EPV

Everything looks a fortune to your eyes, you sure you're not of a "North of the Border" persuasion?

The what?

In some respects I can see the neighbours POV. It's unsettling having a load of strangers rock up, even if they are polite, quiet etc. See it from their side of the fence, literally. I have forgiving neighbours but I take care to make sure like Mark, I don't turn the road into a mechanics haven. That said, people are people and I bet I have one or two pairs of beady eyes watching me, saying nowt, tutting loudly to themselves and wondering if what I am doing is legal. If this were me, I'd take a bottle round to him, thank him for his patience and understanding in this transitional stage of your business, you're just trying to make your way in the world and sooner rather than later, you'll move into premises as your business expands. Go to the local car wash, get a couple of vouchers for a free car wash and give those to him with the bottle. Now, at that stage, I would amount this to be me being a reasonable person, respectful of a difficult situation for my neighbours and grateful for their support as you try to make your way in life. If they are, at that stage of me handing over gifts, awkward, argumentative "yeah but its not on is it, after all its a residential road, not a forecourt" then I would walk away, get on the phone to your council, explain the situation, ask them what you need to do legal wise, get proper and above board and then, make no considerations for that neighbour whatsoever, almost going out of your way to be difficult. That's how I'd play it. The former is definitely preferable to the latter but it all depends on how much charm you can shower on this chap.

It's a bit mechanical to me, I like the idea of catching wild fish in rivers but I can see the attraction of going to a commercial fishery and pulling out monsters, or, in my case a reasonable stream of nice looking Roach and Rudd and a few greedy Perch. Oh, and a big tree.

Well 4 shortlisted and I'm empty handed. There's always tomorrow.

I’m sat on the fence on this subject

Not for me so far, 2 shortlisted 2 going miles above cap clean. Plenty more fish in the sea...

God help the poor soul who’s flogged her next shed, she’ll be expecting the moon on a stick for £300

Not this one mate, i’ve had all sorts done to it and had it on an 80 mile drive, it’s pukka. Thats what i’m telling myself anyway to save me from sleepless nights...

Never got into that. Just started course fishing again after a 20 year Hiatus. Took my lad today, 7 years old, he liked it and i’ve caught the bug. Have to start again from scratch so will be using a 10ft junior rod tomorrow in search of slightly less than monster bream and tench. Beach fishing looks hard work to me. *re-caught the bug As above mate. Was happy just to pull out some 4-6” roach and Rudd and a pound bream, to give my boy an idea of what it’s all about. When I was 20 I broke my rod on a cattle fence, casting out. Never took it back up again. I didn’t catch the cow, either.

It's your business mate, if you don't wanna go in, don't. I've got a handover on a RRS in the morning and I'm buggering off fishing for the afternoon. For fish, for a change, not punters.

This is where the CRA becomes not fit for purpose in itself. An automotive is made of thousands of individual components. How anyone can apply a black and white law to that is beyond me. It is what it is, grey, non definitive, no "right" answer. Best you can do is prep cars well, prep your paperwork well, know the time of day and not lose sleep over it. All said and done, you've got to be some sort of a c*nt to end up in court repeatedly, most of this CRA stuff is basic and simple, the grey area is quite small.

The key is to learn from it imo. I have and I suggest others who seem to want to wave their cocks at each other do the same. As humbling as that may be.

Kind of agree with this. I’ve read plenty of the CAG forum and some of the advice on there is abysmal. Basically telling someone to reject the car for any reason and to dump it on the traders premises etc. If anyone read this they would actually realise it’s a complex issue. But there again, it would probably blunt their attack and in that case they’d bury their heads and ignore it as it wouldn’t give them the warm fuzzy feeling the CAG forum does.

Or you would do if you weren’t so fucking lazy

No, it doesn’t depend. If you can’t prove it wasn’t there at the POS the consumer has a strong case but it doesn’t mean you have to replace a gearbox on a car worth less than the gearbox itself. Again, this is a grey area made so because the CRA is meant to be a black and white law and it’s applied to something that has thousands of different components. It’s bollocks, frankly but there you go.

Probably but no one will get a definitive answer, just opinion. At the end of the day if it went all the way to court the judge will decide. It’s up to the trader (with the experience of someone like Lawgistics) and the consumer if they want to take their chances. Pick your battles and all that.

In this example yes. But it’s not a carte Blanche one size fits all case of “if the fault wasn’t there at the POS and it’s developed we don’t have to fix it” it depends on the purchase price, age of vehicle, mileage and so on.

Mark, like me and I daresay most on here, Rory has already stated this, we would do all we could to help a customer assuming they are playing the game. I think in this instance the OP is asking what he HAS to do, not what he COULD do. Personally i’d be digging my heels in on this one. A car half the age and mileage i’d be less sure of taking my chances through the courts.

Sorry that’s not correct. If you sell someone a car and a fault develops 4 months later than renders the goods not fit for purpose then you’re in the chair, assuming the fault isn’t due to user error or wear and tear. And that’s the grey area. In the OP’s case it’s reasonable to expect a 14 year old gearbox with 120,000 miles to have suffered fair wear and tear. A 6 year old car with 60,000 miles, not so. Who decides that? The judge I expect!

You’re still liable to fix faults that develop mate. The argument is whether the fault is down to fair wear and tear. That’s the subjective part.

Ok well you’re golden then. The only thing this thread has done is start a few rows

But you have Lawgistics on the case mate, they know the law. What are they saying?

If you have Lawgistics on the case the last thing you need is us lot guessing away what are Lawgistics saying? I assume they are definitely saying a refund is out of the question and I assume they are also saying due to the age and mileage of the car the replacement gearbox isn’t a fair reflection of what you should be doing?

“Now having said that..... My warranty period is 3 months, and if the said claim falls outside 3 months I would not want to be paying for this old spunker to get fixed.” Can you explain why you would pay for the car to be fixed within 3 months but not after 3 months? And why your 3 month warranty has ANY bearing whatsoever on this subject?