Jump to content

eBay tat volume 3.

Ross_K

By Ross_K
in AutoShite

 Share

Recommended Posts

sierraman Rank: Matra Rancho towing a Tagora

sierraman

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, RoverFolkUs said:

None whatsoever personally, but consumer rights gives the same protection on a car whether it was £50k or £750. 

Someone went to Judge Rinder over a £400 Skoda that broke down. He cited consumer law etc and that it had to be fit for purpose (! - £400) and the trader was the crook 🤷‍♂️

Judge Rinder... Legal precedent right there! 

It turns on the expectations that one could have of such a car, a £750 Renault is 5% of its original purchase price and 20 years old, a reasonable person can be expected to have to carry out some repairs to that vehicle at their own cost. 

It’s likely as well if someone bought it and had issues and it successfully involved a claim against the trader the Limited company would be wound up and started again so you’d not see the £750 back. I don’t want it to sound like a licence for people to rip each other off but they really should remove this notion of buyer protection on a car below a certain price point. This is why it’s difficult to buy a cheap car because for the trader it’s not worth the agg. If you buy a £750 car and it packs up a fortnight later you should accept the limitations of a car such as that, if that’s not acceptable then it’s not for the buyer. 

I’m not having a go by the way I’m just stating an opinion of why it’s not always practicable to indemnify to purchaser on such a low value vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BeEP Rank: Renault 16

BeEP

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, sierraman said:

It turns on the expectations that one could have of such a car, a £750 Renault is 5% of its original purchase price and 20 years old, a reasonable person can be expected to have to carry out some repairs to that vehicle at their own cost.

This is the key and is misunderstood by many, including on here it seems.  What it is reasonable to expect from a 20 year old £750 car, and hence the protection to the buyer that the legislation provides, is rather different to that of a new/nearly new car costing tens of thousands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wuvvum Rank: Matra Rancho towing a Tagora

wuvvum

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RoverFolkUs said:

I wonder when traders will realize they can write whatever cack they want about "sold as seen" but it doesn't remove the buyer's 6 month consumer rights act protection

If memory serves (it's been a while since I studied such things and the rules may have changed since then) selling as spares or repair effectively removes any protection for the buyer as you are no longer selling a vehicle, you are selling a collection of parts which happen to still be in the shape of a vehicle. 

Otherwise you could sell a rotten car for scrap and the buyer could take you to court when it subsequently failed an MOT on welding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horriblemercedes Rank: Renault 16

horriblemercedes

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RoverFolkUs said:

None whatsoever personally, but consumer rights gives the same protection on a car whether it was £50k or £750. 

 

It really doesn't. There are two things at play - trading standards and consumer rights.

Pick two similar models for convenience. A £50,000 brand new BMW 5-Series or a 20 year old 200k mile BMW 5-Series at £750.

Trading standards - you can't advertise it falsely (lie about it). This is regardless of cost.

No real court though would ever expect the £750 BMW to be of the same condition, to last as long or to need as little maintenance as the brand new £50k one.

If you take it back to the dealer after three months and 6k miles with a failed automatic gearbox, the question in the claim would be, "is it reasonable to expect a £750 car that's 20 years old with 200k miles to have this fault in this timeframe?" It could also be questioned whether the trader knew about it and it's reasonable for him to claim that he didn't know about it and it must have developed in the time since he sold the car.

If, however, that car had a gearbox failure two hours and 50 miles after the sale, the question would be a bit different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sierraman Rank: Matra Rancho towing a Tagora

sierraman

Posted
Posted

I think the law boils down on to what the intended use for the car was and what a reasonable person would expect. If you bought a £1000 Mondeo diesel to do 50,000 a year in and 3 months in the injectors went it could be argued that it wasn’t suitable for the purpose intended. 

I don’t know for me it’s just accepting personal responsibility for things, you can’t constantly expect the world to indemnify you against anything going tits up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MorrisItalSLX Rank: Lancia Gamma

MorrisItalSLX

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, grogee said:

DERV Slagacy £2495 Cov, but...

