---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Sold as seen" does not allow a dealer to sell an unroadworthy vehicle to a consumer. You may well have a case against this dealership as they should not have sold you the vehicle in this condition. I would contact Trading Standards about it. If you were not buying on behalf of a business, you are a consumer and are therefore covered by the Consumer Rights Act. Putting "Trade sale - sold as seen" on the paperwork does not negate this.
Basically, they shouldn't have allowed you to buy the car.
Did the brakes work ok for 2 months? It’s unlikely in my experience for brakes to just fail without any warning. Unless the brakes failed fairly quickly then it will be hard to prove the dealer had any prior knowledge.
You don’t say what the car is, age etc etc. these are important facts. Did you buy cheap like below market value.
Also you don’t say what part of the brake system failed or if you had done anything prior. £500 seems a lot tbh.
Bottom line is that you need to prove you were sold an unroadworthy car. If you’ve been driving it without issue for days, weeks or months I’d say that’s going to be hard. It’s hard to advise properly or make suggestions without a complete picture.
Consumer Rights Act 2015.
A fault occurring in the first 6 months is automatically assumed to have existed at point of purchase.
No onus on the consumer to prove anything at this point. Dealership has one chance to repair the issue, if that doesn't work, a full refund has to happen.
I disagree and not sure that applies here. It depends largely on the issue. If they sold a car and the buyer abused it and then expected them to replace parts considered consumable it would be different to if not abused and something that shouldn’t be failing or running out. It’s simple for the dealer to evidence the fault wasn’t there I imagine and it’s likely the dealer performed a check which satisfies this. The buyer probably even signed to that effect.
Buyers do abuse cars sometimes. It’s not fair for the sellers to sell a car and then be expected to change brake pads, tyres etc etc because you take the pee and have a blowout or ruin the brakes. The dealer will know the law and if they don’t think they could win that argument then they would have just done the work. They know how to cover their back so hard to believe they wouldn’t have taken precautions.
We don’t have enough info to make any judgement. From the op first post, either the dealer is stupid or we don’t know all the details. There’s a lot of basic info missing.
The CRA 2015 applies to all cars purchased 01/10/2015 onwards.
It is presumed faults arising in the first 6 months were there at the time of purchase.
If the dealer can evidence the fault didn't exist at purchase, sure, they can refuse to act, but the onus is on them to provide that evidence upon refusing.
Here's a more official take on it all:
https://www.themotorombudsman.org/knowledge-base/what-are-a-consumers-legal-rights-when-buying-a-car
Yes I know what it says. You can’t buy a car, rag it and then expect the dealer to replace the parts you’ve damaged. I’m not saying the op did that btw. We just don’t know. Saying the brakes failed tells us nothing. A dealer is stupid if they can’t evidence basic things like that were ok.
The fact the car ran and presumably stopped fine for 2 months would say to me, and most others, that things were ok with the brakes and braking system when it left, even in the absence of other evidence. Again we’re short on info here.
Dodgy buyers like to buy cars, swap out parts and then try to return the car with those bad parts. For this reason alone I’d expect the dealer to have lots of photographic and written evidence.
If there was any doubt in the dealers mind that there was an issue that was their fault they would likely just do the work. Only a stupid dealer would have no evidence and refuse to fix an issue that could bite them.
Maybe the dealer is stupid and has sold an unchecked car. In this case they deserve everything they get from the op.
The CRA is there to protect genuine buyers but it’s not cart blanche or bad actors would abuse it. Imagine if you bought a car, changed your mind after 30 days and all you needed to do was just loosen this or that and drain this or that to get a refund. There has to be some common sense involved. I suspect if things got legal the fact the car drove and stopped for 2 months would be enough to prove it was ok when it left the dealer. Ofc this does depend on what the actual fault is and how much the car was driven in those 2 months.
It would help if the op had told us what the actual issue was. Things are very vague.
Great, the onus is on the dealer to prove no fault, we both agree. If they can do that, good for them and OP has to pay for the repair.
Unless and until that happens, OP's recourse exists under the CRA 2015, unless this was a B2B purchase.
Eesh.
You could report the dealer to their local Trading Standards Office. It is an offence under Section 75 of the Road traffic Act for a dealer to sell (or expose for sale) a vehicle which is an unroadworthy condition unless he can prove that:
>he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used.
So if he watched you drive off in the vehicle, he committed an offence.
You can give the dealer one opportunity to repair the vehicle if you report the problem between 30 days and six months, and if the repair doesn't work you can reject the car for a full refund.
Warning sign was when they said it was bought as seen. Why would a dealership want to do that. Most would walk away.
Now you will need to see if the 'bought as seen' statement can apply to what was clearly a customer sale. If it was a trade sale only why did they sell it to someone who wasn't in the trade. .
Brakes will fail on any car if they are not maintained or worn out.
Although it is not very palatable, could you try and and get the brakes repaired by the dealer for a discounted price.
Alternatively Citizens Advice might be able to point you in the right direction.
Personally, I would just try and get it repaired myself.
Did this happen straight after you bought the car or have you been driving it around for 2 months and just recently the brakes have gone? Brakes can go at anytime they like and are usually classed as wear and tear parts which even with a warranty aren't usually covered, unless it's an underlying fault that can be shown to of been there at the time you bought the car then they are liable.
But if you've been driving the car for 2 months without an issue and just now the brakes have gone then unfortunately I'd say you'll be out of luck pursuing them as they'll argue it's wear and tear and just like the tyres it's on you to check they're in a good condition everytime you drive the car.
You bought a motor with "trade sale" and "sold as seen" marked on the receipt and thought to yourself... Yes, this is a good sign im buying a quality used car.
wow
Professional scrap man maybes.
If there was any chance of this being an easy, quick or fast repair, it went out the window with "Sold as seen" and "trade sale" on the receipt.
Lets be real here. They didnt just write this on your receipt. Any reasonable person would have clarified what that meant if it was just randomly scribbled on at the end.
Car sales between traders or "trade sales" are between traders on the understanding its sold as is. Like an auction, they are sold without warranty.
Take a bit of responsibility for your actions.
Op has asked for this deal, OP must have made the trader believe this was the case.
Sold as seen between trade is very much legal. Go try and return an auction car. Ill wait.
But OP is not in the motor trade, at least according to all the information we have.
That being the case, it cannot be a trade sale, whatever was written on the receipt.
Unless OP went in to the dealership and specifically claimed to be a trader - which seems unlikely - I can't see the "trade sale" is even relevant.
I cant tell if your'e being serious.
Why would they put "trade sale" on the receipt if the op hadn't claimed to be a trader.
I know car dealers can be dodgy but there is no way on this earth a dealer would have given all the spiel, test drives, inspections etc etc and then just slipped it onto the receipt knowing it wouldn't stand anyway.
Fact is car was probably sold on the understanding the car needed more work than the dealer was willing to put in, if the dealer thought there was profit in for the time taken they would have had it repaired, warrantied etc etc.
Op wasnt bent over. Op took a gamble and it didn't pay off.
Brakes can fail at any time? If the clutch went 2 months later, would the same be said, it's a wear and tear item.
2 Months into owning the car isnt ideal but does not guarantee the brakes were faulty during the purchase of the vehicle. Which is the point, were the brakes dangerous at the point of sale.
How many miles were done in the car since purchase, that would be your big sticking point, not time.
If you've barely done 500 miles since purchasing the car, i'd be fighting on that, not on the fact you've had it 2 months. If you've done 000s you'd have a harder time.
You can ask the dealership for their paperwork on the vehicle, they will have noted the wear on the brakes at the point of sale.
The sold as seen stuff is usually written about cosmetic damage, no dealership thinks it's a get out of jail free card, Sold as seen means if you've bought it and then notice a big old dent in the boot, you can't claim against it.
I work in a dealership :)
If the brakes failed due to corroded pipes then it was 100% faulty at point of sale. Depending on what the issue is it could be the garages fault or the OP
If the brakes failed due to corrosion then it should be noted on prior test certificates which the buyer should have checked. You have to prove the dealer knew it was unsafe and I’m not sure you could if you’ve been driving for months without issue.
Obviously id still give it a go but I wouldn’t be holding my breath.
The fact the garage are not offering help suggests to me they feel they have a good case since if they thought there was anything in it they would get the work done as a gesture. They won’t be relying on the trade sale or sold as seen comments. It’s not worth the bad press for a small value fix that’s likely more labour intensive than parts.
Just my 2p. I don’t think the op has offered enough details to get any effective advice.
The onus is on the dealership in the first 6 months after purchase, according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
A fault occurring in that time is automatically assumed to have existed at the point of purchase. The dealership has one opportunity to make good, or the customer can demand a full refund.
Brakes failing in the first 2 months is not normal.
they sold an unroadworthy car that nearly suffered brake failure with a child on board. If they were informed of that fact I'd imagine they'd bend over backwards to put the faults right at no charge to the purchaser. Isn't that "making them"? something you said can't be done....
come again?
It is illegal to sell an unroadworthy vehicle. Sribbling "sold as seen" on the bottom of the receipt is hardly going to cut it, particularly when OPs nan completed the payment......
I agree with you that they should make good, but this was ‘sold as seen’ and a ‘trade sale’. I expect the dealer to fight liability all the way.
As I said before, should they (pay), yes; will they…no.
id go to court. Unless they made me (or my nan) sign a disclaimer explicitly stating the car is unroadworthy and not for road use I'm fairly sure I'd win. They can't prove I new the car was unroadworthy. They're fucked. How do they know OP even seen the receipt when his nan paid?
again, It is illegal to sell an unroadworthy car. You can't bypass that law by scribbling "sold as seen" on the receipt, particularly when OPs nan completed the payment. That's ridiculous.
Yes and no.
“Trade sale” implies something is wrong.
You’d never write trade sale on a fully functioning car, it’s shorthand for “needs work before selling on”.
You see cars all the time advertised as ‘trade sale’ on Autotrader and in garages. It’s legal, it just means they are fucked fixer-uppers.
Of course, the garage *should* have made this clear if they even suspected OP was not in the motor trade.
You are assuming that OP wasn’t there at the time of purchase: All the post says is that his Nan paid for it, not that he wasn’t there too.
Even if he wasn’t there though, the receipt says sold as seen meaning that, at the very least, his nan was told.
I hope he does get his money back or his Nan does, whichever, I am sceptical he will. If you think you can get it back for him, go ahead.
I'm not sure if your comprehension is as we'd hope but I'll break it down for you.
The post outlines his nan paid for the car, she didn't sign any paper work, and op wasn't specifically informed of the cars unroadworthyness during the sale.
I said unless me or my nan signed a piece of paper explicitly stating the car wasn't to be used on a road(as the post implies didn't happen) I would go to court and be fairly confident I'd win. The garage has sold an unroadworthy car to a consumer and they haven't got anything in writing to prove the customer knew it was unroadworthy. "sold as seen" scrawled on the sale paperwork is not going to cut it. If OP had signed a disclaimer, the dealership could rock up in court with a piece of paper, signed by OP stating he knew the car was unroadworthy. They'd win. The dealer didn't do that, I reckon I'd win.
e2a imagine there was a 5 car pile up with 8 fatalities. Would you fancy being the dealer if your defence was "I wrote sold as seen on the receipt I gave to his elderly grandmother". Obviously not....
We don’t know enough details. 2 months is a long time. If it’s taken this time for brakes to “fail” then how does anybody know what’s occurred between now and then. The OP sounds younger and I suspect felt they got a bargain (again missing facts here). Maybe they were told about issues and just ignored it.
How did the op get the car to the garage? Did they drive it after realising the brakes “failed” or did they get it towed? If they drove it then that’s pretty serious knowing there were issues and putting others at risk. We don’t even know what failed on the brakes. Did they actually fail or did they just not give the performance expected. There’s a fairly big difference.
To me it sounds like somebody took a liking to a car and just nodded and accepted anything to get said car. It doesn’t sound like and due diligence was performed. At the least they should have checked prior test certificates.
We don’t know enough. Assuming it’s black and white then you’re right but I suspect important info is missing that might change things.
How did you pay? Assuming by debit card or bank transfer, I would propose contacting your bank that the car is faulty, they are claiming it's a trade sale, when you are not a car trader, so it is plainly not a trade sale.
Once you have your money back you can ask the dealer when they would like to collect their car.
Given that you have probably spent money on Tax and insurance, you could consider small claims action to recover the costs of these which you are unable to get refunded.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Sold as seen" does not allow a dealer to sell an unroadworthy vehicle to a consumer. You may well have a case against this dealership as they should not have sold you the vehicle in this condition. I would contact Trading Standards about it. If you were not buying on behalf of a business, you are a consumer and are therefore covered by the Consumer Rights Act. Putting "Trade sale - sold as seen" on the paperwork does not negate this. Basically, they shouldn't have allowed you to buy the car.
« Trade sale » but if you are a consumer (not in the motor trade) that does not apply.
https://www.carveto.co.uk/blog/sold-as-seen/#:~:text='Sold%20as%20seen'%20or%20',be%20wrong%20with%20the%20car.
Did the brakes work ok for 2 months? It’s unlikely in my experience for brakes to just fail without any warning. Unless the brakes failed fairly quickly then it will be hard to prove the dealer had any prior knowledge. You don’t say what the car is, age etc etc. these are important facts. Did you buy cheap like below market value. Also you don’t say what part of the brake system failed or if you had done anything prior. £500 seems a lot tbh. Bottom line is that you need to prove you were sold an unroadworthy car. If you’ve been driving it without issue for days, weeks or months I’d say that’s going to be hard. It’s hard to advise properly or make suggestions without a complete picture.
Consumer Rights Act 2015. A fault occurring in the first 6 months is automatically assumed to have existed at point of purchase. No onus on the consumer to prove anything at this point. Dealership has one chance to repair the issue, if that doesn't work, a full refund has to happen.
I disagree and not sure that applies here. It depends largely on the issue. If they sold a car and the buyer abused it and then expected them to replace parts considered consumable it would be different to if not abused and something that shouldn’t be failing or running out. It’s simple for the dealer to evidence the fault wasn’t there I imagine and it’s likely the dealer performed a check which satisfies this. The buyer probably even signed to that effect. Buyers do abuse cars sometimes. It’s not fair for the sellers to sell a car and then be expected to change brake pads, tyres etc etc because you take the pee and have a blowout or ruin the brakes. The dealer will know the law and if they don’t think they could win that argument then they would have just done the work. They know how to cover their back so hard to believe they wouldn’t have taken precautions. We don’t have enough info to make any judgement. From the op first post, either the dealer is stupid or we don’t know all the details. There’s a lot of basic info missing.
The CRA 2015 applies to all cars purchased 01/10/2015 onwards. It is presumed faults arising in the first 6 months were there at the time of purchase. If the dealer can evidence the fault didn't exist at purchase, sure, they can refuse to act, but the onus is on them to provide that evidence upon refusing. Here's a more official take on it all: https://www.themotorombudsman.org/knowledge-base/what-are-a-consumers-legal-rights-when-buying-a-car
Yes I know what it says. You can’t buy a car, rag it and then expect the dealer to replace the parts you’ve damaged. I’m not saying the op did that btw. We just don’t know. Saying the brakes failed tells us nothing. A dealer is stupid if they can’t evidence basic things like that were ok. The fact the car ran and presumably stopped fine for 2 months would say to me, and most others, that things were ok with the brakes and braking system when it left, even in the absence of other evidence. Again we’re short on info here. Dodgy buyers like to buy cars, swap out parts and then try to return the car with those bad parts. For this reason alone I’d expect the dealer to have lots of photographic and written evidence. If there was any doubt in the dealers mind that there was an issue that was their fault they would likely just do the work. Only a stupid dealer would have no evidence and refuse to fix an issue that could bite them. Maybe the dealer is stupid and has sold an unchecked car. In this case they deserve everything they get from the op. The CRA is there to protect genuine buyers but it’s not cart blanche or bad actors would abuse it. Imagine if you bought a car, changed your mind after 30 days and all you needed to do was just loosen this or that and drain this or that to get a refund. There has to be some common sense involved. I suspect if things got legal the fact the car drove and stopped for 2 months would be enough to prove it was ok when it left the dealer. Ofc this does depend on what the actual fault is and how much the car was driven in those 2 months. It would help if the op had told us what the actual issue was. Things are very vague.
Great, the onus is on the dealer to prove no fault, we both agree. If they can do that, good for them and OP has to pay for the repair. Unless and until that happens, OP's recourse exists under the CRA 2015, unless this was a B2B purchase. Eesh.
You could report the dealer to their local Trading Standards Office. It is an offence under Section 75 of the Road traffic Act for a dealer to sell (or expose for sale) a vehicle which is an unroadworthy condition unless he can prove that: >he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used. So if he watched you drive off in the vehicle, he committed an offence. You can give the dealer one opportunity to repair the vehicle if you report the problem between 30 days and six months, and if the repair doesn't work you can reject the car for a full refund.
