Arfur Dealy

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

Decided on £890

Yes sorry, meant CVT

Its a rare car, someone will be looking for one, is it an S Line or Sport ? SE will be hard work. Make sure that DSG box is super smooth and engages reverse without a delay

Like.

Yes. You have to understand the ignorant enemy.

Agreed, but this is a GAG giving advice like they its gospel when its a distorted, extreme, mis-guided interpretation of the CRA. They advise the billies completely ignorantly.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491352-Your-rights-to-reject-under-the-Consumer-Rights-Act-2015

Yes copies..

You would know if they are real because AMG is embossed onto the rim, can you show the link to the car ?

Its green, I bet they are AMG style wheels. Still looks very good value to me....but what is it hiding ????

S = Structural..... N = Non Structural

An James is the skinniest......

It's arrived, just failed MOT on the following... Repair immediately (major defects): Nearside Rear Position lamp not working (4.2.1 (a)) Offside Rear Position lamp not working (4.2.1 (a)) Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength Outer sill (5.3.6 (a) (i)) Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint excessively worn (5.3.4 (a) (i)) Offside Rear Coil spring fractured or broken (5.3.1 (b) (i)) Nearside Front Headlamp aim too high (4.1.2 (a)) Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories): Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material (1.1.11 (c)) Play in steering rack inner joint(s) () What are defects and advisories? The MOT test changed on 20 May 2018 Defects are now categorised according to their severity – dangerous, major, and minor. Find out more Date tested3 May 2018 PASS Mileage175,440 miles MOT test number4453 9670 3322 Test location View test location Expiry date25 May 2019 Advisory notice item(s) Brake pipe slightly corroded Front to rear pipes at the rear. (3.6.B.2c) Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases Just behind flexible joint. (7.1.2) Exhaust heat shield insecure on front edge centre of car. What are advisories? Date tested30 April 2018 FAIL Mileage175,437 miles MOT test number1586 6884 6705 Test location View test location Reason(s) for failure Offside Stop lamp not working (1.2.1b) Central Seat belt attachment fitting badly deteriorated Seat belt stalk inoperative,jammed solid. (5.2.3) Exhaust emits an excessive level of metered smoke for a turbo charged engine (7.4.B.3b) Advisory notice item(s) Nearside Rear Child Seat fitted not allowing full inspection of adult belt () Brake pipe slightly corroded Front to rear pipes at the rear. (3.6.B.2c) Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases Just behind flexible joint. (7.1.2) Exhaust heat shield insecure on front edge centre of car. What are failures and advisories? Date tested15 May 2017 PASS Mileage165,061 miles MOT test number8933 9735 3169 Test location View test location Expiry date25 May 2018 Advisory notice item(s) Brake pipe slightly corroded Front to rear (3.6.B.2c) Nearside Rear wheel bearing has slight play (2.6.2) What are advisories? Date tested15 May 2017 FAIL Mileage165,051 miles MOT test number5768 0747 9191 Test location View test location Reason(s) for failure Exhaust emits an excessive level of metered smoke for a turbo charged engine (7.4.B.3b) Nearside Suspension arm ball joint dust cover excessively deteriorated so that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2) Advisory notice item(s) Brake pipe slightly corroded Front to rear (3.6.B.2c) Nearside Rear wheel bearing has slight play (2.6.2) Offside Suspension arm ball joint dust cover deteriorated, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2) Nearside Suspension arm has slight play in a ball joint (2.4.G.2) What are failures and advisories? Date tested23 May 2016 PASS Mileage150,517 miles MOT test number9130 3962 2713 Test location View test location Expiry date25 May 2017 Date tested26 May 2015 PASS Mileage131,807 miles MOT test number3870 7654 5124 Test location View test location Expiry date25 May 2016 Advisory notice item(s) Both rear tyres worn unevenly Nearside rear brake pads worn low Both front tyres worn unevenly What are advisories? Date tested21 May 2014 PASS Mileage115,201 miles MOT test number4957 6104 4169 Test location View test location Expiry date22 May 2015 Date tested15 May 2013 PASS Mileage97,135 miles MOT test number3482 9523 3100 Test location View test location Expiry date22 May 2014 Advisory notice item(s) Both rear brake flexi hoses perished Nearside front tyre worn unevenly What are advisories? Date tested23 May 2012 PASS Mileage81,210 miles MOT test number1078 6484 2138 Test location View test location Expiry date22 May 2013 Date tested27 April 2011 PASS Mileage63,994 miles MOT test number2366 8721 1165 Test location View test location Expiry date26 April 2012 Date tested30 April 2010 PASS Mileage48,601 miles MOT test number5013 9072 0119 Test location View test location Expiry date27 May 2011 Date tested27 May 2009 PASS Mileage36,294 miles MOT test number5010 8704 9105 Test location View test location Expiry date27 May 2010 Date tested22 May 2008 PASS Mileage27,416 miles MOT test number8941 7334 8151 Test location View test location Expiry date27 May 2009 Outstanding vehicle recalls Check if FORD MONDEO AJ05NLE has outstanding recalls Support links Cookies Terms and conditions Privacy notice MOT history API Built by the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency Open Government Licence All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated © Crown copyright

So eloquently straight to the jugular....