So called Trade Sales. A cautionary tale
Discussion
I am sure this will have been covered before, but her we go again!
Background
I bought a car from what was quite a big retail outlet. Their operation clearly involved buying at auction, cleaning up and reselling as fast as possible with minimal input except getting MOTs.
The car (a Subaru) I bought had a new (half decent) MOT and a reasonable history & mileage. It was advertised as a trade sale with a declared fault (a misfire).The price was acceptable, but not too good to be true!!
The price had been reduced by 25% "as they needed the space for new cars" I road tested the car (a couple of miles) and apart from the misfire & a flashing cruise control light, everything worked ok, and it had evidence of a new exhaust & radiator and I (naively) thought a new coil pack & leads would probably fix the misfire. I paid my money and set off for home....after 30 miles the car did not feel good and was losing power. Then an unpleasant screeching began at over 2000rpm. To cut the story shot I limped to my daughters where I could abandon the car. Next day I had it recovered to my local Indy where he spotted that the car already had a new coil pack & leads (I kicked myself for not spotting this before buying!) and he diagnosed something probably terminal in the engine, a fault code in the gearbox (ECU? related) and that the engine warning light had been disabled. The only code coming up on the reader was "misfire on no2.. In effect the car, despite its overall good condition was only fit for parting out.
I am prepared to cut my losses and sell it for what I can get, and will do a deal with the indy!
Now to my question
The car was sold "With all unknown defects and no warranty" And "customer agrees to waive any CRA 15 applied to this vehicle" (WHAT is that!)
I went into it with my eyes open, but I did not expect the Engine warning system to have been disabled, That would possibly be fraud I think, but difficult to prove when & by whom
Caveat Emptor rules again!
Background
I bought a car from what was quite a big retail outlet. Their operation clearly involved buying at auction, cleaning up and reselling as fast as possible with minimal input except getting MOTs.
The car (a Subaru) I bought had a new (half decent) MOT and a reasonable history & mileage. It was advertised as a trade sale with a declared fault (a misfire).The price was acceptable, but not too good to be true!!
The price had been reduced by 25% "as they needed the space for new cars" I road tested the car (a couple of miles) and apart from the misfire & a flashing cruise control light, everything worked ok, and it had evidence of a new exhaust & radiator and I (naively) thought a new coil pack & leads would probably fix the misfire. I paid my money and set off for home....after 30 miles the car did not feel good and was losing power. Then an unpleasant screeching began at over 2000rpm. To cut the story shot I limped to my daughters where I could abandon the car. Next day I had it recovered to my local Indy where he spotted that the car already had a new coil pack & leads (I kicked myself for not spotting this before buying!) and he diagnosed something probably terminal in the engine, a fault code in the gearbox (ECU? related) and that the engine warning light had been disabled. The only code coming up on the reader was "misfire on no2.. In effect the car, despite its overall good condition was only fit for parting out.
I am prepared to cut my losses and sell it for what I can get, and will do a deal with the indy!
Now to my question
The car was sold "With all unknown defects and no warranty" And "customer agrees to waive any CRA 15 applied to this vehicle" (WHAT is that!)
I went into it with my eyes open, but I did not expect the Engine warning system to have been disabled, That would possibly be fraud I think, but difficult to prove when & by whom
Caveat Emptor rules again!
Went into it with your eyes open? A car on a trade sale only, that was reduced in price, had a clear running issue, bought it aware of the issue and now your crying foul as the issue has turned out to be far worse. Most likely the bottom end has gone, which is a well known problem with Subaru engines.
Couldn't have went in more blind if you tried.
Couldn't have went in more blind if you tried.
david.h said:
I am sure this will have been covered before, but her we go again!
Background
I bought a car from what was quite a big retail outlet. Their operation clearly involved buying at auction, cleaning up and reselling as fast as possible with minimal input except getting MOTs.
The car (a Subaru) I bought had a new (half decent) MOT and a reasonable history & mileage. It was advertised as a trade sale with a declared fault (a misfire).The price was acceptable, but not too good to be true!!
The price had been reduced by 25% "as they needed the space for new cars" I road tested the car (a couple of miles) and apart from the misfire & a flashing cruise control light, everything worked ok, and it had evidence of a new exhaust & radiator and I (naively) thought a new coil pack & leads would probably fix the misfire. I paid my money and set off for home....after 30 miles the car did not feel good and was losing power. Then an unpleasant screeching began at over 2000rpm. To cut the story shot I limped to my daughters where I could abandon the car. Next day I had it recovered to my local Indy where he spotted that the car already had a new coil pack & leads (I kicked myself for not spotting this before buying!) and he diagnosed something probably terminal in the engine, a fault code in the gearbox (ECU? related) and that the engine warning light had been disabled. The only code coming up on the reader was "misfire on no2.. In effect the car, despite its overall good condition was only fit for parting out.
I am prepared to cut my losses and sell it for what I can get, and will do a deal with the indy!
[Now to my question
The car was sold "With all unknown defects and no warranty" And "customer agrees to waive any CRA 15 applied to this vehicle" (WHAT is that!)
I went into it with my eyes open, but I did not expect the Engine warning system to have been disabled, That would possibly be fraud I think, but difficult to prove when & by whom
Caveat Emptor rules again!
So what is your question?Background
I bought a car from what was quite a big retail outlet. Their operation clearly involved buying at auction, cleaning up and reselling as fast as possible with minimal input except getting MOTs.
The car (a Subaru) I bought had a new (half decent) MOT and a reasonable history & mileage. It was advertised as a trade sale with a declared fault (a misfire).The price was acceptable, but not too good to be true!!
The price had been reduced by 25% "as they needed the space for new cars" I road tested the car (a couple of miles) and apart from the misfire & a flashing cruise control light, everything worked ok, and it had evidence of a new exhaust & radiator and I (naively) thought a new coil pack & leads would probably fix the misfire. I paid my money and set off for home....after 30 miles the car did not feel good and was losing power. Then an unpleasant screeching began at over 2000rpm. To cut the story shot I limped to my daughters where I could abandon the car. Next day I had it recovered to my local Indy where he spotted that the car already had a new coil pack & leads (I kicked myself for not spotting this before buying!) and he diagnosed something probably terminal in the engine, a fault code in the gearbox (ECU? related) and that the engine warning light had been disabled. The only code coming up on the reader was "misfire on no2.. In effect the car, despite its overall good condition was only fit for parting out.
I am prepared to cut my losses and sell it for what I can get, and will do a deal with the indy!
[Now to my question
The car was sold "With all unknown defects and no warranty" And "customer agrees to waive any CRA 15 applied to this vehicle" (WHAT is that!)
I went into it with my eyes open, but I did not expect the Engine warning system to have been disabled, That would possibly be fraud I think, but difficult to prove when & by whom
Caveat Emptor rules again!
If it is what is CRA 15 that is just a quick google away.
I may have imagined this but I thought Retail places couldn't say "Trade sales only" any more. To put it another way a Buyer is still entitled to their Statutory Rights. (IANAL)
I know this used to be a thing in the past whereby local Indy garages would have a "PX - to clear" section which were regarded by both the buyer and the seller as "Sold as seen" but I thought these had been outlawed.
I know this used to be a thing in the past whereby local Indy garages would have a "PX - to clear" section which were regarded by both the buyer and the seller as "Sold as seen" but I thought these had been outlawed.
Countdown said:
I may have imagined this but I thought Retail places couldn't say "Trade sales only" any more. To put it another way a Buyer is still entitled to their Statutory Rights. (IANAL)
I know this used to be a thing in the past whereby local Indy garages would have a "PX - to clear" section which were regarded by both the buyer and the seller as "Sold as seen" but I thought these had been outlawed.
I also thought that - or more specifically, it could only be a trade sale if the buyer was actually a trader. If he isn't, I don't think he can sign away his statutory rights.I know this used to be a thing in the past whereby local Indy garages would have a "PX - to clear" section which were regarded by both the buyer and the seller as "Sold as seen" but I thought these had been outlawed.