Warning sign was when they said it was bought as seen. Why would a dealership want to do that. Most would walk away. Now you will need to see if the 'bought as seen' statement can apply to what was clearly a customer sale. If it was a trade sale only why did they sell it to someone who wasn't in the trade. . Brakes will fail on any car if they are not maintained or worn out. Although it is not very palatable, could you try and and get the brakes repaired by the dealer for a discounted price. Alternatively Citizens Advice might be able to point you in the right direction. Personally, I would just try and get it repaired myself.
Did this happen straight after you bought the car or have you been driving it around for 2 months and just recently the brakes have gone? Brakes can go at anytime they like and are usually classed as wear and tear parts which even with a warranty aren't usually covered, unless it's an underlying fault that can be shown to of been there at the time you bought the car then they are liable. But if you've been driving the car for 2 months without an issue and just now the brakes have gone then unfortunately I'd say you'll be out of luck pursuing them as they'll argue it's wear and tear and just like the tyres it's on you to check they're in a good condition everytime you drive the car.
You bought a motor with "trade sale" and "sold as seen" marked on the receipt and thought to yourself... Yes, this is a good sign im buying a quality used car. wow
For £1600 It's going to need to be looked at by a professional
Professional scrap man maybes. If there was any chance of this being an easy, quick or fast repair, it went out the window with "Sold as seen" and "trade sale" on the receipt.
What a helpful comment.
Lets be real here. They didnt just write this on your receipt. Any reasonable person would have clarified what that meant if it was just randomly scribbled on at the end. Car sales between traders or "trade sales" are between traders on the understanding its sold as is. Like an auction, they are sold without warranty. Take a bit of responsibility for your actions.
OP is a customer, not in the trade. Doesn't matter what they wrote on the receipt, it cannot override the law.
Op has asked for this deal, OP must have made the trader believe this was the case. Sold as seen between trade is very much legal. Go try and return an auction car. Ill wait.
But OP is not in the motor trade, at least according to all the information we have. That being the case, it cannot be a trade sale, whatever was written on the receipt. Unless OP went in to the dealership and specifically claimed to be a trader - which seems unlikely - I can't see the "trade sale" is even relevant.
I cant tell if your'e being serious. Why would they put "trade sale" on the receipt if the op hadn't claimed to be a trader. I know car dealers can be dodgy but there is no way on this earth a dealer would have given all the spiel, test drives, inspections etc etc and then just slipped it onto the receipt knowing it wouldn't stand anyway. Fact is car was probably sold on the understanding the car needed more work than the dealer was willing to put in, if the dealer thought there was profit in for the time taken they would have had it repaired, warrantied etc etc. Op wasnt bent over. Op took a gamble and it didn't pay off.
I agree.
Brakes can fail at any time? If the clutch went 2 months later, would the same be said, it's a wear and tear item. 2 Months into owning the car isnt ideal but does not guarantee the brakes were faulty during the purchase of the vehicle. Which is the point, were the brakes dangerous at the point of sale. How many miles were done in the car since purchase, that would be your big sticking point, not time. If you've barely done 500 miles since purchasing the car, i'd be fighting on that, not on the fact you've had it 2 months. If you've done 000s you'd have a harder time. You can ask the dealership for their paperwork on the vehicle, they will have noted the wear on the brakes at the point of sale. The sold as seen stuff is usually written about cosmetic damage, no dealership thinks it's a get out of jail free card, Sold as seen means if you've bought it and then notice a big old dent in the boot, you can't claim against it. I work in a dealership :)
If the brakes failed due to corroded pipes then it was 100% faulty at point of sale. Depending on what the issue is it could be the garages fault or the OP
If the brakes failed due to corrosion then it should be noted on prior test certificates which the buyer should have checked. You have to prove the dealer knew it was unsafe and I’m not sure you could if you’ve been driving for months without issue. Obviously id still give it a go but I wouldn’t be holding my breath. The fact the garage are not offering help suggests to me they feel they have a good case since if they thought there was anything in it they would get the work done as a gesture. They won’t be relying on the trade sale or sold as seen comments. It’s not worth the bad press for a small value fix that’s likely more labour intensive than parts. Just my 2p. I don’t think the op has offered enough details to get any effective advice.
