• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by FHP11

  1. So much truth in this! Parenting ability or lack thereof has a lot to answer for in todays society. Always someone else's fault though......
  2. Yes, people will. But thats because its far from "The Exact Same." The extra processes that dealers put the cars through is the added value, as are the services that you can offer, that a private buyer does not and cannot.
  3. Brexit has stuffed getting parts in from Europe. First we voted to leave. The pound tumbled and hasn't recovered since. Then we actually did leave, and along has come the problems with physically getting stuff here, and all the extra tax, duty, customs and haulage costs that have come along with this. The pound still hasn't recovered so its a double whammy really. It's what we voted for I guess - Costing us a small fortune getting some parts that we regularly get in from Europe. Had no choice but to try and pass some of this on. Covid has thankfully masked most of the issues for most regular people. They pay a bit more for things, and don't worry about any of the problems that it causes for businesses that actually try and trade with the biggest trading bloc that we are geographically part of. Last year we could trade parts with 500 million people without issue. Now we can only trade with around 70 million without problems. At least we've taken back control - whatever that means...
  4. Would probably avoid Land Rovers. As nice as a 2010 Disco 4 is to drive, they are just a money pit. I ran one for a bit. The repairs cost more than my mortgage each month. Although if a Land Rover is a must, I'd go Freelander, there is just less to go wrong and they are a bit more dependable. X5's are a nice shout, never had much grief from them although am aware there are some costly issues that can occur. I'd also recommend the Grand Cherokee. Great kit and good value for what you get. Not sure what your budget is, but if your looking at a 2010 Range Rover, I'm sure you'd get into a 2013 with decent mileage. Would avoid the ML just as the interior is a bit drab and you still pay good money for them. XC90 feels prehistoric inside.
  5. Maybe DVLA getting confused as to whether its a new or used car. Or that the car Is not in the new keepers name. Wanting to tax the car and assign the plate could be done together. But assisting a new keeper is a third action. A dealer registering a new car, could register it to the new keeper, tax it, and assign the new plate as the vehicles plate. But no way to do this all together on a used vehicle to my knowledge. Car needs registering and taxing, wait for the V5 to come through, then assign the plate. My standard advice to customers. If they want the plate on when they drive away, then they need to pay for the car in full. I'll register it to them, when they get the V5 through, either they or I'm happy to do it can assign the plate to the vehicle, then they can drive away with it on.
  6. Following notification from Worldpay today that card payments are going up again, I was wondering what everybody else is doing about card payments? As far as I can see, I think we are going to have to throw in the towel on them and insist on BACS... I know a lot of this is down to MasterCard & Visas Monopoly on the market and ultimate Greed, but the costs are out of control. Now e've never accepted Credit Cards in any shape or form. But Go back a few years, we used to pay just 20Pence for a debit card transaction. As of today, Worldly have said that Debit card rates are going up to 0.57%. Now on a moderately priced £15K Car, that works out at £85.50 in debit card fees. Compared to a few years ago, this is a 42,650% increase in processing fees. Or a bit like a £1.50 bottle of milk going up to more than £600! No other industry has been able to hike costs like these guys. I can't see its possible to continue taking debit cards, unless its a dirt cheap car. I know Worldpay will skin a bit off this rate, but its still outrageous. Thinking of maybe saying we will take a max of £3K but anything over must be BACS. We have been trying to point customers down the way of BACS, but some of the less tech savvy always seem to leave it till pickup when theres always some issue or other. Whats everyone else doing?
  7. Panoramic Roof's are a nightmare. If they don't leak, the motors will break, and if not this then they will be creaky and rattly. They are destined to become a problem on every car they are fitted to.
  8. Don't get confused, like much of the public is that "non Key workers" can't go to work. Thats not the case at all if following government guidelines. Most people can in fact go to work if that work can't be done from home - whether it's essential or not is irrelevant. As car dealers, we can still go into work, legitimately drive a car to an automated car wash, take it on a test run, picture it, fix it, etc etc. As with any other line of work. The restrictions are on opening retail outlets to members of the public which we are restricted from doing. And also restrictions on members of the general public from making non essential trips, for instance looking at a car. But its not against guidelines to deliver a sold car or do anything work related with a vehicle. There is though obviously a moral line to be drawn. But you can go to work if you can't work from home.
  9. Don't hold me to this, but this sounds to me like your insurance trying to pass the buck for something they should probably be liable for. I would not expect as a trader for you to be required to see a certificate of insurance from every person who may work on your car, bodyshops, tyre shops, mechanics etc. Indeed, even for members of the public, if you can reasonably believe that your re insured to drive a car, then you are not guilty of an offence if it turns out to not be insured. e.g. a car you have hired, a driving instructors car etc. I would say that the mechanic is guilty of an offence of driving whilst uninsured. This is nothing to do with you. He may have a defence if his lookers boss has told him he is insured, but this is none of your concern. The third parties claim therefore, given that it cannot be made against the uninsured driver, would fall back to either their own insurer, or probably your insurer given that you have the car on the MID with them. It sounds like your insurer is trying to be a bit sly by passing this liability on to you. I wouldn't put it past them to try and get you admitting this liability somehow, i.e. by getting you to say you knew he was driving the vehicle etc. Technically if you knew he was driving it, you are guilty of the offence of permitting him to drive without insurance, and also absolve them of the liability of paying out the claim. As I say the above is my interpretation, but seek professional advice before you let them do you over.
  10. We've been moved over to this new Autotrader portal Does anyone else think its absolutely awful and they've spent a load of money fixing something that wasn't broken?
  11. Caught as in stopped by the Police and summoned to court? A lot more information would be needed, and don't quote me on this, however I believe there is allowance within the law where there are circumstances where you can reasonably expect a car to be insured, these would include amongst other things: -Hire Cars -Courtesy Vehicles provided by a garage -Company owned vehicles such as vans or other commercial or company vehicles Where you can reasonably expect that the car would have been insured, you would not be guilty of the offence of driving without insurance. For example you would not ask a hire car company to show you their certificate of insurance before you took the hire car away. You would not necessarily ask your employer to show you their certificate of insurance before you drove a company van. A police officer similarly would not ask to see a certificate of insurance from the police service when they take a police vehicle out in the morning for a shift. They assume that it would be insured. Obviously this only extends to instances where you can reasonably expect the car to be insured by another, and a courtesy vehicle should fall into this. UNLESS you have signed something or made some other assertion that you have insured the car yourself. Probably best to seek some legal advice though, and the above is only my understanding of the law. I am happy to be corrected.
  12. Thanks I though as much. I began to question myself when people would act in sheer shock when we say it doesn't have one because it didn't come with one. At least I know were not alone! Just frustrating that the people that spot things after they bought it think that they are somehow more entitled than the people that bothered to look at the car in the first place!
  13. Hi All, Just a simple one, but interested to hear how everyone deals with this. We get through a lot of SUV/4x4 type vehicles. Loads of people it seems take the parcel shelves out, for whatever reason, and they don't find their way back into the cars. And, dependant on model, even on eBay these can be anywhere from £150 up to £300. We don't normally replace these, clearly picture the boot area with them absent. If a customer brings it up when they are looking, we just say sadly it didn't come in with it in. Never had anyone not buy one because of it. Problem comes from the punter that doesn't bother to look at the car properly, or even open the boot, only looking it over it seems when they get it home. They then bring up issues such as these which if they'd mentioned it on the forecourt, you'd just say thats how it is, we can remedy, but at cost. But because they've only noticed it after purchase, you'd think you'd sold the car without a wheel or something. "The Car had it when it was new" - Yes when it was "NEW", 6 years ago! Interested to hear other people approach to what must be a commonplace issue. Are you guys replacing them for sale? What are you telling people who bring it up after purchase?
  14. FHP11


    We also use Cardealer5 and have been very happy. Can get it looking exactly how you want it and the pricing is reasonable.
  15. Never try this on a Discovery, or Land Rovers in General for that matter, unless you want to be driven insane with frustration. Thankfully you can rely on the quality of most vehicles enough just to replace a faulty sensor. Not Discoveries. Just had a Discovery 3 in, Fault Codes inner right rear, front left. Great, two new sensors ordered. Fitted, now the faults have moved More sensors ordered to replace the lot. No Fault codes, not working. Replace front wiring loom, replace rear loom. Not working. At this point could be control module or greater wiring issue. Solution = Pull fuse, inform customer, who didn't mind. remember to avoid Land Rovers ....
  16. With your situation on the Range Rover. Doesn't the CRA require the fault to have been present AT THE TIME OF SUPPLY for it to apply? I.E, the engine wasn't blown at the time of supply, therefore you aren't obligated to offer anything? Its simply bad look for which you aren't required to have a crystal ball for? Not saying you would necessarily run a business that way and say sorry jog on. But surely a blown engine is a very Clear as day. It was obviously not like that at the time of supply, but as a good will gesture, as we understand this is bad luck we'll be happy to X, or Y. We as traders have no control over design flaws of a vehicle, how well it was serviced and looked after by the previous owner, nor how well the new owner looks after and drives it. All we can do is make sure its working at the time of supply. And if it is, that is all we are required to do. We might offer third party warranties etc, but nevertheless, my understanding of the CRA is that we are not required to provide cover for bad luck. Otherwise, the customer in theory has the right to give a car death if that is there driving style, many older cars wouldn't stand for it, yet they still have the right to ask for a CRA refund or repair?
  17. Any advise on how to manage unreasonable customers with faults. Wondering if my approach is right. As traders, we all know that a 6 year old car just isn't the same as a brand new car. Its highly probable of the many thousands of components on the vehicle, they aren't all working as they were when it was new. We're always happy to help with any issues customers find, but why are they always so unreasonable. Why do they think its OK to take a 6 year old Renault to the main dealer for a new battery and then just send you the bill... Why do they have to tell you how much of an inconvenience it is and how disappointed they are because they pushed their budget to afford the £7000 said vehicle. If experience tells me anything, its that a £30,000 Range Rover is more likely to cause you headaches than a £5000 Ford but hey ho.
  18. I think we have as much right as anyone else to sell cars privately as seen. But I think there are a few conditions to this. It's got to be registered to you, not an "In Trade" Car. And not that you have, but knowingly selling a faulty car whether private or trade Is likely to cause issues. And definitely apply good practice, sell it from home, not a forecourt, and definitely don't mention your a trader, else your just asking for trouble, and they will assume your doing one over on them. Punters assume we're doing them over normally, never mind if they sniff that your a trader making money off them masquerading as a private seller. But I've done it myself. We had a mint 2007 ML come in as a px last year. A few electrical issues (Panoramic Sunroof not opening), and passenger heated seat not working. No biggie on an 11 year old car, but you know if we sold it to a punter who doesn't understand that 11 year old cars aren't like new cars that we'd have problems so I bought it off the company save it going to auction. Ran it myself for 10 months, and fancied a change so sold it privately, disclosed faults on add. I don't see any issue with it.
  19. On the basis that we are all essentially chancing our luck by displaying them incorrectly (I've never seen a car with trade plates showing them externally, vertically but not obscuring the original plate), and still liable to a fine when they see us using them to the best of our abilities, perhaps we should all simply stop paying the trade plate fee on the basis that it is impossible to use, I'm sure they'd soon sit up and take notice then.
  20. What annoys me is their attitude to it. I asked for help and guidance as to where possibly I could display them on the vehicle given that its physically impossible and in some cases would be illegal on some vehicles, for instance obscuring a headlamp etc. I was simply told, the DVLA don't give guidance on how to adhere to the policy. When I stated again, I really do need guidance on this because I don't know how its possible, she simply hung the phone up on me!
  21. Now, They specifically cannot be mounted over the original plate. That must still be visible. But also, they cannot be inside the vehicle, which begs the question, where do they go?
  22. Interesting, but still ultimately leaves the issue up in the air as to where we are supposed to put them? That volvo is a great example, You can't obscure the plate, fine. There is no other mountable surface that does not obscure lights, headlamp washers, fog lamps, sensors etc. Car's aren't designed with two number plate positions. Its time they moved to a new system maybe similar to insurance, where we add our stock vehicles to a "Trade Tax" system that allows us to drive them and allows ANPR systems to see the score. They provide a rigid plastic plate which simply cannot be mounted or used as they ask you too, then fine you for not using it correctly! If it was a business doing this, Trading standards would be all over you. Its simply unacceptable to say, heres our product, it can't be used but its up to you to find a way to make it work! Else pay our fines!
  24. Hi Guys, A bit of advice, especially if anyone has been through the same issue. We received a penalty from the DVLA for driving an unlicenced vehicle from a roadside DVLA road tax van. Fair enough, the vehicle was not taxed, however, trade plates were on display. We wrote back stating as such. They wrote back stating that they would like us to pay £135. We wrote back again stating that we have paid up trade plates which were on display. They wrote back with a picture of the front section of the vehicle, basically just showing the grille and bumper (noway near the entire car) stating that no trade plate was on display. I called up telling them that you state trade plates cannot obscure the number plate. She told me that's right, they must be mounted next to the number plate!! When I asked how that was possible, she just said we cannot advise about that. Do they want us to drill or stick trade plates to each vehicle we drive? They just stated that they cannot be inside the vehicle and cannot obscure the front plate. So Frustrated that they waste my time and theirs on these things when we fully pay for the facility of trade plates and make every effort to abide by their use. Fair enough people who drive without tax but not business that pay their way. What an outdated piece of legislation that requires us to show these plates but gives no way for this to be reasonably possible and in many cases completely impossible. In any case, I'm half tempted to ask them to set a court date for the matter to be heard, but just wanted to hear if anyone else had any experience or luck with these issues.