Car sales Review - Sheffield Trade Cars

[alchresearch]

i think the buyer was happy for a trade sale until they found things wrong:roll:

 

Any evidence for this? I can't see it.

 

Do you have a connection to them at all, as you seem to be sticking up for them in the face of criticism from several other posters.

[mattythefish]

Flexo is right, one of the two parties was a retail customer. While Kipper should have maybe done more before parting with money, the whole "trade sale" is misleading.

 

If Sheffield Trade Cars is a trade sale organisation then members of public would not be allowed to turn up and buy - just like Costco.

 

I suspect they're just playing on the use of the word "trade" in the name to fool people into thinking they're getting a cheaper deal.

 

ha ha i would have used a better example than Costco ! more general public in there than tescos, costco TRADE ? nope.

i have no connection with the company but i am fed up with people who want a cheap deal and then whinge and whine when its not what they expect, as i said it looks like the car was sold not as a retail car (No Mot, with faults,) but as a trade car. if the OP wanted a fault free car then go to a major dealer on a high st not a warehouse at attercliffe??

even if they sell proper retail cars they can still sell "inter trade" cars and i dont think its against the law to sell to who they like trade or not, the Op clearly knew what they were buying "a cheap car" imo but then found other faults. another example in this country of the "entitlement culture" as said before CAVEAT EMPTOR.

[barleycorn]

consumer protection does not apply to trade sales when both know that it is the case. consumer protection only applies to retail sales, this clearly was not a retail sale.

 

Stop talking nonsense. What was on the invoice is irrelevant. This was a retail purchase and as such falls under SOGA. Pretending it was a trade sale when one of the parties isn't in the trade just won't wash. The OP is best advised ignoring everything you say and pursuing the seller to the stand by their obligations under SOGA. If they fail to do so then sue 'em*.

 

I would stick a post in here and listen to the advice you are given.

 

jb

 

* Taking them to small claims court is not as daunting as it may sound. It is, in reality, pretty simple.

[mattythefish]

Stop talking nonsense. What was on the invoice is irrelevant. This was a retail purchase and as such falls under SOGA. Pretending it was a trade sale when one of the parties isn't in the trade just won't wash. The OP is best advised ignoring everything you say and pursuing the seller to the stand by their obligations under SOGA. If they fail to do so then sue 'em*.

 

I would stick a post in here and listen to the advice you are given.

 

jb

 

* Taking them to small claims court is not as daunting as it may sound. It is, in reality, pretty simple.

 

just because someones no"in the trade" doesnt mean they cant buy "trade " cars:roll::roll: good luck in court

[boyfriday]

i think the buyer was happy for a trade sale until they found things wrong:roll:

 

..and the trader was happy to sell it to him perhaps knowing he wouldn't have got it past a genuine trader at the price he wanted for it.

[barleycorn]

just because someones no"in the trade" doesnt mean they cant buy "trade " cars:roll::roll: good luck in court

 

If it was me in such a situation (trade sale on a retail invoice) I would actually relish taking them to court as I would be absolutely guaranteed victory. If it was possible to be more than 100% wrong then you would be it.

 

Fortunately not only does the OP have SOGA on his side which states that the vehicle should be of a satisfactory quality and fit for purpose but also the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). I take you've heard of these as they ensure that consumers are dealt with both fairly and honestly?

On the off chance that the CPRs have passed you by unnoticed allow me to quote a section of from the OFTs guidance for second hand car dealers:

 

If you treat consumers fairly, then you are likely to be complying with the CPRs. However, if you mislead, behave aggressively, or otherwise act unfairly towards consumers, then you are likely to be in breach of the CPRs and may face criminal or civil enforcement action.

Examples of misleading practises:

Misleading consumers about their statutory or other rights, for example, by using words or statements such as ‘Sold as Seen’ or ‘Trade Sale Only’ or ‘No Refund’ or ‘Spare or Repair’ even if the statement ‘this does not affect your statutory rights’ is included.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

 

... and some more light reading just to embarrass you further...

When you sell a used motor vehicle to a retail customer, you are entering into a legally binding contract.

The customer has the right to expect the vehicle to be of a satisfactory quality; fit for the purpose, and, as described.

 

As a trader, misleading consumers by using phrases such as “Trade Sale – Sold as Seen” or “No Refunds” is not only illegal but also completely voids the contract.

 

The only occasion whereby this term could possibly be used, is for private sales. A private sale is defined as a private individual selling to another private individual, not a trader selling to a private individual.

 

For dealers selling used vehicles to other traders, it is a pointless activity using the term ‘Trade Sale’ as this is implicit, i.e. stating the obvious.

 

In short, “Trade Sale – Sold as Seen”, should never appear on your customer invoices unless you would like a meeting with your local trading standards officer and it is a waste of your time if you are selling to another trader. So, don’t do it – you have been warned!

http://www.dragon2000.co.uk/motor-trade-blogs/trade-sale-sold-as-seen/

 

jb

 

ETA: As pointed out previously the OP should ignore everything written by mattythefish and follow the advice given by everybody else in this thread.

[Flexo]

I also didn’t notice the description on the bottom of the sales invoice in small print which stated that all cars could have major mechanical faults

 

That's OK. The statement is legally meaningless. Page 36 of the OFT guidance (linked above) says:

 

13.1 A consumer’s legal rights under the

SoGA cannot be taken away or restricted,

and any attempt by you to do so by using

an exclusion clause or similar notice will

be void and therefore unenforceable

(you will not be able to rely on it in a

dispute with a consumer).

 

 

Example: • Using words or statements in sales to

consumers such as ‘Sold as seen’,

‘Unroadworthy’, ‘Trade Sale Only’,

‘No Refund’, ‘Spare or Repair’ or

‘Sold as Scrap’, even if the statement

‘this does not affect your statutory rights’

is included.

[mattythefish]

well flexo and barlycorn you really have no idea what you are on about, all these quotes and phrases you have been googling all afternoon only apply if the customer is being sold the vehicle under a retail guise, i.e on the forecourt with a price on it and then if the trader adds to the sales invoice sold as seen or trade sale then you are probably correct, all i have said all along is that a trader can sell a car to who the hell he likes as long as he doesnt advertise it as this that or whatever i.e a trade sale, as i said the op sounds like they bought a car with no MOT and with a warning may have major faults, who does that and expects an excellent vehicle, now until the Op comes back and confirms either way then we dont really know, in fact we dont even know the price paid or for what, so wind ya neck chaps:hihi:

[barleycorn]

well flexo and barlycorn you really have no idea what you are on about, all these quotes and phrases you have been googling all afternoon only apply if the customer is being sold the vehicle under a retail guise, i.e on the forecourt with a price on it and then if the trader adds to the sales invoice sold as seen or trade sale then you are probably correct, all i have said all along is that a trader can sell a car to who the hell he likes as long as he doesnt advertise it as this that or whatever i.e a trade sale, as i said the op sounds like they bought a car with no MOT and with a warning may have major faults, who does that and expects an excellent vehicle, now until the Op comes back and confirms either way then we dont really know, in fact we dont even know the price paid or for what, so wind ya neck chaps:hihi:

 

Or you could just man up and admit you were wrong. I, and everyone else reading this thread knows you are wrong so really, all you're doing is making yourself look silly.

 

jb

[mattythefish]

Or you could just man up and admit you were wrong. I, and everyone else reading this thread knows you are wrong so really, all you're doing is making yourself look silly.

 

jb

 

and your experience in retail? trade? or any business? or are you just a peoples champion:( why dont you take on the OP s case for him seeing as you are so cocksure and then come back and tell us how unfair the system is when you lose:hihi: