OT: Bought a car, but its really

You can protest outside a business (walk around waving banners etc) providing you keep moving. If you are stationary, they can pull you in. Odd as it sounds. But the dealer will probably beat you up.

If you were, on the other hand, to park outside the business with a sign on the car with a protest written on it, you'd not be doing anything illegal, but the dealer would probably not leave it there for long before they towed it away / torched it etc. You could come unstuck for defamation / libel, I guess, if you weren't careful.

If I were you I'd take it to trading standards. Whatever you've signed, you still have some rights.

David

To expand on this, it would count as Not Fit for Purpose, under the Sale & Supply of Goods Act. This means, you bought it to use as a car, but it's not fit for use as a car. The garage will no doubt fight you on this but the law is on your side.

Had you bought it for use as a shed, you'd be lumbered.

David

What was the wording on the form that the OP signed? "but you signed the form saying no fit for road use" was quoted in the posting. If this is correct then there is no case to argue. (I'd still park it outside with posters stuck all over it) Jon

There is if you've been misled into signing it, as sounds like was the case.

Sounds good but I think you'd end up with no car and no money!

There are several cases according to trading standards.

1) you can't sell it as a trade sale because he wasn't a trader, he was a consumer 2) Criminal offence to write not fit for road use/spares repair/trade sale - you're not allowed to write that and sell a vehicle to a consumer 3) Civil rights under sale of goods 1979 - you dont part with nearly a grand for a piece of scrap - therefore it wasnt fit for purpose 4) To let someone look at a car, when its stated the distance from which they had come, the fact that they are disabled, let them test drive, and find enough fuel to get them to the services, process the switch transaction for payment, and then point out the clause to sign "because we have to as we arent giving you a warranty" - that is misleading in the extreme

Our main problem is that TS are now initiating there thing, but we still have to pursue through civil methods to get the money back.

As the access to their yard is up a lane by the side of the garage, I was wondering how tragic it would be if an automatic range rover with an 825 with a sign in the window which stated it had been bought from a nearby trader and was a load of tosh, were to breakdown (i know which wire to disconnect ;-))

At least TS are on our side

Si

How do you definetrader? Tricky area that.

Agreed 100%

Good News!

Richard

Someone who sells more than 2 vehicles a month I think is the well held definition - Trading standards have got a definition anyways, and the wifes ex-hubby defo aint one.

This from trading standards - so would assume they know what they are doing.

Having had this problem with a trader in the past, when trading standards kick off criminal proceedings it makes it a whole lot easier to get the civil bits sorted.

fingers crossed

Si

Perhaps thats just your local lot - anyone can buy one from an auction or breakers yard - once things like the A posts have been cut to make sure it wont get back on the road.

On or around Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:08:30 -0000, "David French" enlightened us thusly:

does that still apply if you sign to the effect that you know it's not fit for the road?

I once had a marvellous document which I got with a minibus, which had the most impressive list of disclaimers of responsibility I've seen...