Not happy with new car

nellser7

I'm looking for advice on my current used car situation!

I bought a second hand car last week from a dealership. (2011 - in good nick). The advert on carzone said that the car came equipped with automatic sensor lights and automatic sensor windscreen wipers. These were features which I obviously didn't check during the test drive (plus I couldn't really care if the car had it or not), but the point is they were listed on the advert and turns out the car actually doesn't have these features. I then spotted some scratches or a pattern on the bonnet which I failed to see when I viewed the car. I emailed the dealer and he replied saying he knew about the mark on the bonnet and that it was caused by the acid in bird sh1te. He said there was nothing he could do about it and that there was also nothing he could do about the car not having the features listed on the advert (blamed it on a junior staff member!)....he offered to have the car cleaned as a gesture.

I was hoping he would've offered to have the bonnet repaired as a gesture for the listed features not actually being in the car......am I being unreasonable or is this just one of those things to be expected when buying a used car??

Any thoughts or advice welcome!!

colm_mcm

moved from used car buying guide

sawdoubters

what car was it

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/motoring/advice_on_buying_a_used_car_in_ireland.html

MuppetCheck

Yes, you're being unreasonable about the bonnet. It's something that's up to you to notice. It couldn't have been hidden. The time to notice it is when buying unfortunately

The parts not being fitted - a clean is fair enough if you are otherwise happy with the car, maybe push for a service but on the off chance you might not know how to activate them what model and spec is it?

You're also better off calling them or even visiting them too, easy to deny things via email!

coylemj

Agree with the comment on the paintwork on the bonnet, it's a secondhand car so you can't really go back looking for redress for something that's falls into the category of cosmetic and which you'd be expected to notice.

On the claimed additional features that weren't there, I can understand how that can happen. A lot of dealers simply copy and paste the same set of features into all their ads so I'd always be sceptical that the description actually matches the car. You really need to take no notice of the features that are listed in the ad. and instead check out what is and is not fitted when giving the car the once-over.

Legally you'll probably find that there are sufficient disclaimers on carzone and the dealer's website to absolve them of any liability if the features don't match what's in the car.

bazz26

This sounds very like typical new car buyer's remorse.

You could/should have used the incorrect description of standard features as a possible haggling point when you were negotiating the purchase of the car if it was . You could push to get a free service from the dealer but he really is under no obligation at this point other than making a goodwill gesture in the hope

Second hand cars are not brand new and do tend to have marks on them from normal use or in some cases abuse. If you are anal about these things then you need to be on your guard to spot them when buying. Examine the car in detail. Again you could have used the repair of this as a condition of the sale at time of purchase rather than afterwards.

tin79

bazz26 wrote: »

This sounds very like typical new car buyer's remorse.

I have never owned a car that I didn't regret buying for a least a little while.
Would a good claying, polish and wax sort the bonnet out? Or is the damage too far for that.

bazz26

tin79 wrote: »

I have never owned a car that I didn't regret buying for a least a little while.
Would a good claying, polish and wax sort the bonnet out? Or is the damage too far for that.

No idea, really depends on the extent of the damage. It's probably the first thing I'd try though.

JoeA3

If it's a bird sh1t mark, you'll probably need a machine polish. I got a bad one on my roof last summer during the hot spell where the crap literally baked on. The stain wouldn't come out by hand but a machine polish sorted it.

ironclaw

By paying for the car and testing driving, you are accepting the car 'as is' You had ample opportunity to verify the ad versus the car you were sold. It would be different in the case of distance selling. Either way, its doesn't affect the value of the car by much. Your talking the cost of a service or decent valet in terms of financial difference, which the dealer has offered and that is a rare thing indeed.

keithclancy

Car is not as described.

I'd go for fitting the features or a refund.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumers_and_the_law_in_ireland.html

Goods must be as described - the buyer must not be mislead into buying something by the description of goods or services given orally by a salesperson or an advertisement.

Beware that taking something as a good will gesture may constitute acceptance of the situation.

Contact the National Consumer Agency for more information.

djimi

keithclancy wrote: »

Goods must be as described - the buyer must not be mislead into buying something by the description of goods or services given orally by a salesperson or an advertisement.

