Help Needed

ImDave

Hi Guys,

Hope it is ok for me to ask this here, just seeking a small bit of advice.

To cut a long story very short - I bought a used Renault Laguna (2003) from a dealer yesterday. He told me the car is driving perfectly and the only known work required was bushings in the rear axle, which I could tell from the test drive anyway.

When driving, the battery light was on. He explained this was due to the car not being driven (he had it in storage apparently) for about three weeks. He changed the battery and the light went away, and I completed the transaction. Skipping on ahead, I found numerous other defects he failed to tell me, some which would fail an NCT, but the biggest one being the not working alternator (according to AA mechanic who had to come out to me when the car cut out in traffic today).

The car was "sold as seen", but I have been told by the AA mechanic that that doesn't matter, as the vehicle is clearly not fit for purpose.

Any advice from anyone appreciated!

L-M

Post moved

Dave, in the your best, interest I've started a new thread.

goz83

afaik, the "sold as seen" doesn't really apply when sold to a regular consumer. I'm sure others will come on and give more info.

mickdw

Did you know it was sold as seen or as it a case of it being written on the receipt without you knowing?
If you agreed to the sold as seen, and were happy with the price you paid under those circumstances, it should be your problem. The law though appears to protect you from yourself in that the dealer cannot sell sold as seen outside of trade.
Im just beginning to wonder about the amount of people buying sold as seen. I think a lot of them are knowingly buying this way for cut price deal then going running to the dealer complaining when something goes wrong.

lifer_sean

You need to get legal advice on this if you want to pursue it.

You bought the car knowingly needing work, so in that sense you and the seller had agreed that it was not "fit for use" in the condition it was sold. Therefore if you now complain that it was "not fit for use" it's unclear how you could argue that.

This is different (in my opinion) to buying a car with no declared defects on a trade sale as a consumer ... where the impication was that you were buying something that you expected to be "fit for purpose".

The controversial issue would be that there were additional issues that were not declared at time of sale, but you would need legal advice on whether you are protected as buying as a consumer or if you implied that you were acting as someone who knew about cars by knowingly buying one that needed fairly serious work.

There was another thread like this a week ago.

To mickdw's point, why do people insist on buying as a trade sale to get the lowest possible price, and then complain when it goes wrong ? As a dealer, the only safe way to sell a car in a trade sale is to either insist that the buyer has a garage code, or to sell through an auction house such as Merlin. Some would argue that if the dealer makes you tow the car off his premises and not drive it away, that makes it clear that the car is not sold as "fit for purpose".

ImDave

Many thanks for the input lads - just a few points to add.

lifer_sean wrote: »

You bought the car knowingly needing work, so in that sense you and the seller had agreed that it was not "fit for use" in the condition it was sold. Therefore if you now complain that it was "not fit for use" it's unclear how you could argue that.

I see what you are saying here, however the way I am thinking about it was that the the purpose of the item is to act as a motor vehicle. The worn bushings, the only thing disclosed by the seller, do not prevent the use of the good as a motor vehicle. A broken alternator however, render the vehicle unusable, and therefore not fit for it's intended purpose. I could be way off the mark here but that is the way I would argue it.

It might be worth noting that the dealer didn't even tell me about the bushings. He told me the car was perfect - it was only when I heared the clunking from the back left and pointed it out, he just said "ah yes I remember the previous owner saying something about that".

lifer_sean wrote: »

Some would argue that if the dealer makes you tow the car off his premises and not drive it away, that makes it clear that the car is not sold as "fit for purpose".

Fair point. Just to clear up, neither myself or the seller ever mentioned selling as trade. I was buying as a consumer, under the premise that the only work needed was to get the bushings done. If I had known that "sold as seen" meant a trade sale, I would have walked away. Ultimately my lack of foresight into this was silly, I should not have listened to the sales pitch. I never acted as if I know anything more than the average guy about cars either, I told him why I was buying a car and that I was happy to do the bushings if thats all that was wrong with it.

Above all, my bad luck continues - after having to get it jumped and charged by the AA to make it home last night, came out this morning to get something out of it and found the back window smashed and the door hanging open. I think my old car is punishing me for cheating on it.

lifer_sean

I hear what you say, but it's not black-and-white. That's why I think you really need proper legal advice on this. It would be interesting to hear the legal opinion.

That's a real pain about the broken window. Hope nothing was stolen from the car. Scumbags.

L-M

Sounds like to me you got the car cheaper than the marked value and it's going against you.

An alternator can go in a day, it doesn't declare the vehicle not fit for purpose.

That said, the battery light on to me would be a goosed alternator straight away, and I'm not a mechanic. It sounds like ball was played and you lost out.

ImDave

Thanks for the comments guys.

Lesson learned I guess, but I am still going to pursue it and seek legal advice as I have a solicitor in the family. I understand that the alternator could have went after I drove it home for example, but the fact the battery light was on when he started it, but I trusted his assessment of it just being the battery, leads me to believe that it was like that from the get go. He also changed the battery without telling me, only I happened to see him finishing it when I came back from the bank.

It's not so much the actual things that are wrong with the car, it is more so how many things he failed to disclose when selling the vehicle. He told me the only reason he was letting it go cheap was he had no parking space left and he had got parking fines earlier in the week from keeping cars on the road. More fool me thinking back. None the less I know from covering some law modules previously that failure to disclose known issues when selling an item contravenes the relevant Act, and him being a dealer of x years standing lends the assumption of a level of skill and knowledge greater than that of me, the buyer. He therefore should have told me there is a good possibility that the alternator is the issue. I don't believe he didn't know this when he took the car on a trade.

Anyhow thanks again, will seek advice and let you know the outcome.

jimmyw

Well I wouldn't be up too much on the legal side of this, but it all smells a little fishy to me.It sounds like dodgy salesman talk.

The two issues with the battery and the alternator does appear to be connected.Thats what the battery light is suppose to tell you that the alternator is not charging or that the belt is slipping.

The fact that he changed the battery sounds devious too.Is the battery light coming on with the ignition now,( maybe he removed the bulb?).The fact he "remembered" the previous owner saying something about the knocking is BS in my opinion.

I'd say he just wanted to get rid without too much fuss.It might be an idea to get some legal advise ok.