Even so, I think that buying a car with a known / declared fault thinking you can fix it cheaply - and then finding it's much worse than you thought and you can't - is a gamble. And in this case it seems the house won (as they usually do)
Countdown said:
I may have imagined this but I thought Retail places couldn't say "Trade sales only" any more. To put it another way a Buyer is still entitled to their Statutory Rights. (IANAL)
I know this used to be a thing in the past whereby local Indy garages would have a "PX - to clear" section which were regarded by both the buyer and the seller as "Sold as seen" but I thought these had been outlawed.
Yes my understanding is that a consumer can't sign away their statutory rights. If you are not a trader yourself then you're a consumer and the sale was retail, regardless of how rubbish the item turned out to be. I know this used to be a thing in the past whereby local Indy garages would have a "PX - to clear" section which were regarded by both the buyer and the seller as "Sold as seen" but I thought these had been outlawed.
CAB, trading standards etc. should be involved if you can't get a refund.
PistonTim said:
All the CRA stuff.....
According to you it was sold with a misfire advertised, and the car has a misfire.
What are you claiming?
It was fairly and accurately described wasn't it?
You thought it would be an easy fix to make a few quid ignoring all the MASSIVE warning signs.
Suck it up.
OTOH he's been sold a pup that has been tinkered with to disguise the fact. He can't sign away his rights so can go back to the trader.According to you it was sold with a misfire advertised, and the car has a misfire.
What are you claiming?
It was fairly and accurately described wasn't it?
You thought it would be an easy fix to make a few quid ignoring all the MASSIVE warning signs.
Suck it up.
I suspect he has a fight on his hands though and will need to involve trading standards.
I’d suspect the legal fight on the “technicalities” of the wording against consumer rights will cost more than the 25% saved on the list price vs a working vehicle.
How much ££ do you think your time is worth?
Next time remember to remove any rose tinted spectacles from in front of your open eyes.
How much ££ do you think your time is worth?
Next time remember to remove any rose tinted spectacles from in front of your open eyes.
So as a possible scenario ...
Dave has a Subaru.
Dave's Subaru s
ts its engine.
Dave gets a mate to disable the warning light and generally hide what he can.
Dave takes it down to WBAC and gets what he can for it. As long as he can hide the worst of it through their inspection, it's no longer Dave's problem.
WBAC run it through an auction.
Business X pick it up dirt cheap because nice looking Subaru's with borked engines are not flavour of the month.
Business X chuck a new coil on it to try and fix the obvious misfire.
Business X fails to fix the obvious misfire.
Business X cuts their losses and sells the car on, very clearly stating that the car has a misfire, and so it is definitely a trade sale as the car is obviously not fit to be retailed.
I'm not saying that the above scenario definitely happened, but it's as equally plausible as those jumping to the "evil business tried to stitch up innocent punter" conclusion.
To the OP, thank you for the cautionary tale. You played with fire, and got burnt. Unless you can prove that the business you purchased the car from did something wrong, then I don't see how you can have any comeback on them. (I am not legally trained in any way)
Putting the moral argument to one side for a moment, how does the "no trade sales to non-traders" work in practice? Does the paperwork have a box that says "Tick here if you are a trader", or do the selling garage need to see proof (and if so, what proof is required?) that you are a trader before they will sell you a trade sale? It sounds like the garage in question here were pretty open and upfront about both the condition of the car, and the conditions of the sale. Is the onus on them to verify that the OP isn't a trader? Or if the OP signs paperwork effectively saying, "For the purposes of this sale I'm considered a trader and this sale has no consumer rights attached" is that good enough for the standards of this legislation? It sounds like the OP was happy to be considered a trader when purchasing a trade sale, but less happy to be considered a trader once he couldn't quickly and cheaply fix the problem with the trade sale car.
Dave has a Subaru.
Dave's Subaru s
ts its engine.Dave gets a mate to disable the warning light and generally hide what he can.
Dave takes it down to WBAC and gets what he can for it. As long as he can hide the worst of it through their inspection, it's no longer Dave's problem.
WBAC run it through an auction.
Business X pick it up dirt cheap because nice looking Subaru's with borked engines are not flavour of the month.
Business X chuck a new coil on it to try and fix the obvious misfire.
Business X fails to fix the obvious misfire.
Business X cuts their losses and sells the car on, very clearly stating that the car has a misfire, and so it is definitely a trade sale as the car is obviously not fit to be retailed.