"GEARBOX IS STUFFED"

https://www.gumtree.com/p/cars-vans-motorbikes/2010-subaru-legacy-se-20-diesel-manual-estate-5dr-spares-or-repair/1427027219?utm_source=com.atomczak.notepat&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialbuttons&utm_content=app_android

Screenshot_20220426-074330.png

FTFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoverFolkUs Rank: Isuzu Florian

RoverFolkUs

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sierraman said:

Judge Rinder... Legal precedent right there! 

It turns on the expectations that one could have of such a car, a £750 Renault is 5% of its original purchase price and 20 years old, a reasonable person can be expected to have to carry out some repairs to that vehicle at their own cost. 

It’s likely as well if someone bought it and had issues and it successfully involved a claim against the trader the Limited company would be wound up and started again so you’d not see the £750 back. I don’t want it to sound like a licence for people to rip each other off but they really should remove this notion of buyer protection on a car below a certain price point. This is why it’s difficult to buy a cheap car because for the trader it’s not worth the agg. If you buy a £750 car and it packs up a fortnight later you should accept the limitations of a car such as that, if that’s not acceptable then it’s not for the buyer. 

I’m not having a go by the way I’m just stating an opinion of why it’s not always practicable to indemnify to purchaser on such a low value vehicle.

I'm in full agreement with what you're saying and agree that it's absurd to think of there being any protection for 6 months for a £750 car. I know judge rinder is all for TV, was just an example that demonstrated the law being picked apart.

1 hour ago, BeEP said:

This is the key and is misunderstood by many, including on here it seems.  What it is reasonable to expect from a 20 year old £750 car, and hence the protection to the buyer that the legislation provides, is rather different to that of a new/nearly new car costing tens of thousands.

The problem is that there is no set definition of what is considered fit for purpose or satisfactory quality. I'm not misunderstanding anything. There is simply no set standards depending on age/mileage, it's all down to opinion. Which is where the liability as a dealer comes into play here

34 minutes ago, wuvvum said:

If memory serves (it's been a while since I studied such things and the rules may have changed since then) selling as spares or repair effectively removes any protection for the buyer as you are no longer selling a vehicle, you are selling a collection of parts which happen to still be in the shape of a vehicle. 

Otherwise you could sell a rotten car for scrap and the buyer could take you to court when it subsequently failed an MOT on welding.

If a car is sold by a trader to a member of the public as a restoration for spares/repairs and it is transported away, there are indeed no comebacks accepted, because the car's "satisfactory quality" is a restoration project (beit a full on weldathon or a simple non runner)

If the trader allows the buyer to test drive it on public road and/or drive it away, it is assumed that the car is being sold as fit for purpose (to drive on a public road and meet the appropriate laws for doing so) and as such can't be considered faulty/spares+repairs. 

27 minutes ago, horriblemercedes said:

It really doesn't. There are two things at play - trading standards and consumer rights.

Pick two similar models for convenience. A £50,000 brand new BMW 5-Series or a 20 year old 200k mile BMW 5-Series at £750.

Trading standards - you can't advertise it falsely (lie about it). This is regardless of cost.

No real court though would ever expect the £750 BMW to be of the same condition, to last as long or to need as little maintenance as the brand new £50k one.

If you take it back to the dealer after three months and 6k miles with a failed automatic gearbox, the question in the claim would be, "is it reasonable to expect a £750 car that's 20 years old with 200k miles to have this fault in this timeframe?" It could also be questioned whether the trader knew about it and it's reasonable for him to claim that he didn't know about it and it must have developed in the time since he sold the car.

If, however, that car had a gearbox failure two hours and 50 miles after the sale, the question would be a bit different.

 

The issue here is that within 6 months, the onus is on the dealer to prove the fault wasn't underlying. How is that possible? It's not. 

I'm not saying any of this is right, but it's how it is. The dealer will always be seen as the bad guy in court, so that won't do any favours

The issue is that you can't simply write "spares/repairs" to negate your responsibilities but still sell the car as perfectly working. You either sell it as a good runner or indeed spares/repairs. Who would pay £750 for an end of life Scenic? It's either working (at the moment) for £750 or scrap for £250. 

