong.
if its not the traders responsibility (he didnt know the head gasket WOULD fail, even if lots do) if the car was sold without any sign of a gasket fault. Therefore the warranty should be of some help?
If the policy does not determine a limit, why is 1 being imposed? I think more attention is needed to the warranty, not to the trader !
|
IRT Yorkiebar
In which case the garage should sort out their own warranties, if you are a trader then part of that is having to take on certain risks, if they don't like that then they should choose another job or try to change legislation. As the law currently stands the trader is responsible.
|
R75?
And how is the trader responsible exactly?
Has the car used coolant since sale? Has the garage been advised? Has it overheated? has the garage been advised? Has it had poor performnce? Advised? Other problems? advised? Has it been misused?
If the car was sold without an existing head gasket fault, it is NOT the traders responsibility (automatically) without more information/proof!
The warranty is the course of action.
Court would laught the case out if the trader just asked the questions I have above and was told no to all!
SOGA is not a be all and end all to every purchase!
Edited by yorkiebar on 10/02/2009 at 19:46
|
The trader sold the car, that alone makes him responsible. He may well have sold it in good faith, not knowing that it had a fault, but they are still responsible for it. It is down to them to prove with in the first 6 months that the fault was not there at time of sale. Something I would think they would find hard to do.
If there were no SOGA then any trader could sell any car and bodge any jobs so that it worked for the few miles to get it away from his premises, luckilly for us that is not the case and they have to take responsibility for the goods they sell.
Personally I can't see the case being laughed out of court.
|
Put simply, if the head gasket had been faulty it would not have lasted 2 months.
Therfore he has proved it was not present at the time of the sale!
There are so many resons why head gasket could have failed that if I were the trader I would want to make sure it was not a customer error before I stood the bill. remember this is not a new car, and head gaskets failures on these are not unknown.
Honestly do not think court is the right way; very unlikely to win.
Now the warranty, different case! Thats what its there for and what it was presumably sold for?
The warranty is there for both sides (if its a proper warranty) so that the seller can keep his customer happy without footing the bill for a problem that is not his! the customer gets (or should) peace of mind from knowing that any problems that happen (and are not there at the time of sale) are covered.
The head gasket was not there at the time of sale, so seller has not missold !
I would strongly advise pushing the warranty company harder!
|
|
I have to agree with yb on this one.
The law does not state if a fault arises in the first six months after sale then the dealer has to fix it, the law says that if a fault becomes apparent within six months of sale then it is the dealers responsibility to show that, on a balance of probabilities, the fault arose after the change of ownership.
A decent lawyer would run rings around you on this one.
Did you check the coolant regularly - no - why not clear lack of due care and attention
Did you check the coolant regularly - yes - was the level dropping - yes - buyer has a responsibility to ensure that goods are properly maintained
Did you check the coolant regularly - yes - was the level dropping - no - clearly wasn't a problem then ....
|
By the same token:
Did the trader know that the K series has HG problems? Yes. did they fit the uprated HG for it before sale. No? Why not?
Did the trader put a coolant level sensor in the header tank? No? Why not?
If a trader knows that the K series has problems then why sell them at all?
|
>>If a trader knows that the K series has problems then why sell them at all?
Or the buyer buy one...
|
|
The dealer should have knowledge of the trade he is in, not the same for Mr or Mrs average consumer who may buy a car more on colour or by using the excellent knowledge of the very lovely salesman who "has just the right car for them"!
|
"The dealer should have knowledge of the trade he is in, not the same for Mr or Mrs average consumer who may buy a car more on colour or by using the excellent knowledge of the very lovely salesman who "has just the right car for them"!"
Thats the very crux of this discussion.
Did the dealer knowingly sell a bad car or is it just one of those things?
Thats what the warranty is there for. Dont forget its been paid for! Use it !
|
Sorry but you clearly do not understand the legislation.
There is absolutely no requirement for the dealer to do any of the above.
Incidentally there is also no requirement for the dealer to pay the cost of repair at an independant third party either.
|
|
.... Unfortunately for your claim under SOGA to be valid you have to prove that the head gasket failure makes the car of an unsatisfactory quality. ... >>
IMO, I beg to differ.