Im only guessing here, but I would have though that for that to apply, the OP would have to prove that the missing items were the key to them buying the car (ie if the car did not have these items then they would have walked away), and as such Im sure the dealer could make the very valid point that if these items were so important to the sale then why did the OP not notice that they were missing when they took it for a test drive.

keithclancy

djimi wrote: »

Im only guessing here, but I would have though that for that to apply, the OP would have to prove that the missing items were the key to them buying the car (ie if the car did not have these items then they would have walked away), and as such Im sure the dealer could make the very valid point that if these items were so important to the sale then why did the OP not notice that they were missing when they took it for a test drive.

I think this would be difficult to prove on the dealers side, opposed to the ops side that has the AD saying one thing and the car having something else. i.e. not as described.

djimi

I dunno, Im just working off the "misled into buying something by the description of the goods", which suggests to me that the missing items would have to be a key condition to the buyer making the purchase. If the sales receipt makes no mention of them, and it wasnt brought uip as an issue during the test drive, then would the buyer really be given much sympathy?

Like I said, im only guessing really.

keithclancy

djimi wrote: »

I dunno, Im just working off the "misled into buying something by the description of the goods", which suggests to me that the missing items would have to be a key condition to the buyer making the purchase. If the sales receipt makes no mention of them, and it wasnt brought uip as an issue during the test drive, then would the buyer really be given much sympathy?

Like I said, im only guessing really.

No.

http://www.consumerhelp.ie/cars-rights-wrong

As described – it should match the description given verbally or in an advertisement.

ironclaw

keithclancy wrote: »

No.

http://www.consumerhelp.ie/cars-rights-wrong

From a personal perspective, I can't see that applying. The OP was given ample time to inspect and view the car, and should have made sure the car matched the advertisement. They didn't buy solely on the advertisement alone, they were given a fair opportunity to view the car. And after viewing they paid for it as such accepting its condition and spec level.

If this was something bought off the internet or the OP had never seen the car before handing over money, then I'd be all for a refund etc. But in this case, its slightly different as they actually viewed the car and were made fully aware of the 'spec' before doing so. The onus is kinda on the OP to check it matches as the features described are obvious to spot.

keithclancy

ironclaw wrote: »

From a personal perspective, I can't see that applying. The OP was given ample time to inspect and view the car, and should have made sure the car matched the advertisement. They didn't buy solely on the advertisement alone, they were given a fair opportunity to view the car. And after viewing they paid for it as such accepting its condition and spec level.

If this was something bought off the internet or the OP had never seen the car before handing over money, then I'd be all for a refund etc. But in this case, its slightly different as they actually viewed the car and were made fully aware of the 'spec' before doing so. The onus is kinda on the OP to check it matches as the features described are obvious to spot.

Your thinking of the distance selling directive, that's for change of mind regardless of reason.

AFAIK if its a private sale you indeed have very little comeback.

As its a business you do have comeback.

nellser7

It wasn't a private sale, it was from a dealer.
I totally understand that it was something I should've spotted on the initial inspection however it was wet that day and I obviously missed it. The acid from the bird droppings has gone deep enough to leave markings on the bonnet.

The advert said "this car comes with a very high spec including automatic wipers and automatic headlights" - now these are not specs I would really think about testing during a test drive (specifically if it had stopped raining and it wasn't dark!!).

I appreciate all the advice, as I said before I'm just not sure what way to feel about it as I'm well aware that it's not a brand new car and I would have to expect some wear and tear. However I would feel strongly that the advert should match the car and I suppose was hoping he'd arrange a repair of the bonnet as compensation for the car not having the mentioned specs.

MuppetCheck

What car is it?

BenEadir

ironclaw wrote: »

From a personal perspective, I can't see that applying. The OP was given ample time to inspect and view the car, and should have made sure the car matched the advertisement.

OP, did you sign a contract when you purchased the car and if so have you read the T&C's? Is there a clause which effectively says "this contract replaces all previous understandings between us and you accept the car as inspected today" or similar to that effect i.e. you are not relying on previous adverts etc.