26 minutes ago, sierraman said:

I think the law boils down on to what the intended use for the car was and what a reasonable person would expect. If you bought a £1000 Mondeo diesel to do 50,000 a year in and 3 months in the injectors went it could be argued that it wasn’t suitable for the purpose intended. 

I don’t know for me it’s just accepting personal responsibility for things, you can’t constantly expect the world to indemnify you against anything going tits up.

In essence, if it's literally scrap, taken away on a trailer etc then there are no obligations because it's satisfactory quality will be a car that exists but is otherwise scrap. 

It's not possible to sell a car as perfectly working but negate consumer protection with the term "spares/repairs". Its one or the either. 

I will repeat, I realize how utterly absurd it is, and I fully agree with what everyone is saying. But I'm just pointing out the basic consumer law which is completely ridiculous that gives people protection for 6 months on a £750 car.

 

If the car is spares/repairs, they need to list down the fault(s) that give it that definition. It is completely meaningless to say spares/repairs if no faults are mentioned because there's nothing actually wrong with the car. 

 

Even more prudent, I don't know why anyone would go through the hassle of selling cars in that price bracket to the public and putting themselves on the hook from the wooly laws. Unless of course they're operating a shady LTD company outfit as you describe 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HillmanImp Rank: Talbot Matra Rancho

HillmanImp

Posted
Posted

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/411798170776714/?ref=facebook_story_share

Screenshot_20220426-133431_Facebook.thumb.jpg.295629f6ed01d1fbb135212baa938d37.jpg

I remember seeing a red one of these driving towards me in Rustington in the 1980s. Got all excited about the Aston Martin in the distance but then realised it wasn't as far away as I thought. 

CgWw0OMXEAEuZ0d.jpg.3dd43fd0d515786f63a89d1694c5cb73.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HillmanImp Rank: Talbot Matra Rancho

HillmanImp

Posted
Posted

I was gonna buy this as need a car for a couple of weeks from next week but my insurance policy says no, sorry its not a classic. 

https://www.carandclassic.com/car/C1443673

Screenshot_20220426-133756_Opera.thumb.jpg.a19a342c45e9665dd60acb47d7993e09.jpg

Rear quarter window might be a pain to replace but suppose a bit of perspex could do. 

Totally new one on me this. Not sure whether I've never seen one or just never noticed them before? Suspect the former, I don't think many will have been imported. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vaughant Rank: Lancia Gamma

vaughant

Posted
Posted

This...... 

"

If a car is sold by a trader to a member of the public as a restoration for spares/repairs and it is transported away, there are indeed no comebacks accepted, because the car's "satisfactory quality" is a restoration project (beit a full on weldathon or a simple non runner)

If the trader allows the buyer to test drive it on public road and/or drive it away, it is assumed that the car is being sold as fit for purpose (to drive on a public road and meet the appropriate laws for doing so) and as such can't be considered faulty/spares+repairs. "

 

....... seems bang onto me in my experience. 

I used to do a lot of collection /delivery and every garage I collected a car from gave me a sheet to fill in worded thus and wouldn't let the car leave unless on a trailer. 

I seem to think salvage is a similar situation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoverFolkUs Rank: Isuzu Florian

RoverFolkUs

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, vaughant said:

I used to do a lot of collection /delivery and every garage I collected a car from gave me a sheet to fill in worded thus and wouldn't let the car leave unless on a trailer. 

I seem to think salvage is a similar situation? 

Yeah that's it. If it's not fit or purpose and sold as spares/repairs then it shouldn't be driven away. If it gets driven away then it must be fit for purpose and falls under the CRA protection. 

Salvage is a bit scary because there nothing stopping a member of the public buying a Cat S car from Copart and "repairing" it to their own standard. 

Whilst discouraged, I don't think Copart actually stop people driving their cars away. Obviously a lot of the time it doesn't work as the car is bent, not holding coolant etc but people still try! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...