Bring the garage to court

Sonnenblumen

Hagar wrote:

I'm guessing that the OP's username suggests he is associated with a tiling firm and that therefore vehicle was paid for with a company cheque. If so it probably takes the purchase out of the realms of "private use".

and also out of the Small Claims court, commercial goods claims are excluded.

crosstownk

I'm with Hagar and others on this. If it's a trade (as is) sale then your on a looser. You got the 'out the gate' warranty.

Just wondering, but, is their not an onus on the selling dealer/trader to ensure that a buyer is indeed 'in the trade'?

Dmtiling

Ok - here is abit of an update. I have been in touch with the cusomer rights people and they say that I can not be sold faulty goods. The AS IS dosn't come into play. The garage can not sell you a vehicle that is not in working order without pointing out the faults to you before hand. They advised me to contact the small claims court and see if they would take my case.

The van is in my name and not my business name so the small claims court is available to me.

When I rang the small claims court they said I have a case and they would take my case.

The only thing is that I have to pay for the damage to be repaired in the garage it is in now. After that I can claim off the garage where I bought the van for the costs of the repair work.

I am not in the motor trade so the van should not have been sold to me as trade in the first place. This is the garages fault even though it seems they were doing me a favour.

I will keep you all posted as to how this pans out. Hopefully i won't be out of pocket for to long.

Darragh29

Dmtiling wrote:

When I rang the small claims court they said I have a case and they would take my case.

I'm not too sure any Small Claims Court would give you any such advise. They are a division of the District Court, are independent in their functions and I seriously doubt that they would advise you whether you have a case or not.

Dmtiling wrote:

I am not in the motor trade so the van should not have been sold to me as trade in the first place. This is the garages fault even though it seems they were doing me a favour.

I'd say the garage have their arse well covered on this one. There is a form you have to sign when buying a vehicle "sold as seen" and if you have signed it, you have basically accepted that the vehicle is unsafe to drive, is unroadworthy and that you have accepted no warranty whatsoever with it, either express or implied. I've seen this form before and it actually recommends that the vehicle is not driven off the site but is professionally transported/recovered to it's next location, so should the worst case scenario arise and your brakes fail completely when you turn left out of the garage onto a main road, the garage has no liability. Also, as you have learned, you don't have to be in the trade to buy a vehicle on a "sold as seen" basis. If you go down to Wilsons Car Auctions on the Naas Road, every car is sold on a "sold as seen" basis and many of these are bought by private buyers. There is no recourse to the Sale of Good & Supply of Services Act, 1980 or to the SCC or anywhere else, should your new car go up in flames on the kerb outside Wilsons. Basically you can't really lose in the SCC because it's only costing you a tenner or something so that's all you can lose.

Again, what exactly is wrong with the vehicle now???

Darragh29

Section 13 of the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act, 1980, states:

Implied condition on sale of motor vehicles.

13.—(1) In this section "motor vehicle" means a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—


( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, and


( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical.


(2) Without prejudice to any other condition or warranty, in every contract for the sale of a motor vehicle (except a contract in which the buyer is a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles) there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery of the vehicle under the contract it is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.


(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply where—


( a ) it is agreed between the seller and the buyer that the vehicle is not intended for use in the condition in which it is to be delivered to the buyer under the contract, and


( b ) a document consisting of a statement to that effect is signed by or on behalf of the seller and the buyer and given to the buyer prior to or at the time of such delivery, and


( c ) it is shown that the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) is fair and reasonable.


(4) Save in a case in which the implied condition as to freedom from defects referred to in subsection (2) is either not incorporated in the contract or has been effectively excluded from the contract pursuant to that subsection, in the case of every sale of a motor vehicle by a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles a certificate in writing in such form as the Minister may by regulations prescribe shall be given to the buyer by or on behalf of the seller to the effect that the vehicle is, at the time of delivery, free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.


(5) Where an action is brought for breach of the implied condition referred to in subsection (2) by reason of a specific defect in a motor vehicle and a certificate complying with the requirements of this section is not proved to have been given, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the proven defect existed at the time of delivery.


(6) Regulations under subsection (4) may apply to motor vehicles generally or to motor vehicles of a particular class or description (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) and different forms of certificate may be prescribed for different classes or descriptions of vehicles.


(7) A person using a motor vehicle with the consent of the buyer of the vehicle who suffers loss as the result of a breach of the condition implied by subsection (2) in the contract of sale may maintain an action for damages against the seller in respect of the breach as if he were the buyer.


(8) The Statute of Limitations, 1957 , is hereby amended—


(I) by the insertion in section 11 (2) of the following paragraph—


"(d) An action for damages under section 13 (7) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 , shall not be brought after the expiration of two years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.";


(II) by the insertion in section 49 of the following subsection—


"(5) In the case of an action claiming damages under section 13 (7) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 , subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words 'six years' there were substituted the words 'two years'.".


(9) Notwithstanding section 55 (1) of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 22 of this Act) any term of a contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of this section shall be void.

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

I'm not too sure any Small Claims Court would give you any such advise. They are a division of the District Court, are independent in their functions and I seriously doubt that they would advise you whether you have a case or not.

They will. They have their own registrar who deals with the queries and who assists people in filling out forms. It isn't very bureaucratic and is designed for ordinary people. If the registrar felt the OP wouldn't have a chance, he would say it and save everyone the hassle.

Buying goods in an auction is a very different state of affairs!

My understanding of "sold as seen" is that there is no warranty. It is not an out for a dangerously defective vehicle, nor will it allow someone to avoid any representations they made to the customer as to the condition of the vehicle. I would bet my bottom dollar that this is how the district court judge will view it too.

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

Buying goods in an auction is a very different state of affairs!

Not at all. An auction and a car dealership both rely on the same exemptions found in section 13 of the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act, 1980, that provide for a car to be "sold as seen" to a buyer, should the buyer (in exchange for a knocked down price), accept the terms of the contract with regard to the exclusion of warranty. Obviously the garage/dealer would have to have such a contract in writing with the buyer, which is clear from section 13 above. If the buyer has signed a "sold as seen" contract, I don't see any chance of him getting relief at the Small Claims Court. I'd be surprised if the garage just let the OP walk out the door with no "sold as seen" contract or they would be stupid and he would have a case, but I very much doubt that this is what the circumstances are here.

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

Not at all. An auction and a car dealership both rely on the same exemptions found in section 13 of the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act, 1980, that provide for a car to be "sold as seen" to a buyer, should the buyer (in exchange for a knocked down price), accept the terms of the contract with regard to the exclusion of warranty. Obviously the garage/dealer would have to have such a contract in writing with the buyer, which is clear from section 13 above. If the buyer has signed a "sold as seen" contract, I don't see any chance of him getting relief at the Small Claims Court. I'd be surprised if the garage just let the OP walk out the door with no "sold as seen" contract or they would be stupid and he would have a case, but I very much doubt that this is what the circumstances are here.

s.3 provides that when buying at an auction a person cannot be considered a consumer. As we have discussed above the issue as to whether the OP is, or is not, a consumer is very relevant. Again, as I said above, if the OP is a consumer he has certain rights that he cannot contract out of...i.e. his agreement not to come back for redress may not be binding on him!

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

s.3 provides that when buying at an auction a person cannot be considered a consumer. As we have discussed above the issue as to whether the OP is, or is not, a consumer is very relevant. Again, as I said above, if the OP is a consumer he has certain rights that he cannot contract out of...i.e. his agreement not to come back for redress may not be binding on him!

He is not a "consumer" as it is defined by the act, if he is not using the vehicle for private personal use. In this case, he is using the vehicle for business use, which as fas as I know puts his case outside the remit of the act in question, and this is irrespective of what his trade or profession is. He can purchase the vehicle privately but when he uses it for any purpose other than personal private use, as far as I can see, he places himself outside the definition of consumer in terms of its definition within the act. He can contract himself out of any warranty once he signs a contract to this effect in writing and his contract in which is has accepted no warranty is binding on him, once of course he ticks all the boxes for being a consumer, which I don't think he does...

maidhc

Darragh29 wrote:

He is not a "consumer" as it is defined by the act, if he is not using the vehicle for private personal use. In this case, he is using the vehicle for business use, which as fas as I know puts his case outside the remit of the act in question, and this is irrespective of what his trade or profession is. He can purchase the vehicle privately but when he uses it for any purpose other than personal private use, as far as I can see, he places himself outside the definition of consumer in terms of its definition within the act. He can contract himself out of any warranty once he signs a contract to this effect in writing and his contract in which is has accepted no warranty is binding on him, once of course he licks all the boxes for being a consumer, which I don't think he does...