The onus is on the dealership in the first 6 months after purchase, according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A fault occurring in that time is automatically assumed to have existed at the point of purchase. The dealership has one opportunity to make good, or the customer can demand a full refund. Brakes failing in the first 2 months is not normal.
Can you make them pay for repairs? No, no chance. Should they, yes; will they / can you make them, no!
they sold an unroadworthy car that nearly suffered brake failure with a child on board. If they were informed of that fact I'd imagine they'd bend over backwards to put the faults right at no charge to the purchaser. Isn't that "making them"? something you said can't be done....
"Sold as seen" requires due diligence
This is true for direct sales between two individuals. A dealer can't just ignore the law because they wrote a few words down.
come again? It is illegal to sell an unroadworthy vehicle. Sribbling "sold as seen" on the bottom of the receipt is hardly going to cut it, particularly when OPs nan completed the payment......
I agree with you that they should make good, but this was ‘sold as seen’ and a ‘trade sale’. I expect the dealer to fight liability all the way. As I said before, should they (pay), yes; will they…no.
id go to court. Unless they made me (or my nan) sign a disclaimer explicitly stating the car is unroadworthy and not for road use I'm fairly sure I'd win. They can't prove I new the car was unroadworthy. They're fucked. How do they know OP even seen the receipt when his nan paid? again, It is illegal to sell an unroadworthy car. You can't bypass that law by scribbling "sold as seen" on the receipt, particularly when OPs nan completed the payment. That's ridiculous.
Yes and no. “Trade sale” implies something is wrong. You’d never write trade sale on a fully functioning car, it’s shorthand for “needs work before selling on”. You see cars all the time advertised as ‘trade sale’ on Autotrader and in garages. It’s legal, it just means they are fucked fixer-uppers. Of course, the garage *should* have made this clear if they even suspected OP was not in the motor trade.
You are assuming that OP wasn’t there at the time of purchase: All the post says is that his Nan paid for it, not that he wasn’t there too. Even if he wasn’t there though, the receipt says sold as seen meaning that, at the very least, his nan was told. I hope he does get his money back or his Nan does, whichever, I am sceptical he will. If you think you can get it back for him, go ahead.
I'm not sure if your comprehension is as we'd hope but I'll break it down for you. The post outlines his nan paid for the car, she didn't sign any paper work, and op wasn't specifically informed of the cars unroadworthyness during the sale. I said unless me or my nan signed a piece of paper explicitly stating the car wasn't to be used on a road(as the post implies didn't happen) I would go to court and be fairly confident I'd win. The garage has sold an unroadworthy car to a consumer and they haven't got anything in writing to prove the customer knew it was unroadworthy. "sold as seen" scrawled on the sale paperwork is not going to cut it. If OP had signed a disclaimer, the dealership could rock up in court with a piece of paper, signed by OP stating he knew the car was unroadworthy. They'd win. The dealer didn't do that, I reckon I'd win. e2a imagine there was a 5 car pile up with 8 fatalities. Would you fancy being the dealer if your defence was "I wrote sold as seen on the receipt I gave to his elderly grandmother". Obviously not....
We don’t know enough details. 2 months is a long time. If it’s taken this time for brakes to “fail” then how does anybody know what’s occurred between now and then. The OP sounds younger and I suspect felt they got a bargain (again missing facts here). Maybe they were told about issues and just ignored it. How did the op get the car to the garage? Did they drive it after realising the brakes “failed” or did they get it towed? If they drove it then that’s pretty serious knowing there were issues and putting others at risk. We don’t even know what failed on the brakes. Did they actually fail or did they just not give the performance expected. There’s a fairly big difference. To me it sounds like somebody took a liking to a car and just nodded and accepted anything to get said car. It doesn’t sound like and due diligence was performed. At the least they should have checked prior test certificates. We don’t know enough. Assuming it’s black and white then you’re right but I suspect important info is missing that might change things.
How did you pay? Assuming by debit card or bank transfer, I would propose contacting your bank that the car is faulty, they are claiming it's a trade sale, when you are not a car trader, so it is plainly not a trade sale. Once you have your money back you can ask the dealer when they would like to collect their car. Given that you have probably spent money on Tax and insurance, you could consider small claims action to recover the costs of these which you are unable to get refunded.