GreenGiant

Elephant in the room...... Ben. For your own sake, I hope you get somebody else to write your ads for you, buddy, as I just choked on my cornflakes reading your posts. Others might tell you that grammar and spelling aren't important, but I can assure you they definitely are. Many, many people (me included) make judgements about businesses and individuals based upon their ability to communicate professionally. And, therefore, make further decisions about whether they want to do business with (or employ) them based upon those judgements. I'm sure you're a lovely fellow, but, based upon what I read, would I buy a car from you? Sadly, no. And I may not be alone. #JustSaying

Buy cheap, buy twice.

I'm sorry to report that September has been cancelled due to lack of interest.

So. Had as long discussion yesterday with a chap who had the following story: He bought a new MPV a year ago (not from us). His wife has a small runaround that came in for an MOT and failed, spectacularly. Car's worth £500 in good nick, but needs £1200 worth of work (welding, brakes all round, exhaust etc). He decides that he needs to scrap the little 'un and trade in the MPV for 2 cars. Looking good so far... It didn't matter what I told him, his actual, honest belief is that the small car is now technically a CAT D writeoff and he can claim for that on his insurance... ...and the thumping loss he's going to make on the MPV will be covered by the GAP insurance policy he took out, so he can get back what he paid for it. I suggested he got his claims in and came back to me when he had all the funds in place.

Welcome to 2017. £500k mortgage, full Sky multiroom, all the latest gadgets, 3 holidays a year, Zero pension contributions, Beemer on the drive, f**k all in the fridge.

Had one in today - bought a nearly new sports coupe for £22k last year. In today for service and properly moaning that the cost (£210) is way overpriced and we're ripping him off. His usual establishment (grotty MOT centre) said it will be £96 and he thinks we should match it. On questioning, he says that they don't use OE parts and he provides his own oil, he doesn't want the pollen filter changed and he wants to come to us because they told him they hadn't serviced one of these before and didn't know if their equipment was up to it. And he can't see why that would justify the price difference. Happy to spend all the money on the car, then doesn't want to pay to look after it. Can't wait for the part exchange value discussion.

Somewhere out there is a motoring journalist that ought to be able to do an in-depth study and exposé of the claims by the companies providing 'valuation' services to trade and retail customers. It is clear that they can't all be right, yet they all claim they are. So who's lying? The majority of data is flawed and doesn't take into account actual transaction prices, actual purchase prices, condition, spec etc. I know I've got a bee in my bonnet about AT, but they really do talk a lot of cr4p about their 'valuations'. They have no idea how much their data is distorted by the inaccuracies of prices they treat as gospel. But then, they don't really care as long as we keep paying them to get our own data back. So, you pays your money.....

Irrespective of whether this is true or not, if this is the quality of message coming from their dedicated communication team, they should be seriously worried. Shocker. 'are' instead of 'our'? ffs.

I see what you did there. ;-)

Duly noted, dad. Apologies for any offence caused; I was just joining in the discussion you started. You should have said at the beginning you only want contributions from people that agree with you. Fact is, you've been on the forum a week now and you clearly know nothing about me or anyone else on here. But we've certainly found out a lot about you. So, in future, I'll keep my contrary opinions and judgements to myself. In the hope that you might do the same.

Just so that I understand correctly: You know you were in the wrong but want it to be ignored because you had 'special circumstances' and the rules shouldn't be applied to you because you don't want them to. In fact, you'd prefer it if the previous keeper of the car (that you own and drove) took the wrap on your behalf. It's a blessing you weren't involved in an accident - that would really have got messy. Sadly, it's reality check time. You aren't going to be getting a huge amount of sympathy any time soon. Sorry.

Rumours concerning the demise of the MTD initiative may be a little premature. After all the money and time that has been spent to get this far, it is unlikely that the whole scheme will be completely written off. Vast amounts of the Finance Bill 2017 disappeared as soon as the recent General Election was announced, as there wouldn't have been time for it to be completed. But that doesn't mean it has gone forever. In fact, it's probably a good thing, as it gives more time for the HMRC and their software developers to ensure that they have everything properly ready for when it does eventually happen. So I think it may be considered as a postponement rather than a cancellation.

Hold my beer.... About 15 years ago I took a punt on a couple of unregistered new cars at BCA. They'd been entered as the selling dealer in the Channel Islands had closed and these 2 cars were fully paid new stock that the (French) manufacturer didn't want back. Nobody at the auction wanted them (waaaay before online bidding). Paid £8k for a midsized hatchback and £10k for a bigger one. Had no clue what I was going to do next. Anyway, had a discussion with the DP of the nearest dealership representing that manufacturer and he agreed to ask them to add them into his new car stock, so that they could be registered, for £250 per unit admin fee. Sold the smaller one for £10k (£8k off list) and the bigger one for £12k (£9500 off list), both as New cars. So, £3k-ish up. The Main Dealer registered them, then informed me that the cars were eligible for New Car registration bonuses and, as they also counted towards his targets, he got back-end rewards too. We agreed that we would get the front end reg bonuses and they would get whatever they earned back-end. Turns out the 2 cars were run-out old models and they were massively supported to get rid. *Drum Roll.........* The smaller earned £7500 reg bonus. The bigger one £9000. Both plus vat. So, total outlay £18000. Total net profit nearly £20000. I sh*t you not.

Hmmmm Might be on to something there.... Second thoughts, car-driving braille readers may be a bit too much of a 'niche' market.

But during those 2 years, they will have put a few hundred small dealers out of business, destroyed the residuals on hundreds of models, made buying quality nearly-new stock almost impossible, lowered the gross margins to slightly more than bugger all, dumped all of their customer problems on the main dealers still in business (that they've spent 2 years screwing over) and will leave a lot of people very, very angry and bitter when they pack up and move on. Happy days.

Again: To be entitled to Consumer Rights Act remedies, the fault must render the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described. And it is down to the consumer to show there is a fault and that it was present at the time of delivery. But you don't actually know what the fault is yet. And it wasn't present when the customer took delivery. Although it sounds like you don't have any paperwork to prove that. By agreeing to collect and repair, you've done the right thing (in my view) by the customer and now have the upper hand. If the potential repair is a big 'un, you can bite the pillow, refund and then decide how to proceed. Customer won't be happy, but will have nowhere to go. If it's just a coil pack etc, then repair, return and hope that's it. Customer thinks you're the bee's knees. For now. ...it's been law for nearly 2 years...

There does still seem to be a fair bit of missing knowledge within the Trade with regards to CRA15 I think it would be beneficial to all traders if they spent a few hours reading and understanding the Act. I'm not judging this or any case, but there are a few fundamental facts about CRA15 that we should all have grasped by now, which ought to have rendered this thread irrelevant. Here's a few: The Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies to both new and used vehicles, but does not apply to contracts between manufacturer and the retailer. These business to business transactions remain subject the usual contract rules and the bits of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that remain. This Act is wholly for consumers – that is those individuals “acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession”, so for example, a driving instructor who mainly uses his car for teaching is unlikely to be covered by the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Customers should not be able to reject for just any fault. To be entitled to Consumer Rights Act remedies, the fault must render the vehicle not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described. If a consumer complains of a fault with the vehicle in the first 30 days, they will be entitled to a refund. They can ask for a repair, but they are not obliged to accept a repair and can simply insist on a refund which you will be legally obliged to give. The slight saving grace for dealers is that it is down to the consumer to show there is a fault and that it was present at the time of delivery. The CRA basically says that unless the contract states that the customer must return the goods for a refund, the customer only has to make the car available for collection and so you can insist on the consumer returning the car if that term is written into the contract. Any agreed refund needs to be paid ‘without undue delay’ (but not before you have the car back) and at the latest within 14 days of the agreement to refund, as set out in Section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act. If a dealer does agree to take a car back, they can most certainly make a deduction for usage.

Like. ..and probably not that far in the future, either. It does seem like lines are being drawn, loins being girded and muskets primed. The status quo cannot be maintained, so something has to happen. Could be an interesting few months.

Sorry. The OCD pedantry gene has kicked in.... .....your analogy was great in every respect except the detail. It's the goose that laid the golden eggs that was killed. Aesop's Fables no 87. And don't get me started on the mindblowingly annoying 'of/have' thing.

I tried. I really tried. Ok. Last go..... Trade vet. See the post I made on Fri 16 Jun at 5.40pm? Have a look at the very, very first line. Do you see? It was pointing out that what followed was a quote from the Motability website. Not from me. Or from me pretending to be someone from Motability. I was trying to give some context to your original post; some weight to your argument. I was joining in the conversation you started and are so obviously passionate about. Unfortunately, you got hold of the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to beat yourself with it. And now I wish I'd just let you sit on your high horse shouting in the dark about your wasted millions.

*Sigh* The beauty of the internet. Don't you find that the modern ways of communicating via short messages, forum posts and email etc is that, without context, so much can be misconstrued? For example, one could easily assume from what has been written here that trade vet is just a bored housewife, pretending to be a motor trader who enjoys trolling the forums for a bit of weekend sport. But this is probably not the case. The reality may be that she doesn't restrict it to just weekends. Who knows? Without context it is hard to judge. But, using the powers available to us to do a little research, we can find out all sorts of details about people, without them knowing, in order to give us a little more understanding. Thus we can provide context for ourselves and potentially prevent embarrassing misunderstandings Anyway, it's hot innit?

Peace, brother. A little word game for you: Sort the following into a well-known phrase or saying: tree the up wrong Barking

From motability.co.uk Who we are We are Motability Operations Ltd, an independent company responsible for the finance, administration and maintenance of the Motability Scheme. All Motability Scheme vehicles are leased to customers by us, and we are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. What we do We support people with disabilities in achieving greater independence, through access to affordable, worry-free mobility. Through the Scheme, we lease cars, scooters and powered wheelchairs to people in exchange for their mobility allowance . We are passionate about improving the lives of our 650,000 customers and their families, and focus on meeting their needs. We aim to offer unbeatable value, and provide award-winning customer service. All of our profits are reinvested into the Scheme for the benefit of customers.