I'm not saying that the above scenario definitely happened, but it's as equally plausible as those jumping to the "evil business tried to stitch up innocent punter" conclusion.
To the OP, thank you for the cautionary tale. You played with fire, and got burnt. Unless you can prove that the business you purchased the car from did something wrong, then I don't see how you can have any comeback on them. (I am not legally trained in any way)
Putting the moral argument to one side for a moment, how does the "no trade sales to non-traders" work in practice? Does the paperwork have a box that says "Tick here if you are a trader", or do the selling garage need to see proof (and if so, what proof is required?) that you are a trader before they will sell you a trade sale? It sounds like the garage in question here were pretty open and upfront about both the condition of the car, and the conditions of the sale. Is the onus on them to verify that the OP isn't a trader? Or if the OP signs paperwork effectively saying, "For the purposes of this sale I'm considered a trader and this sale has no consumer rights attached" is that good enough for the standards of this legislation? It sounds like the OP was happy to be considered a trader when purchasing a trade sale, but less happy to be considered a trader once he couldn't quickly and cheaply fix the problem with the trade sale car.
The trouble is you got what you paid for, a car with faults that is faulty. You paid a reduced price for it, bought it knowing there was at least one fault, bought it on the basis it was a "trade" no comeback sale.
You actually probably will win a fight with the dealer to take it back, it will be a fight and likely cost a bit upfront and there is a risk attached, but dealers can't hide behind trade sales. Even though in this case it's not the usual perfect car but sold as a trade sale.
You actually probably will win a fight with the dealer to take it back, it will be a fight and likely cost a bit upfront and there is a risk attached, but dealers can't hide behind trade sales. Even though in this case it's not the usual perfect car but sold as a trade sale.
Rotary Potato said:
I'm not saying that the above scenario definitely happened, but it's as equally plausible as those jumping to the "evil business tried to stitch up innocent punter" conclusion.
Happy to be corrected but I don't think anybody is saying that. My view is that a business selling a car as a "Trade Sale" is a massive red flag and (even in the past when these were commonplace) you always knew you were taking a gamble.Countdown said:
Happy to be corrected but I don't think anybody is saying that. My view is that a business selling a car as a "Trade Sale" is a massive red flag and (even in the past when these were commonplace) you always knew you were taking a gamble.
A few of the people above seem to think that the OP has been sold a pup and it's on the dealer, and the OP themself says they think it is possibly fraud.I completely agree with you on trade sales. There are two types of people who buy trade sales, experts in the field who can accurately diagnose problems and know when it is a good deal, and mugs who take an ill-advised punt. I am neither (well ... I am definitely not the former, and I try and avoid being the latter!), so steer clear of them.
Rotary Potato said:
Putting the moral argument to one side for a moment, how does the "no trade sales to non-traders" work in practice?
Does the paperwork have a box that says "Tick here if you are a trader", or do the selling garage need to see proof (and if so, what proof is required?) that you are a trader before they will sell you a trade sale?
IIRC, the V5 has a seperate section to fill out if you're a trader, one purpose being to avoid another owner being listed on the documentation.Does the paperwork have a box that says "Tick here if you are a trader", or do the selling garage need to see proof (and if so, what proof is required?) that you are a trader before they will sell you a trade sale?
This can only be filled out with business details.
If you use this section, it's a trade sale. If you don't, it's not.
As for the OP, in my view you knew exactly what you were potentially getting in to and what you were buying so morally, at least, it's on you.
You may be able to legally get it rejected, but I hope you can look yourself in the mirror if so.
Thanks for sharing, hopefully someone else can learn from your mistakes. Generally if it would have been an easy fix the dealerwould use their discounted rate mechanic to fix it and sell it at full retail. Unless you know exectly what you are doing steer well clear, or buy at a price wgere you can stick an engine in it and still be ahead.
You might be able to weasel some legal recourse, but to be fair the dealer did nothing wrong. It was sold as fked and you still willingly bought it fked, now you are unhappy its fked.
You might be able to weasel some legal recourse, but to be fair the dealer did nothing wrong. It was sold as f
ked and you still willingly bought it fked, now you are unhappy its fked.Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff