advice: car broken after 3 days - does SOGA apply?
Discussion
Lass at work bought a 2000 Merc convertible from a dealer for 8K, described as pristine etc.
3 days later the hood motor failed so she took it back. The dealer has provided an aftermarket warranty but they will only cover 750 of the 1100 quid bill so my friend is being asked for the difference. My thoughts are that the dealer can't just pass his responsibility by giving a aftermarket warranty especially if that only covers part of teh bill and that SOGA will still cover this as the fault would have been deemed to have been present at time of sale.
Any advice as to what she should quote at the dealers or should she get the local trading standards people on the case.
She needs to call the garage at lunchtime today so sorry but need a rapid response please gents!
3 days later the hood motor failed so she took it back. The dealer has provided an aftermarket warranty but they will only cover 750 of the 1100 quid bill so my friend is being asked for the difference. My thoughts are that the dealer can't just pass his responsibility by giving a aftermarket warranty especially if that only covers part of teh bill and that SOGA will still cover this as the fault would have been deemed to have been present at time of sale.
Any advice as to what she should quote at the dealers or should she get the local trading standards people on the case.
She needs to call the garage at lunchtime today so sorry but need a rapid response please gents!
I don't think this one is too clear. The SOGA stuff says that the car should be of suitable quality in regard to age, milage and price. If that is a fault expected at that sort of age or she got it for a song she may be best using the warentey for part cover of the liabilty. In general terms though I agree a lot of dealers try to use a third party company to reasource their liability when faults are their problem.
It's true that price paid applies....if it was originally an £80k car then maybe it's a bit more doubtful as you should expect only about 10% of it to work...
However, if it is relatively new then it should work for 3 days. Most dealers wouldn't argue IMO unless it was some sort of cheap trade, ebay sale or whatever.
However, if it is relatively new then it should work for 3 days. Most dealers wouldn't argue IMO unless it was some sort of cheap trade, ebay sale or whatever.
If this went to court, I would guess its a 50/50.
The age, and the fact it still functions as a car is in the dealers favour. However the fact it was £8k (sounds a lot for a 2000 CLK) and is a convertible, with a faulty roof is in the buyers favour.
I think most decent dealers would at least make a contribution between what the warranty covers and the balance.
I would advise your friend to qoute SOGA, but not in a threatening way, and just try to appeal to his better nature.
The age, and the fact it still functions as a car is in the dealers favour. However the fact it was £8k (sounds a lot for a 2000 CLK) and is a convertible, with a faulty roof is in the buyers favour.
I think most decent dealers would at least make a contribution between what the warranty covers and the balance.
I would advise your friend to qoute SOGA, but not in a threatening way, and just try to appeal to his better nature.
confused_buyer said:
It's true that price paid applies....if it was originally an £80k car then maybe it's a bit more doubtful as you should expect only about 10% of it to work...
However, if it is relatively new then it should work for 3 days. Most dealers wouldn't argue IMO unless it was some sort of cheap trade, ebay sale or whatever.
No, regardless of price, if it's sold as pristine then it should be. Reasonable wear and tear does not mean broken things.However, if it is relatively new then it should work for 3 days. Most dealers wouldn't argue IMO unless it was some sort of cheap trade, ebay sale or whatever.
FraserLFA said:
What ever happened to good will?
Just politely inform them that you deem it their responsibility to fix the problem at their own expense, as it is likely the fault was present at the time of purchase, and therefore the goods were not as described.
What a load of bJust politely inform them that you deem it their responsibility to fix the problem at their own expense, as it is likely the fault was present at the time of purchase, and therefore the goods were not as described.
ks. As for good will it probably left the same time allthe fkers who think it's their given right to have it all paid for for them, turned up. I assume she tested the roof before buying?
If so, and it worked, the fault wasn't there at the time she bought it.
An eleven year old car will be reaching the end of the life of some parts; roof motors are famous for failing in all sorts of makes of car.
I think they're lucky that the garage/warranty will cover it at all..... I'm very much of the opinion that you buy a 2nd hand car then it'll have problems....
...but then most other people seem to think I'm an idiot for not chasing sellers for problems; that they can have a perfect car for pennies; and it'll have all the reliablity and back-up of a brand new one. I think they all read the Wail.
If so, and it worked, the fault wasn't there at the time she bought it.
An eleven year old car will be reaching the end of the life of some parts; roof motors are famous for failing in all sorts of makes of car.
I think they're lucky that the garage/warranty will cover it at all..... I'm very much of the opinion that you buy a 2nd hand car then it'll have problems....
...but then most other people seem to think I'm an idiot for not chasing sellers for problems; that they can have a perfect car for pennies; and it'll have all the reliablity and back-up of a brand new one. I think they all read the Wail.
Slade Alive said:
A hood that doesn't work on a convertible bought at full money surely is not fit for purpose.
frontbum said:
No, regardless of price, if it's sold as pristine then it should be. Reasonable wear and tear does not mean broken things.
It's not that straightforward.If this went to court, the judge would look at the age and spec of the car, how much was paid for it, the warranty supplied, etc.
It's NOT as black and white as "the hood doesn't work so it's not fit for purpose"
That said, after 3 days she may have a case.
Did she test the hood when she bought it. This is crucial.
One imagines that she did - it's a fairly fundemental thing to do when buying a soft-top.
If she did, and it worked, then she falls back on the warranty. If the warranty doesn't cover it kiss your SOGA goodbye and get any goodwill you can because you're on your own.
300bhp/ton said:
FraserLFA said:
What ever happened to good will?
Just politely inform them that you deem it their responsibility to fix the problem at their own expense, as it is likely the fault was present at the time of purchase, and therefore the goods were not as described.
What a load of bJust politely inform them that you deem it their responsibility to fix the problem at their own expense, as it is likely the fault was present at the time of purchase, and therefore the goods were not as described.
ks. As for good will it probably left the same time allthe fkers who think it's their given right to have it all paid for for them, turned up. Muzzer said:
Slade Alive said:
A hood that doesn't work on a convertible bought at full money surely is not fit for purpose.
frontbum said:
No, regardless of price, if it's sold as pristine then it should be. Reasonable wear and tear does not mean broken things.
It's not that straightforward.If this went to court, the judge would look at the age and spec of the car, how much was paid for it, the warranty supplied, etc.
It's NOT as black and white as "the hood doesn't work so it's not fit for purpose"
That said, after 3 days she may have a case.
Did she test the hood when she bought it. This is crucial.
One imagines that she did - it's a fairly fundemental thing to do when buying a soft-top.
If she did, and it worked, then she falls back on the warranty. If the warranty doesn't cover it kiss your SOGA goodbye and get any goodwill you can because you're on your own.
Paying around retail money for a convertible car that doesn't convert is not fit for its purpose. That is the fact of the matter.
If it was sold as faulty the onus would be on the dealer to prove such was the case, and agreed by the purchaser, otherwise Trading Standards should crawl all over the dealer.
Slade Alive said:
Muzzer said:
Slade Alive said:
A hood that doesn't work on a convertible bought at full money surely is not fit for purpose.
frontbum said:
No, regardless of price, if it's sold as pristine then it should be. Reasonable wear and tear does not mean broken things.
It's not that straightforward.If this went to court, the judge would look at the age and spec of the car, how much was paid for it, the warranty supplied, etc.
It's NOT as black and white as "the hood doesn't work so it's not fit for purpose"
That said, after 3 days she may have a case.
Did she test the hood when she bought it. This is crucial.
One imagines that she did - it's a fairly fundemental thing to do when buying a soft-top.
If she did, and it worked, then she falls back on the warranty. If the warranty doesn't cover it kiss your SOGA goodbye and get any goodwill you can because you're on your own.
Paying around retail money for a convertible car that doesn't convert is not fit for its purpose. That is the fact of the matter.
If it was sold as faulty the onus would be on the dealer to prove such was the case, and agreed by the purchaser, otherwise Trading Standards should crawl all over the dealer.
There no fact of any matter when it comes to fit for purpose. Its an interpretation of what is considered reasonable in the circumstances, and no two sets of circumstances will ever be the same.
The only way to really find out is go to court let both parties have their say, and let a Judge to decide what he considers reasonable. So even then it boils down to someones opinion - very far from a fact I think.
However in the real world no one really wants to go to court unless they are pretty sure of success. That being the case its normally rare that both parties are sure of success, and these things normally get worked by a realistic, grown up, civil conversation.
The law is there to protect everyone - even car dealers.
Dealer needs to prove the fault wasn't there at the point of sale afaik. This applies up to 6 months after the car is sold. After that I believe you get another 6 months were the customer has to prove the fault was there at the point of sale (if it was the dealer is responsible).
As above, dealer should be fixing FOC or refunding full purchase price.
kentmotorcompany said:
Sorry my deluded friend, Muzzer is right.
Lol, it's entirely possible I am deluded in many things 
kentmotorcompany said:
There no fact of any matter when it comes to fit for purpose. Its an interpretation of what is considered reasonable in the circumstances, and no two sets of circumstances will ever be the same.
The only way to really find out is go to court let both parties have their say, and let a Judge to decide what he considers reasonable. So even then it boils down to someones opinion - very far from a fact I think.
Ah but Magistrates, District Judges and High Court Judges work to specific rules and regulations set down in law. Facts are not based on interpretation of reasonable circumstances. Reasonable persons are prosecuted everyday because they broke the law. The only way to really find out is go to court let both parties have their say, and let a Judge to decide what he considers reasonable. So even then it boils down to someones opinion - very far from a fact I think.
kentmotorcompany said:
The law is there to protect everyone - even car dealers.
Absolutely. Right up to the point car dealer sells 2000 year SLK for eight grand with a fked roof.Maybe Trading Standards do things differently in Kent?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff