mike101

For us as a niche/specialist it’s about marketing within our sector. I think there’s always an element though of it being a numbers game. Most of the enquires don’t care about the added value but it’s trying to sieve out the ones who get your business model and focus on them.

I agree with the non salesy approach. I think it’s what the modern world wants. In my oppinion the service/added value you offer is the important part. Sometimes however some people require you to help them make the decision - it’s just making sure that you don’t push them into something they don’t want to do. Otherwise you can guarantee it’ll come back and bite you!

I’ve never heard of a negative invoice - surely that’s just a credit note?

The only way I could see it working is if you had a separate limited company that you could invoice - even then it would be pretty pointless unless you were trying to redistribute profits. Im no accountant but if you could reduce your tax liability by creating an expense for your own time then everyone would be at it! It’s one to write off as a cost of doing business I’m afraid.

Half used tube of Anusol... Definitely used gloves for that one!

I had this a few years back. Oil pickup pipe fractured on an Impreza in first 10 days of ownership - got the car back, engine was toast. They wanted it repaired, we said that would be betterment unles they were prepared to contribute. They declined and refused a refund. Had to threaten legals to get V5 and spare key back. Repaired and sold for £3k more 8 weeks later. Covered the engine build cost. It all comes down to the test of reasonableness again. The customer would have to take you to court for breaking the contract and argue you were being unreasonable by offering them a refund! Admittedly there aren’t many situations when this makes sense as normally the repair doesn’t make it worth more but proves the point you can play them at their own game sometimes.

I use QuickBooks. Doesn’t have a VAT margin scheme built in. I just post an adjustment once a quarter to the VAT control account and keep the records in a spreadsheet. HMRC were fine this when we had a check.

Certificate of Conformity. Available from the manufacturer - normally easier in the country of origin.

Ah ok - I don’t think there is a correct procedure as such if the cars not registered here. Really you’ll just need the Swiss reg doc. Might be useful to have the CoC too so it can be easily registered in any country.

What do you want to do? Register it in the U.K.?

Do you send mailchimp or similar marketing emails from your domain? We get this a lot too - pain in the ass!

By the same argument if it’s pocket money just give the bloke a refund? We both know that’s it’s a ‘reasonable’ amount. You’d certainly be a bit cross if you lost it in the street. For me a lot would depend on the mileage covered since sale. If it’s a few thousand miles personally I don’t think a Judge would rule in a dealers favour on this one even if you had a PDI, an independent inspection before sale and a letter from your Mum saying you were a nice bloke. However it’s all supposition. Sounds like there’s more to this one than any of us know - been to a third party to fix other faults the dealer wasn’t aware of etc etc

I was talking more generally than this specific case about the reverse burden of proof. Of course he wouldn’t be liable for a new gearbox if it was the value of the car but he could well be entitled to a second hand one so it would still be your problem. The CRA does have specific advice relating to second hand goods as in the link above. if it were me I’d be trying to speak to the customer. Nobody wants to go to court so you try and find the best way out that’s fair and reasonable. Sometimes it costs you big money and you don’t feel like it was reasonable at all - chalk it down to experience and move on is my advice. Hopefully you win more than you lose!

It depends if you can prove it wasn’t there as the point of sale. If you can’t, it’s definitely your problem unless there are other mitigating factors - eg it was 500 quid etc etc

Consumer Rights Excerpt Between 30 days and 6 months If a fault comes to light after 30 days but before 6 months you’re entitled to a repair, replacement or refund. It’s assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise. Unless you’ve agreed otherwise, the seller (dealer) has only one opportunity to repair (or replace) the faulty vehicle after which, if they fail to repair it, you’re entitled to a refund. In the event of a refund following a failed attempt at repair during the first six months the seller may make a 'reasonable' adjustment to the amount refunded to take account of the use that you’ve had of the vehicle.

Personally I think it does - whys the fault arisen? Wear and tear. Nothing failed - it still runs. I might be wrong but I’m sure the reverse burden of proof still exists under CRA. If an independent has checked the car since sale and didn’t identify the gearbox fault then it wasnt faulty at that time and it’s happened since sale.

You’re only liable if the fault was there at the point of sale. You need to prove it wasn’t. The law deems any faults for the first 6 months were unless you can prove otherwise.

That’s the point - the clock starts for you when the sale takes place. Faults that take place within the first 6 months are latent faults and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. He’s had an independent garage do work on the car since sale who presumably didn’t identify a gearbox fault at that time. Therefore it’s reasonable to conclude the fault has developed since ownership. You might still have some liability but I’d be putting that message across first if it were me.

There you go - sounds like that’s your defence. If the Gearbox fault didn’t exist when they checked the EML and he spent 600 quid the fault is proved to have developed since the sale!

Be interesting to know exactly how many miles have been done and the exact time since the sale. Okay dokay - unfortunately it’s not Black and White. There’s no correct answer, there is only guidance which even in law is woolly at best. in my opinion even with 120k miles if he paid close to £3k he should expect the gearbox to last longer than 3 months. That said if he’s done 5k miles in that time then might change things (plus at 50 ppm he’ll owe you soon if he keeps driving :)) If it was me Id be trying to speak the guy establish the facts , and if necessary get the car back and assess the situation.

There is no definitive legal answer - that’s the problem. Most of it is subject to the test of ‘reasonableness’. If it went to Court the question would be ‘Would you expect the x on a car worth y to last z?’ The answer would depend on a huge amount of variables but ultimately the consumer is there to be protected so will prob win!

Under the old SGA, faults like this were deemed to be ‘latent’ for the first 6 months and the seller had to prove otherwise. After that the burden of proof reversed and the buyer had to prove. Not sure how this sits within CRA? As normal a lot will depend how reasonable (or not) the punter is.

I’ve never tested it in court (nor would I want to) but it’s what I’ve been advised. I guess it depends on the detail of the case and how much loss the customer may have incurred in addition to the purchase. On the odd occasion Ive found it necessary to offer a refund they either bite your hand off or disappear off for 6 months only to call you back to try and take you up on it!

Regarding the contractual repair vs statutory repair one opportunity point. Has this been tested in a court yet do we know? I don’t doubt the logic but would be interested to know if there is a precedent.

You don’t have a right to terminate but the offer to unwind the contract is seen as a reasonable thing to do by the powers that be in the event of it becoming legal and often calls the customers bluff. The completely subjective ‘reasonable’ test has always been a baffling part of consumer legislation to me! A lot depends on if you have the appetite to have another go at the car,