The FAQ www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=43 explains it all:
" during the first six months:
The consumer returns the goods in the first six months from the date of sale and requests a repair or replacement or a partial refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. ... "
Whether one likes it or not, agrees with the principle or not, that is what it says.
|
"it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. ... "
Its easily done, the gasket didnt fail until after 2 months! Therfore they were satisfactory at the time of sale!
|
|
It may have had a small leak for all that time, so was present at time of sale.
|
"It may have had a small leak for all that time, so was present at time of "
Did it or didnt it?
if coolant level ahd been checked, and any loss reported; then without doubt its the traders responsibilty. If not, its the consumers!
|
Its easily done the gasket didnt fail until after 2 months! Therfore they were satisfactory at the time of sale! >>
Y, Best leave it to the Lawyers.
Note that SOGA says:
"In deciding whether goods are satisfactory the various aspects of quality which may be taken into account include fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability. "
and
"The buyer has exactly the same rights with second-hand goods as he does with new."
|
I think you all expect too much from the soga on a 2nd hand car (we dont know its age, mileage, condition or value).
We do know it has a warranty !
And the court would not ask why that has not been pursued? If i was the trader I would be mentioning it, as well as the coolant/maintainance questions!
I wouldnt put money on winning this 1 in court if i was the customer. If I was the trader I would expect to win !
Having said that, we dont know if the trader is/or will do anything about it either anyway.
|
the car is a 2005 mgzr 105 trophy with 41000 miles.
we have done approx 500 miles since purchase.
my thoughts were exactly as discussed, im not sure about SOGA because its HGF. so i went down the warranty route, and hit the £250 brick wall.
i can ensure coolant levels were watched but then last week the wife did about 8 miles in the morning and it starting 'steaming'.
father in law who is an ex mechanic said definate HGF, car is now sat at a local garage awaiting repair.
but the garage doing the repair reckon its deffo a trading standards issue.
ive emailed both companies and waiting for replies.
Edited by hj1978 on 10/02/2009 at 20:48
|
1. The retailer has to prove the fault wasn't there at the time of sale.
Note the word 'prove'. Not 'speculate', or 'pontificate'.
Retailer has little chance of this.
2. Also note the word 'durability'. After 2 months the car is no longer fit for it's intended purpose. Therefore a lack of durability has been shown.
I'm sure Screwloose or Number Cruncher will be able to advise how HGF takes a while to develop to the point of the catastrophic failure, and coolant loss is not always a warning sign - by the time there is coolant loss the HGF is well and truly gone.
I really can't see the customer losing in a civil case here.
Forget the 'warranty' - it is bog paper.
Go straight to the dealer, give him 10-14 days to remedy a fix. If he refuses have it done by someone who can and send him a copy of the invoice and a request for payment.
If they fail then the small claims court will be the easiest money you've made.
|
"Prove"
Balance of probabilities - I did a pressure test mate was fine - what did you do?
"Go straight to the dealer, give him 10-14 days to remedy a fix. If he refuses have it done by someone who can and send him a copy of the invoice and a request for payment."
The SOGA gives the seller the right to do one of several things It absolutely does not give you the right to force him to pay for a repair at a third party.
"If they fail then the small claims court will be the easiest money you've made."
You won't actually make anything - and you might lose - which highlights the fallacy in your argument.
Edited by hxj on 10/02/2009 at 22:14
|
... We do know it has a warranty ! And the court would not ask why that has not been pursued? If i was the trader I would be mentioning it, as well as the coolant/maintainance questions! .. >>
Yorkiebar - A warranty cannot take away your statutory rights.
Consumers cannot have their legal rights removed in sale of goods contracts. Furthermore, it can be an offence to mislead consumers about their legal rights. To do so could result in a criminal prosecution.
A trader dealing with a consumer, or dealing with any customer on his own written standard terms of business, cannot exclude or restrict his liability for breach of contract or allow himself to provide an inadequate service .... "Negligence" includes breach of any contractual or common law duty to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill. ...
The ?test of reasonableness? requires the trader to prove that the clause was reasonable; the customer is not required to prove that it was unreasonable ..
Buyers are entitled to goods of satisfactory quality. If an item has a fault that is present at the time of sale (sometimes referred to as a "latent" or "inherent" fault), the consumer can complain once it is discovered. ...
|
tinyurl.com/c3gm
Have a read. Halfway down is the relevant bit.
