Potentially major problem with a car we purchased from a dealer

Roisinbunny

Hey there,

just looking for some advice on this and see what direction we need to go in. We purchased a second hand car from a dealer in September last year.

We noticed some problems with our car in the past few months (wont go into detail) and when we sent it in for the timing belt and service, the dealership advised us there seemed to be impact damage and so I rang my insurance company, sent it to the recommended repairer and then also brought in an independant motor assessor.

Long story short, it looks like there has been significant impact damage but dating from before we purchased it. We're talking about over €2,000 worth of damage minimum. I think we have some timeline we can work off of as we know when it was NCT'd and when we bought it, so the damage was done somewhere inbetween. It would never have passed the NCT the way it is.

We are livid but now I need to know how to push on and fix this. Im going to wait for the assessors full report and then I'm thinking we contact the garage to state the case, if we don't get any joy from that report it to SIMI?

I've read through the CPC, and been onto the National Consumer webpage and all state that when you purchse from a dealer, they are required by law to advise of any previous damage etc so I'm hopeful that they will step up, and in good faith remedy the situation.

From what we've been told by different opinions to date, the car may actually be unsafe to drive.

Any advice at all on this would be much appreciated..

anewme

Is it a main dealer, ie, is it a Ford from a Ford dealer, etc.

If so, I suggest you write to the distributor of the cars in Ireland, as their dealers have to adhere to strict standards.

This would be better than SIMI

Roisinbunny

anewme wrote: »

Is it a main dealer, ie, is it a Ford from a Ford dealer, etc.

If so, I suggest you write to the distributor of the cars in Ireland, as their dealers have to adhere to strict standards.

This would be better than SIMI

No, it's a main dealer of lets say BMW but this was a 2nd hand car of another brand. They must have taken it on trade in.

foxinsox

It's the same as any other product.

It's faulty and is not fit for purpose.

Just curious: did you ask had it ever been crashed? I'm not sure but I thought if you ask , they have to be truthful, not sure if they have to make it part of their selling speech.

Return to where you bought it and say it is faulty and you want a refund.

I got a refund for a car, it had been back to the garage 5 times for repair within 4 months, then I insisted on a refund.

Best of luck.

Donkathon

Sorry but in my opinion your **** out of luck

After 9 months of use not a hope the dealer is going to put his hands up to damage in the car and nothing to prove it was damaged when you bought it so you'll be just throwing good money after bad here is my guess

You can lodge all complaints you like anywhere bus as I said his got full deniability after 9 months and nothing stopping him from turning around and sayin you crashed the car and now want your money back

keithclancy

IMO its unlikely you'll get a free repair.

mathepac

Donkathon wrote: »

Sorry but in my opinion your **** out of luck ...

Luck has no bearing on OP's options here thankfully

foxinsox wrote: »

...
Just curious: did you ask had it ever been crashed? I'm not sure but I thought if you ask , they have to be truthful, not sure if they have to make it part of their selling speech...

Under http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/index.html
a motor-trader is obliged under law to sell and supply a product that is :

• as described
• fit for purpose
• of merchantable quality

If words like "immaculate", "show-room condition", "as new" are used in ads or in an oral sales pitch then the car must meet these specifications - they form part of the contract.

For a car to be fit for purpose it must work as a car: start, stop, travel between destinations safely and reliably and meet the criteria to pass a roadworthiness test, for example the NCT.

For a car to be of merchantable quality it must be fit to be sold, not an insurance write-off, not seriously damaged, insurable, free of major defects.

For more information see here - http://www.nca.ie/index.jsp?p=133&n=177&a=349

There is another criterion a car must meet and that is that it must not be a danger to the driver, the occupants or the public.

A car that fails any of these criteria fails to meet the criteria laid down.

Do not contact the SIMI, this is a bully-boy organisation for paid-up motor-traders members whose interests the SIMI will seek to protect - they are not a quality control organisation and have no role to play in protecting or representing consumers.

Speak to the NCA about the steps you need to take. If you signed the big long SIMI "contract" when buying / ordering the car, read it carefully. Best of luck.

IMHO you will need to sue to get your money back and cancel the deal but you must go through the NCA steps first

Donkathon

@mathepac

After 9 months nobody can try disupte it not being perfect condition when sold,

Even if it went to the small claims court not a hope a judge is going to entertain any claim 9 months on when it can't be proven the car was damaged when sold

Sorry for being negative OP but not a hope your getting anything back from this situation just cut your losses

All it takes is for him to insist you had the crash and got it fixed cash in hand or something but if you can't prove the car was damaged trying to dispute the fact 9 months on with no problems with it that didn't require you to contact the original garage or another garage

Not a hope in my opinion realistically

Part it out for sale or sell as whole in writing declaring the damage so it can't come back on you when sold

If you want to fight dirty with said garage though I feel for ya so drop me a pm and I'll give you some "not by the book advise"

Roisinbunny

Thanks a mil for the replies, I was advised alright that to go to SIMI is a complete waste of time..

I did ask the question alright whether the car had any tips/ crashes and I got a big long story.. "not at all, used to be a family car etc etc" you know the drill..

TBH, I'd get over a tip if it wasn't for the fact that there's serious damage left over as a result, not just body damage. It wasn't repaired properly and was sold on to a "mug" like us!

Theres no excuse, we should have chased it up sooner, but circumstances and finances meant we didn't get it serviced til a few months back and thats when we found out what's been wrong with it all along.

I'm going to ring the garage and see what comes of it and go from there, hubby is seriously disappointed, wants to trade it in and get rid of it but we'll get much less for it now obviously.

Think this is one scenario where you live and learn & I'm just glad we didn't end up killing someone on the road .. There'd be no going back from that ..

the_syco

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Thanks a mil for the replies, I was advised alright that to go to SIMI is a complete waste of time..

SIMI helps the dealer, not the consumer.

You asked was it crashed, they said it wasn't, but unfortunately the onus is on you to prove that it was crashed before you bought it. Maybe pay www.motorcheck.ie to see was there any claims put in for it, and if there was, hit them with that angle.

slimjimmc

the_syco wrote: »

SIMI helps the dealer, not the consumer.

You asked was it crashed, they said it wasn't, but unfortunately the onus is on you to prove that it was crashed before you bought it. Maybe pay www.motorcheck.ie to see was there any claims put in for it, and if there was, hit them with that angle.

The Sale of Goods and Supply of Service Act suggest differently (thereby putting the onus on the dealer to prove either it was sound when sold or the buyer knew its condition before the sale):

(2) Without prejudice to any other condition or warranty, in every contract for the sale of a motor vehicle (except a contract in which the buyer is a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles) there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery of the vehicle under the contract it is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.
:
(5) Where an action is brought for breach of the implied condition referred to in subsection (2) by reason of a specific defect in a motor vehicle and a certificate complying with the requirements of this section is not proved to have been given, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the proven defect existed at the time of delivery.

[afterthought]After a few re-reads I'm not sure if this stands since I'm not sure if the certificate is currently required[/afterthought]

mathepac

the_syco wrote: »

... You asked was it crashed, they said it wasn't, but unfortunately the onus is on you to prove that it was crashed before you bought it....

As pointed out above the law states differently and it might be a good idea to quote an authority when making points like this to avoid confusion / contradiction.

The law we have here, already referenced twice in this thread, is a powerful piece of consumer-orientated legislation, I just wish we used it more. Inaccurate information is unlikely to encourage readers to do that.