Whether that holds up if you were to challenge it in court I don't know but it would be a good idea to understand the terms you have signed up to before deciding how to proceed.

Ben

djimi

Have you got a screengrab or something of the advert?

whippet

the advert would be classed as an 'invitation to treat' and as such is academic at this stage - for instance the advert could have stated it was a Porsche 911 Turbo and the actual car could have been a Fiat Punto ... it is totally irrelevant at this stage, apart from what the dealer is offering as a matter of goodwill and decency.

The fact that the buyer, saw, inspected and tested the item before purchasing leaves them with no come back on these issues.

Engine No.9

If it was wet and raining on the day, as you said OP, then it should have been MORE obvious that the car didn't have automatic wipers, because quite honestly the first thing I'd have asked is how they work?

You didn't do your due diligence, take it on the chin and move on.

EDIT: Again, you also said it was dark. Automatic lights would also feature highly on the list of questions given the conditions.

nellser7

pajopearl.......you've got lost in the messages somewhere along the line or you misread something as I never once mentioned it was dark!! (in fact I put a little sarcastic remark in brackets just like this one which perhaps you didn't read properly!!) Granted I said it was wet that day but if you read on I mentioned that it wasn't raining when the test drive took place..........now I'm not sure what wipers you have but I would reckon automatic wipers would not operate when it's NOT raining......and also I would reckon automatic lights would not work if it WASN'T dark .......therefore these questions were not high on my list of priorities !

Engine No.9

Regardless of what the ad says, you were given ample opportunity to inspect the car, test drive the car, immaterial of whether I got my wires crossed while reading your post. Fact remains due diligence wasn't carried out when inspecting the car. All second hand cars sold in this country are sold "As Is" unless there is a warranty offered for specific parts or sections of a car (gearbox, engine, brakes etc...). The dealer is going far beyond his remit by offering to have the car cleaned. Scratch repairs are far more expensive for them so they won't even entertain it. Ask if you can have the car cleaned in 6 months instead of immediately as it will probably need it more then than now.

nellser7

Yeah I guess you're right, suppose I was a bit disappointed with myself that I didn't spot the mark in the first place and then finding that the extras in the advert weren't actually in the car just added fuel to the fire. But to be honest the car is in good nick and the guy was pretty genuine compared to some of the dealers you can end up talking to. I was gonna use the false advert thing to try sway a repair job from him but I think I'll take it on the chin.

Thanks to all for advice

slimjimmc

pajopearl wrote: »

Regardless of what the ad says, you were given ample opportunity to inspect the car, test drive the car, immaterial of whether I got my wires crossed while reading your post. Fact remains due diligence wasn't carried out when inspecting the car. All second hand cars sold in this country are sold "As Is" unless there is a warranty offered for specific parts or sections of a car (gearbox, engine, brakes etc...). The dealer is going far beyond his remit by offering to have the car cleaned. Scratch repairs are far more expensive for them so they won't even entertain it. Ask if you can have the car cleaned in 6 months instead of immediately as it will probably need it more then than now.

"As is" statements and warranties don't overrule statutory rights though.
Yes, he has no legal entitlement to redress for the paint damage on the bonnet since it was there for him to see, that much is clear
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1980/en/act/pub/0016/sec0010.html#sec10

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition—
(a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made, or
(b) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to have revealed.

but for the dealer to claim "as is" on the missing features is not so clear-cut if it wasn't reasonable/possible for the buyer to examine them; though I do agree the buyer should have enquired more about the car's features. A free service or proper full valet (not a quick lick with a vacuum) would seem fair compensation to me.

Engine No.9

OP, how did you finally fare out on this?

nellser7

Not too bad I suppose in the end. As a gesture for the car not being 'as is' in the advert they took the car in a gave it a good valet and touched up the marks in question on the bonnet. Now the marks are still visible as the acid really got to work on the paintwork (previous owner a fool for allowing it to stay there that long).....but he gave me the option of having a respray done for €400 where it would normally cost €800 in their place. Think I might check out some other places though to see if its cheaper.......but for now I'm happy enough to live with it and really feel the guy did the best he could for me.