• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Handjamjack

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Your industry
    Independent dealer
  • Dealership/company name
    Fell & Dale Cars

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks very much to all those who responded, regardless of your opinion. For what it's worth, here's what I think......There are obviously two main bodies of opinion, one basically saying what do you expect, you bought from a mv auction, you win some and you lose some, learn from it, don't do it again you idiot and move on. The other opinion is that it's wrong of a vendor to fail to declare a major mechanical fault and wrong of the auction company to sell the car without some level of responsibility, and that there should be some redress. My original post had two main points. First, in the current on-line auction only scenario at BCA, buyers are deprived of a) being able to view cars prior to auction and to listen/see cars being started and driven and b) benefiting from comments an auctioneer might make regarding a vehicle in front of them if you were bidding online in a normal auction. BCA say that they only mention faults declared to them by the vendor. I believe that bearing in mind the above, BCA should offer a better level of vehicle information - though not doing so undoubtedly benefits BCA. The second point concerns the integrity and honesty of vendors putting cars into auction with known, serious mechanical faults that they fail to declare. Put simply, it's dishonest and fraudulent. There are clearly many for whom this is a normal part of the motor trade - I have heard it from BCA senior staff as well as other traders such as some of your good selves. That's what people do, it's the motor trade. It's a bit bent. In which case it's a business that I'm probably too honest and too expecting of a degree of honesty and integrity from others, to be in, although I believe my customers appreciate it. I find it quite sad that it's OK to accept that we'll get shafted now and then by other traders, and that we in turn will try and do the same to them if we get a chance. This just perpetuates the dodgy, shady reputation the industry is known for. By the way - if you see a fantastic looking Porsche Cayman reg xxxxxx going into auction sometime soon, don't touch the bloody thing! Thanks again for all the comments.
  2. Nice one - doesn't sound quite right in my northern accent though! Yes, I buy 100+ cars per annum from BCA, sold in a multi vendor category, just the usual basic description with no mention of defects. Thanks for that - I've tried to be as much of a pain in the arse to BCA as possible and escalated it to the CEO - always worth a try.
  3. I'd be interested in comments on this situation: We purchased a Cayman 3.4 through BCA. Once delivered to us, we discovered very quickly that there was a big problem - engine smoking excessively and tapping noise from engine - typical bore scoring issues on this car, which was verified through examination. Through a variety of means we discovered that the vehicle had been bought by a trader through BCA and sold to a customer in March. We have a statement from the customer saying that he returned the vehicle to the vendor shortly after purchase due to the bore scoring issue. The trader then put the car back into auction without declaring that there was a significant engine fault. We purchased the car at auction (serviced just 1k miles ago, full service history, MOT etc) and so have ended up with a car that needs 6k of work. If this had been a Ford Fiesta with a slipping clutch that hadn't been declared I would have just taken it on the chin, but a 6k bill for an engine rebuild is hard to swallow. Both BCA and the vendor don't want to know. It highlights a big issue that BCA have profited from recently when all auctions take place on line and prices have been high. As buyers we don't have a great deal to go on in normal auctions, but at present we are a) not able to see/hear/examine etc cars physically at auction and b) not able to benefit from any comments the auctioneer might normally make as a car goes in front of them eg they might say that for the benefit of online buyers, the car is noisy and smoking. Sold as seen should read sold as not seen. The result is that many cars purchased through the current BCA online system are being purchased at higher prices than normal - not just due to demand, but due to the frequent lack of clear information from BCA. I'm familiar and understand their terms and conditions, the BCA Assured and Essential Check schemes (from which this car did not benefit). Some might say that we took a risk on the car knowing it was sold as seen. I believe it was dishonest verging on fraudulent from the vendor in not declaring the fault, and negligent of BCA not to flag up such a big issue on an expensive car. Anyone been in this situation and managed a successful claim against the vendor? Thanks in advance, John White
  4. Moving swiftly on........if you can find the meat of this thread, the outcome was that the battery had exploded and she wasn't making it up. We fixed the bonnet catch in a couple of minutes with some WD40, put a new battery on, took the car back and sold it again.
  5. It's a bit of a trek, (I'm near Kendal) but I take any gearbox problems that are drivable to Preston Transmissions - always been well-priced and quick.
  6. Heck, whoever would have thought this would lead to Fireman Sam - Naughty Norman would have something to say about this.
  7. I'm getting an independent mechanic to collect the car and examine in situ just in case there's any jiggery pokery going on - of course it could be coincidental.
  8. The saga continues - just had a call from the person in question, it appears that the car made a loud bang when they tried to start it today and now it won't start at all and please can they have their money back..... Correct - a different, cheaper car so they have cash left over to pay the mortgage probably.
  9. After more threats of trading standards this morning including that she has set up a case against me, more of the 'my cousin is a solicitor and she will.....' etc etc, I just kept stating that I believed that I was correct in offering to repair the fault and didn't deviate from that. I got a bit closer to the truth as the morning went on, with this comment from here - 'I'd just prefer the full refund so I can buy another car that will be more suitable'. I think she shot herself in the foot there. Anyway Ive just had a message (much shorter than the previous ones) saying 'yes you can repair the fault'. Followed by a 'and you'll be paying for this because I'm not' - that in response to me saying yes, we'll repair it free of charge under the warranty. There's me thinking that free of charge was a simple concept to understand. Brickhead. Thanks for all comments and hopefully that'll be the end of it.
  10. Thanks once again - I have asked the cat and he just shook his head in disbelief. I've made the offer to repair and stated that it's not sufficient grounds to return the car, and I'm just leaving it up to them now.
  11. I just contacted local Trading Standards for clarification, who transferred me to a helpline that turned out to be Citizens Advice Bureau. Their 'advice' was that a faulty bonnet catch constituted faulty goods and she was within her rights to ask for a refund. It beggars belief.
  12. Thanks very much for the replies - I really appreciate you all taking the time. The car was MOTd, serviced and checked prior to sale and I'm in total agreement that the fault doesn't constitute a serious enough fault to issue a refund and take it back. I am offering (again) to repair the car for her and will be stating that the fault is not serious enough to warrant a return and refund. I believe that sometimes it's easier to issue a refund and just sell the car again and get on with your life rather than have a load of aggro, but equally, sometimes you have to make a stand and just say NO! Car was a 2011 Renault Clio by the way. Thanks again, I'll post the outcome.....
  13. I've always tried to do the right thing when it comes to customers coming back to me with complaints and issues regarding vehicles they have bought from me, sometimes I've probably been too generous, but in a small community it helps to have a good reputation. Today however I have had a lady contact me 29 days after purchase to say that she wants to return the vehicle as it has a faulty bonnet catch and she can't open the bonnet. I have offered to repair the catch, but she is very aggressively pursuing the line of 'I can reject the car and get a full refund if it's less than 30 days post sale'. My question is - is this a valid reason for returning the car? Some pieces of advice I have read suggest that no, it isn't a valid reason and it should be dealt with under warranty, which is my stance. Other advice to the consumer suggests that they don't need a valid reason and can ask for a full refund if it is within the 30 day period. Advice welcome.....and finally, how do people generally deal with situations in which you take a car back inside a 30 day period, only to find that it is in a poor condition or damaged? Thanks in advance for any advice!