If a dealer refuses liability then you can sue them for the cost of repair or replacement.
And since when does a normal coolant pressure test = no HG problem ?
Maybe if they could 'prove' they tested for combustion products in the coolant ?
4 year old car, reasonable mileage.
|
We do know it has a warranty ! And the court would not ask why that has not been pursued? If i was the trader I would be mentioning it as well as the coolant/maintainance questions!
I doubt very much if the court would either be aware or be even bothered if it had a warranty or not. It means nothing to the case in question, which would be against the trader under the SOGA. Does the car fulfil the terms of the SOGA, i.e.
Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
? Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
? Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
? It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.
? If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)
? For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).
? A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.
? If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit
? In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).
? If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)
? After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.
Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me.
|
IMO I beg to differ. The FAQ www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=43 explains it all:
You've misunderstood, I said that the buyer would have to show that a HGF on a 2005 MG ZR is enough to render the car of unsatisfactory quality.
I'm afraid that a HGF on a 4 year old 40K mile Rover doesn't make it unsatisfactory, they nearly all do that, therefore the car was of satisfactory quality for a second hand Rover i.e. the buyer bought a cheap 4 year old Used Rover and now has about £500 to spend on a repair, this would be considered par for the course by most courts IMO and as such the car isn't unsatisfactory, therefore no refund is due.
The link that you gave is quite clear that SOGA allows purchasers to obtain a refund when they contend that goods are of "unsatisfactory quality", not that they simply have some kind of fault. It merely follows that in many cases the appearance of a fault will render the goods unsatisfactory.
If the car had been an 18 month old Rover then perhaps the argument would have more weight and a refund may be due as it would be possible to argue that the HGF shouldn't occur until slightly later in the car's life.
The point that someone made later about buyers having the same rights with used and new cars is correct, they still have rights to goods of a "satisfactory quality", but that does NOT mean that the test of satisfactory quality is the same for old cars and new.
An old car will need to have a lot more go wrong with it than a new one before the SOGA will give the buyer any benefit. This is a point that seems to be commonly and wilfully misunderstood by many on here. E.g. an old car having it's clutch fail will not necessarily mean that it is unsatisfactory, however, an old car turning out to be a cut and shut would.
|
There are engineering reasons that a car could have an underlying head gasket problem without showing symptoms. If the car had had previous HGF, and not been repaired following the proper procedure for example (head bolts re-used, head not skimmed if needed, torque settings ignored), the gasket could have been doomed to fail in a short time. Can the dealer prove that the car hadn't been subject to a dodgy repair and was a ticking time bomb when sold to the OP?
If the car was as guaranteed to fail with HGF as some of the people above claim for the simple fact of being a Rover, then maybe the dealer should have told the OP that when they bought it. You can't have it both ways - either the HGF is "unusual" in which case the SOGA should carry some weight, or it's "expected" in which case the seller is knowingly punting on goods which carry high a risk of failure, and not advising the buyer as such. And I'm sorry but 2 months reliable service out of a car which probably cost a few thousand pounds is not a reasonable timeframe. This won't have been a £500 banger.
I agree, the law heavily relies on definitions of "reasonable" which are going to be judged on each case by merit, but talking to Citizens Advice or Trading Standards has to be the next step. Only a lawyer can really say whether you have a case or not. The fact the car was sold to you by a trader, with a warranty which I don't doubt was used as reassurance to get you sign, has to count in your favour.
Take some expert legal advice and go from there. Don't whatever you do abandon the idea of SOGA without speaking to someone.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 11/02/2009 at 06:49
|
R75 you are misunderstanding the SoGA as it relates and is badly written in so many cases as it relates to used cars. It is, frankly, weak and pretty useless legislation with most used cars and in practice gives the buyer little comeback on anything but a quite new and low mileage car.
However, in this case, 500 miles after purchase on a 2005 car with 41k even with a known common issue I would hope a decent dealer would make an effort to help even if they probably win if it ever went to court. You should put some pressure on then and mentioning the SoGA can't do any harm - at least it makes them aware you know some of your rights.
Going back to the SoGA this is the second thread in a week where we have had this mystical catch all 6 months warranty. It does not exist - a buyer has rights but to imply any car of any type bought used has some sort of unwritten 6 month warranty by default is deeply misleading as the reality is far more complicated than that.
Incidentally, it shouldn't cost more than £300-£400 for a new headgasket on a K-Series assuming no more damage has been done.
|
but to imply any car of any type bought used has some sort of unwritten 6 month warranty by default is deeply misleading as the reality is far more complicated than that.
That's true. But in this case the car was 4 yrs old and had done 41K miles. Never mind the fault and the 6mths - Durability is the main issue here. Would a reasonable person expect a 4yr old, 41K mile car to last more than 2mths, 500 miles without becoming incapacitated? I'm a reasonable person and my answer would be "yes".
Now if the car was 8yrs old and had done 120K miles and had cost £250 then one's expectation of durability would be somewhat more limited.
|
... it shouldn't cost more than £300-£400 for a new headgasket on a K-Series assuming no more damage has been done...
Claim £250 from the poxy warranty and offer to go halves with the dealer on the rest - you're back on the road for less than the price of a tank of juice.
This solution enables you to move on - literally and figuratively.
|
thanks guys
ive emailed the dealer (which is 80 miles away) and the warranty company. best to do in writing i feel.
im still waiting for the warranty compnay to prove to me that there is a limit, as i cant see it anywhere.
if there really is such a limit then i think the best solution as suggested is claim the 250 then try and get some money from the dealer.
|
If it were me then I would be missing out the warranty company altogether, it is a dealer issue if you ask me.
The car was not durable, as has been said by others any reasonable person would expect far longer out of a car without any major faults. Minor faults we can all expect, a leaky door, slow window motor, a couple of blown bulbs etc. A major fault like HGF or a blown gearbox is quite a different matter if you ask me.
I may not have claimed under the SOGA on cars, but I have on other things, very successfully, only recently our Washer Dryer had a fault after 14 months, first answer I got back from the retailer was it is out of warranty, not their problem. After I pointed out the durability issue and that a £400 machine should last longer then 14 months then they changed their tune and paid for a repair.
Other times I have had to take retailers to court, have done so 4 times, 4 times I have won. I think the SOGA is quite clear if you apply it sensibly.
|
Other times I have had to take retailers to court have done so 4 times 4 times I have won. I think the SOGA is quite clear if you apply it sensibly.
I've used SOGA on several occasions - just gently letting a retailer know that you know their obligations has always been enough. Big companies are usually very aware of this. I've never had to resort to legal action.
I can well imagine a small car dealer digging his heels in though.
|
I too hope this gets solved before going to court to resolve it.
But if I was the trader and I sold a car in a good condition (no headgasket fault) and it came back to me (especially with a heavy handed I know my SOGA rigts etc) then I could respond by.
The car had no such fault when it was sold. Head gaskets do not suddenly fail, and on this engine in particular there are almost always warning signs of any impending failure.
I was not notified of any use of coolant, over heating, loss of performance or any other problem and am suddenly presented with a HG failure.
Because the fault was not there at the time of the sale and any action was not taken until total failure, or to mitigate any losses, I do not see how I can be held responsible.
However, we ensured the car was covered with a warranty and strongly suggested that this wass pursued in this matter. This is additional to your statutory rights which are not covered by any negligence on maintainance of the car on your part!
if you wish to proced with court action and you win I will pay the amouint required by the court . However, should you lose I will be seeking recompense for my time at my standard rate of £ x per hour.
This is purely as devils advocate, as the problem is not as easy as those suggesting soga as a cure all suggests!
|
... However, should you lose I will be seeking recompense for my time at my standard rate of £ x per hour. ... >>
Are you sure you can do that? [ look up small claims courts for details ].
But if I was the trader and I sold a car in a good condition (no headgasket fault) and it came back to me (especially with a heavy handed I know my SOGA rigts etc) then I could respond by. ... ... >>
Really?
|
Note the word could; not would!
"I could respond !"
And i couldnt claim for my time and expenses? I could! but by means of my own counter claim.
If I have lost time and money trying to resolve this and I am out of pocket I am entitled to be recompensed!
Courts work 2 ways !
What I am trying to put actross is that this problem is not as cut and dried as it sounds. Therefore the SOGA does not automatically cover it !
Edited by yorkiebar on 11/02/2009 at 17:20
|
recompense for my time at my standard rate of £ x per hour >> If I have lost time and money trying to resolve this and I am out of pocket I am entitled to be recompensed! >>
The last time I downloaded them the Rules said:
"Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the maximum costs which a judge can order a party to pay. Whether or not the judge will order a party to pay costs is ultimately a matter for him. ..
Subject to the judge's decision on costs, the victorious party can apply to recover the following legal costs and fees:
An mount for loss of earnings incurred by a witness or party due to attending the hearing, limited to £50 per day per person."
Edited by jbif on 11/02/2009 at 17:48
|
There are other methods of claiming from court, via solicitors I think you will find.
But you are avooiding the real issue here. Is the dealer RESPONSIBLE ? (not ,not willing to pay ) to pay, or should the warranty be pursued.
The warranty should be pursued! If they find that the dealer should be paying they will be putting pressure on him.
There is no proof that the owner of the car did not cause, or minimise any loss, the failure of the head gasket. There is proof the hg was intact at the time of sale!
The seller cannot be held responsible for actions caused by the owner! therefore its not easy to pursue this in court !
Note to OP, I am not suggetsing you caused it; just that the dealer is easily able to sidestep your problem (if he so wishes).
Edited by yorkiebar on 11/02/2009 at 17:53
|
There is proof the hg was intact at the time of sale! <<
Really ? And this is ?
Do all HGFs cause obvious smoking/steaming at the time of failure ?
No.
Can a HGF start months before the catastrophic failure mentioned above ?
Yes.
Does HGF always show evidence of coolant loss/oil emulsion ?
No.
Can they prove the car has never overheated prior to the customer buying it ?
No.
Proving the HG was is good condition at the point of sale is next to impossible without written evidence of cylinder compressions, lack of combustion gas in the coolant, etc.
I'd like to hear the opinions of other mechanics re. this.
|
There is no proof that the owner of the car did not cause, or minimise any loss, the failure of the head gasket. >>
In which case, if you were the seller and I was buyer, in the above circumstances you would end up in the "Small Claims Court". AFAIK, once the case goes along that route, you would not be able to recover costs other than laid down by statute as I referred to.
IMO, the SOGA as I read it and as you read it seem to be two different laws.
The Warranty is secondary. The primary responsibility is on the dealer.
IMO, the dealer is responsible, and it is down to the dealer to prove that it was reasonable tor the car to blow a gasket within 2 months. As Which magazine says:
"If your claim is about a problem that arises within six months of buying the product, it's up to the trader to prove that the goods were fit for purpose when the trader sold them. The trader is also responsible for proving that the problem was caused by you."
|
I am making this my last response. I have tried to be devils advocate and all the responses seem to be SOGA rules every time !
Try it and see ? The case will not win if the dealer wants to dig his heels in!
The warranty is where the problem is. A limit imposed without any advise!
"The trader is also responsible for proving that the problem was caused by you."
Simply refer to my statement where I was not advised the vehicle was losing any coolant so I could not repair the problem before it faled totally.
as for proof of combustion gases in coolant etc. presuming the car was sold with an mot, that alone would indicate the seller tried to ensure the car was in a good condition. It didnt overheat, use coolant, lack performance or show any other signs of a problem when sold, and I was not advised of any such problem !
The car ran for 2 months with no warning of hg failure.
Put another way, if the car came back with a tyre worn out is the seller responsible? No, because it was in a good condition when sold, and may have been caused by poor driving/maintance after the sale ! Its just as relevant here !
|
Having read all this thread, I have to agree with yorkiebar.
I would say, all the OP can do, is talk nicely to all concerned and also put his hand in his pocket.
proof that the head gasket was on its way out 2 months ago will be hard to find, so i wouldnt want to burn bridges by shouting SOGA.....
|
|
All I can say is that YB and ST you are a traders dream come true, they can sell you a car and treat the sale as if it was an auction!!
|
To R75
:)
or buyer beware ?
|
Whilst I will always stick to my view on the SoGA (i.e. useless and even Trading Standards will never advise taking a dealer to court using it on a used car as they don't want to be liable to the legal costs when the buyer loses) I think in this case the buyer has some reason to put a bit of pressure on.
If this was a regular retail sale at a proper retail price then a major head gasket failure after 500 miles and 2 months on a 2005 car (even if it is one which is known to get through head gaskets in the same way other cars use tyres) then in my opinion a dealer should not wash their hands of the issue (and I'm a car dealer).
At the very least I think it would be reasonable for them to try and sort out the repair (they'll be able to get it done at trade cost) and maybe make up the difference between cost and warranty claim limit. There isn't even any harm in quoting the SoGA - even if it is useless they might not know that and it might prompt a response.
|
|
Incidentally, are you sure it is just a headgasket or have you cooked it?
|
Whilst I will always stick to my view on the SoGA (i.e. useless and even Trading Standards will never advise taking a dealer to court using it on a used car as they don't want to be liable to the legal costs when the buyer loses) .. >>
All below IMO, but I am willing to take any trader to the Court on that basis:
1. Always seek advice from Trading Standards before you think of going to Court.
2. In "small claims", the costs are limited - see my post in reply to Yorkiebar above.
3. SOGA rules OK. Yorkiebar not wishing to accept that the dealer is responsible, the dealer is responsible, and needs to show the Court why/how the engine on a car he sold failed within 2 months and that the defect is the fault of the customer. If indeed the dealer is right, he has nothing to fear in the Court.
4. To the traders/dealers who want to dissuade customers from making a claim, before they do so, they should bear in mind "Consumers cannot have their legal rights removed in sale of goods contracts. Furthermore, it can be an offence to mislead consumers about their legal rights. To do so could result in a criminal prosecution."
Edited by jbif on 11/02/2009 at 21:22
|
>> Whilst I will always stick to my view on the SoGA (i.e. useless and even Trading Standards will never advise taking a dealer to court using it on a used car as they don't want to be liable to the legal costs when the buyer loses) .. >> All below IMO but I am willing to take any trader to the Court on that basis: 1. Always seek advice from Trading Standards before you think of going to Court.
Trading Standards will never give conclusive advice. They are not there as a legal advice and will not leave themselves open to liability by telling somebody they have a good case and then they lose leaving them liable for misadvice.
4. To the traders/dealers who want to dissuade customers from making a claim before they do so they should bear in mind "Consumers cannot have their legal rights removed in sale of goods contracts. Furthermore it can be an offence to mislead consumers about their legal rights. To do so could result in a criminal prosecution."
The reason I post that SoGA is generally rubbish is because I am familiar (I have to be) with its limitations. If you read they way it is written by some people on this forum you can buy any car at any price from any trader and take it back 4 months later with faults ranging from a blown turbo to a dodgy central locking solenoid. That is utter tosh. I say that because people should be aware of this. The whole thing is just so vague and depends on what is reasonable to be worn out on a used car.
The reality is that a car costing 20% of its original value is only 20% as good. This is the harsh situation with used cars.
However. The SoGA is a bit more clear cut on newer, low mileage, expensive cars where the level of satisfactory is obviously higher.
In this particular case, as I have written, I think the buyer should try hard with the dealer as a HGF after 500 miles assuming this is a regular retail sale at full price really isn't acceptable and the dealer should be providing some recourse.
As to persuading customers from not always making claims maybe they don't want people to get stung for costs and time when they view the case as hopeless.
In this case, personally, I do not think it is a waste of time.
|
Try it and see ? The case will not win if the dealer wants to dig his heels in!
I don't see that at all.
Either:
1) Write to the dealer and reject the car as not fit for purpose, and ask for the purchas eprice to be refunded, or
2) Write to the dealer and tell him he has 7 days to arrange repairs. If no response, get the repairs done and take action to recover the cost using Small Claims Court - www.moneyclaim.gov.uk .
I cannot imagine why you wouldn't be succesful.
The warranty is completely irrelevant.
|
update
the warranty company have now agreed to pay everything except oil, filter and compression test as they arent covered.
funny that.
|
Good result for you hxj, I hope it sloves the concerns etc.
I think by the warranty company agrreing to pay, they understand too, that they will not be able to force the dealer to pay out.
Best course of action with least stress.
Please understand that I wish the trader had accepted responsibility and sorted it but was trying to prove that he could side step the issue and the SOGA as he has the advantage.
Hope it all sorted out ok!
|
|
|
|
