If the buyer has a chance of knowing what they are purchasing, then fine, a free for all may be OK but where the consumer cannot know what they are getting until they live with it there should be some protection. As to dealers not fixing problems prior to re-sale, I can see the commercial benefit but because this could well be a safety issue, any dealer caught should be heavily fined and prevented from trading.
Aye! when you buy your car the salesman says its the dogs "parts" cheap to run, great mileage and cheap to insure because of the interchangeable parts, and it holds it value well.
Then, when you go to trade it in its,....not a popular model, has poor mileage, and cost a lot to insure because there are not a lot of them around, and its value drops like stone?
The second hand car market is a disgrace. It cannot be compared with other goods. You might spend £300 on a fridge/freezer but when you are spending £10,000 it is a different matter. Have a look at all these second hand sales pitches. Bit of gravel on the ground (posh ones that is) and an old portakabin for the 'office'. What a joke the whole set up is.
Originally Posted by wagolynn
The 'trader' will largely be uneducated, have little knowledge of the mechanics of cars, tries to find every avenue to not spend money, has no conscience about ripping the public off, pays cash to avoid tax, fits the cheapest parts possible, uses untrained 'mechanics' to 'fix' his beautifully prepared cars, disables cars at auctions to lower the price so he can buy cheaper, lies through his teeth when justifying why he is only giving you £100 in part exchange for your £1,000 car, only answers the phone when he is selling not when you are complaining, drives a nice big car for himself, always gives the car 'a full service' before you take it away, fits part worn/secondhand tyres, removes ABS bulbs from dashboards so they don't fail the MoT even though the ABS will not work, happy to sell a car with the airbag light on 'coz its too dear to fix', plus all the other dodges and tricks too numerous to list.
Buying a broken second hand fridge for £50 wont kill you. A dodgy second hand car for £10,000 will.
All traders should be licensed, qualified and open to rigorous checks at any time. One strike and you are out for good.
do you think that it's time for businesses and/or sales people need to be licenced, they would have to take an exam every 3-5 years on there knowledge of the law/consumer rights, i think they have something similar in america where you cant work as a real estate agent, vehicle sales person and many other lines of work unless you have taken an exam, i can remember the film "tin man" with danny devito selling aluminium sidings for the sides of houses, and he kept mentioning losing his licence for dodgey selling, well i think we should have this here, as we seem to have licences for everything else
Definitely yes. I saw an advert on Autotrader by a trader only yesterday saying his cars 'come with 3 months warranty' (the law says 6 months). Gas engineers have to be registered so why not car dealers and traders? The cost would be offset by the huge reduction in compalints that have to be investigated currently.
Originally Posted by tommytwotanks
Oh but this is unnecessary red tape that prevents commerce from expanding and getting the government out of the hole they are in.
Never mind the quality, feel the width.
Perhaps my previous comments about secondhand cars not ranking in the same bracket as general secondhand goods is not you wanted to read. But I was writing in the context of governments viewpoint. Whether it is a £300 fridge or a £10,000 car, how individual buyers think about this is of no concern to government; as far as government itself is concerned. There are specific inspection services available to buyers. I have no idea regarding how effective or useless these services may be; but, again, government will not be interested in that detail. But government may well be satisfied that such availability is sufficient to warrant their (the government) having no reason to improve matters where vehicles are concerned.
There are already provisions under Trading Standards laws, and vehicles are required to be MoT approved where over 3 years old. For government to accept that this isn't enough would be tantamount to their admission that they had failed; and we all know that isn't about to happen.
Like so many things, it comes down to "buyer beware".
Quote.."and he kept mentioning losing his licence for dodgey selling, well i think we should have this here, as we seem to have licences for everything else"
Aye! well, we seem to have copied everything else form the Americans, this suing culture and political correctness being the latest things?
Worse than that, smudger, we have bits from (now ancient) English law, bits from U.S.-styled law, and bits from EU law. Great time for the lawyers to rake in cash, but a real jungle for Joe Public to follow.
Originally Posted by smudger