Even so, it does not get the garage off the hook if they represented the Van was in pefect working order and he bought on the strength of that promise.

Believe you me, I have seen these cases run, and district court judges never like used car salesmen much!

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

Even so, it does not get the garage off the hook if they represented the Van was in pefect working order and he bought on the strength of that promise.

Believe you me, I have seen these cases run, and district court judges never like used car salesmen much!

I dunno Maidhc, what he said or what the garage said is one thing but what he may have signed as a party to a contract is another. I don't have the experience that you have with seeing the cases in action, my knowledge on this goes back a few years to college.

If I was the OP, I'd be getting a solicitor involved immediately with a view to piling on the pressure to leverage a settlement with the garage in the short term. I'm surprised the garage won't entertain him at all, because this is just bad business in my opinion. If that didn't have the required result, I'd go down the small claims road, the case could be rejected (or accepted) if the SCC deals with the matter of whether the buyer was a private buyer or a commerical buyer as a preliminary issue and then rules on that and moves onto the substantive issues at hand. Either way, for a tenner or whatever it is, I'd do it, if only to tie up their staff for the day! The OP hasn't told us what is wrong with the vehicle that now requires over a grands worth of work. I'd be interested in hearing this.

laney82

What kind of document did the OP sign when he bought the van? Was it an SIMI form?

dionsiseire

im considering similar with the garage i bought my car from

i paid €3600 for a car the car had 41,200 miles on it
i dont think i even managed to break 42,000 miles on it in the 9 months its been in my ownership

The problem is that the Bigend is gone on the engine and is feeding bits of metal into the oil cogs which is grinding them up.
ive been told i will need a new engine and possible other small parts to make up a complete fix which the garage believe to be as good as "beyond economical repair"

Everyone ive talked to about it has said that there is no way a bigend on a car should be gone after 40,000 miles.

ive been considering my option on it as 3600 is a big loss to me.

do people think i stand a chance, would i be better trying to do a trade in using the car and see if i can get something for the car towards a newer car?

Dmtiling

Been a day or two since i checked back on this post.

To answer the question as to what is wrong with the van...

The ECU is gone. And the wiring loom going to the ECU had alot of broken wires in it.

I have decided to get a solicitor involved or atleast get his advise on the matter.

maidhc

Dmtiling wrote:

I have decided to get a solicitor involved or atleast get his advise on the matter.

Very sensible. Solicitors are surprisingly cheap too

Looks to me like the garage knew there was a huge problem and tried to pull a fast one.

PanhardPL

maidhc wrote:

Very sensible. Solicitors are surprisingly cheap too

Looks to me like the garage knew there was a huge problem and tried to pull a fast one.

Solicitors Cheap? Tell me where they are.

laney82

If, when purchasing a vehicle from a garage, you signed an SIMI Vehicle Order Form then you should be aware that this contains a provision that in the event of a dispute between the customer and the dealer it shall be referred to arbitration firstly.

I work in a garage.

maidhc

laney82 wrote:

If, when purchasing a vehicle from a garage, you signed an SIMI Vehicle Order Form then you should be aware that this contains a provision that in the event of a dispute between the customer and the dealer it shall be referred to arbitration firstly.

I work in a garage.

Thats not a major problem though. Same rules apply. It might require the OP to pay 1/2 the arbitrators fees up front... which could be up to 5k.

If the OP is a consumer then the Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations can be used to block the arbitration clause.

Darragh29

maidhc wrote:

Thats not a major problem though. Same rules apply. It might require the OP to pay 1/2 the arbitrators fees up front... which could be up to 5k.

If the OP is a consumer then the Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations can be used to block the arbitration clause.

The SIMI have a grievance procedure which can be invoked by a customer against a garage/seller that is affiliated to the SIMI. I've read on here before of a customer who used the procedure and didn't think much of it at the time. If I was you, I'd just go to a solicitor and get a letter written threatening court action if the matter is not remied. It might put the ****'s up them, and force a response out of them. I think thought you need reflect fully on the fact that "sold as seen" does not automatically mean "trade buyer". I mean you could be buying as a "sold as seen" basis with a view to having your uncle or brother who is a mechanic, fixing anything that might be wrong with a car thats "sold as seen".