Arfur Dealy

In December 2016 I sold 18 cars. December 2017 = 16 cars. December 2018 only 3 so far...... Not looking good

I have to add, I maybe blunt but I'm right.

Who cares what Cazana says, ask the public who or what Cazana is and they'll have a guess at maybe......a region on Mexico...etc etc. Completely unknown by the public, they are simply a non entity.....

That's exactly my view

Welcome Beechwood, if you have previous experience then dip your toes, you'll have hardly any overheads and as long as you buy right there is good money to be made. My only advice would be to make sure you do the job right and make sure you cover your ass. I am of the opinion the CRA benefits us more than the SOGA, but you just have to be completely transparent, qualify your billy and cover your ass. Good luck

This ^^^

Messing or manipulating the taxation process in my book isn’t worth it, it’s very muddy waters. The ownership on taxing is the new keepers at the point of purchase and prior to driving off. If the customer asked you to tax the car prior to collection, tell them you can, it’ll only take a minute, but only do it but only on the day of collection. KIS.....

lol

Yes you can

I usually get a bid in fairly early otherwise it will be run up, once I've placed a bid I normally start to walk out, letting the auctioneer I'm prepared to walk. The thing is they know me know and I tend to be lucky and buy underbook.....

Mark, mmmmmmmm I would be careful, tax isn't transferable. DVLA will know the car was taxed prior to the new keepers purchase date but not taxed at the point of sale. I would be telling the billy to tax it themselves, its simply not worth the potential hassle over £30...

Lawgistics

A scabbers dream car... who would with even a 10th of a brain would buy a bent one?

I agree, you need to justify your position, the car is a 15th of its original cost, its 10 years past any period the manufacturer would guarantee its reliability. Mr Magistrate, I understand the CRA is there to protect responsible retailers equally. We freshly MOT'd, frshly serviced and had it PDI's confirming a 192 point check and the purchaser agreed the car was as descibed... Ownership for repairs and maintanence is the consumers. Unless of course they can prove enfactically the fault was there at the point of sale.

I agree, but

Cat N 630i....... Just imagine the type of billy who would be looking to buy it....

Op, did you advertise it inappropriately? EXPLAIN specifically why and how the billy is wrong or right.

I think this one is straightforward, if your advert misleads the billy then you would of thought they would have contacted you immediately. The buyer has the responsibility on collection to check and confirm the vehicle was accurately described. But, IMO if your advert says it has bluetooth then it should, or is it bluetooth prepared (if there is such a thing) you should have made the billy fully ware prior to purchase it wasn't fitted, the ownership is on you as the pro to know what produc you are selling. Simply offer to pay for VW, or alternatively a better more modern cheaper parrot product and get them out of you life, that's what I would do......

Ok. Mine was pre CRA. I'll explain it very quickly, sold a A6 3.0 TDI S Line Avant for 6k. Billy a (snotty nurse) travelled 60 miles to buy, after about 5/6 weeks she complained about a leak in the boot, explained to her ok no problem return it and I'll look at it. She refused and insisted she take it Audi and I pay, I refused and repeatedly asked her to return it to me (all by RD). Few months later I get a LBA which I respond to again asking her to return, she never returned it. Summonds comes through a few months later claiming a full refund saying I sold her a unsafe faulty car, full MMI system had now failed, blah, blah, blah. The big day came and the Magistrate found out all the facts from both of us and dismissed her case (and refused her the option to appeal). The crux was basically I had been more than reasonable and she hadn't, she had also continued to drive th said "dangerous" car for 6k+ until she had killed the MMI in the boot. I wasn't expecting to win and the Magistrate even asked me for my costs ! I was so flabergasted I didn't even consider my costs. Anyway, I bounced out of court like Tigger with my head in the air..... It still makes me smile now and gives me the confidence to continue to be firm but fair...... Give an inch.....

+1 To quote Chuffnut from CAG I'm pretty au fait with the CRA, I certainly don't claim to know everything but under Chapter 2, provision 19 of the act, section 14 and 15 state; (14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. (15)Subsection (14) does not apply if— (a)it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or (b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract. I believe this is where the burden of proof arises from. What the act is saying here is if there is a fault with the goods within 6 months it is assumed the fault was there all along, unless it's established the fault wasn't, i.e. the dealer can prove the fault wasn't there. You're suggesting that a retailer has to fix ANY fault, no matter what the circumstances. I don't believe this is correct because of provision 19. For clarity, the above refers to 3 (b) and (c) and 4 which state; 3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are— (a)the Short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22); (b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and (c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24). (4)If the goods do not conform to the contract under section 15 or because of a breach of requirements that are stated in the contract, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are— (a)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and (b)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24). Sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 refer to what is described as a breach of the contract (i.e. Not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality etc) I don't believe I have interpreted this incorrectly, I believe that all of the above is where the advice repeatedly offered across the internet that "it's up to the dealer to prove the fault wasn't there at the point of sale" is drawn from. It isn't as simple as just saying that a retailer (the car dealer) has to fix ANY fault within the first 6 months, carte blanche and if they refuse, you can reject the car. I'm interested in your opinion on all of this of course, as I think a lot of the CRA can be down to interpretation! Re: Used car from dealer - windscreen washer fault within 6 months Chuffnut is 100% correct on this matter. Surfer01 appears to have the widely held but incorrect view that the CRA applies to ANY fault that occurs within 6 months, because of the assumption that it must have been there at the start. Yes that assumption is there but so is the right of the seller to be able to prove otherwise, and if they can do so then they are not liable. That is exactly what the extract from the Act posted by Chuffnut is intending to apply. A lot of the advice given on this site (and others) seems to ignore or underplay this significant factor. Re: Used car from dealer - windscreen washer fault within 6 months Surfer, you are again slightly off with your comments here. Wear and Tear doesn't begin from when a consumer buys a used car! It begins from when the car is first purchased and driven from new! The windscreen washer motor in this instance was worn by 8 years of use not the last 6 months, hot summers have nothing to do with this. You still haven't commented on my post above regarding the actual provisions within the CRA that clearly state the retailer isn't liable for repairs within the 6 month period if it can be confirmed the goods conformed to the contract on the day of the sale. The windscreen washer motor was working, as confirmed by the OP, worked for several months and now it doesn't. Under the CRA provisions I have highlighted above it would be easy for the retailer to convince a judge of the fact the windscreen washers have worked for several months without complaint and the goods conformed to the contract on the day of their sale, thus meeting the criteria set out in the law and no liability is owed. Perhaps it is best that you don't contribute to this thread anymore as stating that a retailer HAS to fix ANY fault within the first 6 months "it's the law" and failure to do so may be a criminal offence, is wrong advice and it gives people a sense of empowerment they may not actually have. Dodgy dealers should be taken to task but there's no point in advising people of something that simply isn't correct. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Glenvum. Welcome Remind her of the above, or as a genuine offer of goodwill a contribution to the cost of and fitting of a used boxed, don't offer her any type of betterment. Or, offer to buy back minus 45p per mile. She then has nowhere to go. Exactly.

Yuo cnat fi theer si on buttno

Thanks Jimmy, but its a 14 year old banger and it'll be sold as such The brake pipes really aren't like they sound, I'll video them and show you. I don't sell unsafe cars just to grab a profit.

No I’m putting a new Mot on it, it’s £890 with a new MOT

The CVT is a bit lacklustre, I agree