Ladies and gents, a bit of advice if possible of where we stand.

 

Approximately 1 year ago we bought a 2015 Seat Leon estate for the wife to be the daily. We knew the garage had undertaken work to tidy the back end up (they told us as much) but did not understand how much was resprayed. I checked the car over thoroughly before accepting it and they sorted a few minor niggles.

 

Fast forward to yesterday, I was cleaning the car and noticed the paint in the photos underneath the rear window. This wasn't there when bought and has appeared relatively recently. Where do we stand from a fit for purpose for reasonable amount of time claim? If it was a bulb or ancillary I'd expect to be way past any claim time but bodywork should last. I don't know if there's rust appearing there or if it's just paint flaking off. It's also flaked off around the passenger wheel arch where the bumper meets the rear quarter too.

 

If needed we will get it professionally sorted but don't want to be paying really when it should have been fit for purpose from the start.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

 

You bought a 6 year old second hand vehicle a year ago from a garage that agreed to "tidy the back end up".

 

You "checked the car over thoroughly before accepting it and they sorted a few minor niggles".

 

You have now noticed a tiny amount of paint either flaking from the bonded area under the glass or more likely like it was always there and caused by removing the masking tape when the paint was no longer soft enough to tear.

 

You are unaware of any rusting.

 

What are you complaining about if the purpose was to "tidy the back end up"?  You would have to bend down or raise the tailgate to see it.

 

Could you also explain what statute in consumer law covers a "fit for purpose for reasonable amount of time claim"? as it sounds like something you have made up.

 

Unless you paid them extra to carry out the work and it was say for rust remediation and it has now rusted through again I would say you have zero claim against the unfortunate dealer that sold you the car.

 

 

20 minutes ago, J.R. said:

You bought a 6 year old second hand vehicle a year ago from a garage that agreed to "tidy the back end up".

 

You "checked the car over thoroughly before accepting it and they sorted a few minor niggles".

 

You have now noticed a tiny amount of paint either flaking from the bonded area under the glass or more likely like it was always there and caused by removing the masking tape when the paint was no longer soft enough to tear.

 

You are unaware of any rusting.

 

What are you complaining about if the purpose was to "tidy the back end up"?  You would have to bend down or raise the tailgate to see it.

 

Could you also explain what statute in consumer law covers a "fit for purpose for reasonable amount of time claim"? as it sounds like something you have made up.

 

Unless you paid them extra to carry out the work and it was say for rust remediation and it has now rusted through again I would say you have zero claim against the unfortunate dealer that sold you the car.

 

 

 

Thank you for the hostile and condescending reply. Clearly, as you have pointed out, I know nothing about this so thought I would ask. 

 

Anyone can read law and legislation from Google, including me. What I was trying to find out was whether anyone else had been in a similar situation and if/how they claimed and what the outcome was. I'm not made of money. My wife and I used savings to buy a car after hers conked out. We had a limited time to buy it but had to factor in for our upcoming child and a dog. I am careful and considerate when spending alot of money and spent alot of time checking it as best I can. I knew the garage were going to respray it, they sent me the before photos to show the scuffs and scratches before the work was carried out. 

 

I wish you the best climbing off your high horse.

The only thing that you asked for was advice on where you stand, I gave you that after summing up what I thought to be your situation which you could have corrected had I misinterpreted it.

 

I will give you some unsolicited advice, as far as the law or the selling dealer are concerned your wifes car breaking down, your savings, child and dog are irrelevant.

@Dooge I have no experience of your situation,  but I do know that if someone's posts annoy; you can mouse over their username and select "ignore" from a pop-up that appears.

Subsequent posts by that user will not be visible to you.

6 hours ago, Breezy_Pete said:

@Dooge I have no experience of your situation,  but I do know that if someone's posts annoy; you can mouse over their username and select "ignore" from a pop-up that appears.

Subsequent posts by that user will not be visible to you.

Thanks Pete, I couldn't do it on the mobile version but easily visible in the desktop version. I'm going to delete this topic and educate myself a little to save any more upset.

The paint was as the sprayer left it 1 year ago and when you inspected it.   Now it is what it is.  A repainted panel with the masked edge peelling.

That was a professional that painted it then, maybe just not the best,  and you can be no more certain the professional that redoes it will not have it looking just the same another year further on. 

 

Give the person that sold you the car a chance to see what it looks like a year on because they know who does their painting.

 

Maybe they give a toss and will deal with it or maybe they will care not a jot.

 

I was a car painter. 

Edited 1 June, 20233 yr by toot

My tuppence worth?  Lets say you have a valid claim and lets say the dealer says " sorry, not my problem ",  what are your options?

 

Even if the claim were legit, it'll cost you as much money to pursue it than it would be to repair the car. It looks to be an easy fix for a repair shop.

 

Time factor? If you'd  paid for the repair itself then yes, consumer laws would apply, but as I understand it you didn't buy a repair, you bought a 6 year old car?

 

If the garage had made a repair without declaring it then again you may have a case for mis-selling, but the fact you knew the car was damaged weakens your position even further.

 

Sounds to me like you're going to have to rely on goodwill from the dealer. Toot is 100% right, at least inform the dealer but whatever you do, don't go in feet first making accusations and stating your roghts or you can forget sympathy from them. Be as nice as you can because they hold all the cards.

 

 

Edited 2 June, 20233 yr by kodiaqsportline

So, I can see how my slapdash approach to phrasing this topic isn't the best so I will attempt to add some more context and information.

 

I am not outright accusing the dealer of the bodywork issues. I wanted to forearm myself with any potential avenues I can go down if it's established that they may have been the cause due to workmanship so I can make a decision. As I knew bodywork was completed in that area of the vehicle and had no paperwork to refer to, I made an assumption it was probably (but not definitely) due to what they had done.

 

I understand after research that I could be covered under the Consumer Rights Act for it to be fit for purpose, as described and of satisfactory quality. With it being over 6 months old, the onus is on me to prove that the issue was there from the start and that would mean a professional to inspect it. If they state it was there at the point of sale and no consideration was given by the seller, I could have the option of taking them to the small claims court on the basis that it was not fit for purpose. 

 

If this was a consumable item, I know I would have zero chance of claiming and it wouldn't be reasonable to do so, even before 6 months. But bodywork to a degree should last a longer period of time. The variable factor being how we have looked after the car. I have cleaned the car approximately 4 times since ownership as it's my wife's daily and simply, she doesn't care if it's dirty.

 

I understand that If we went to court, proving it is on the balance of probabilities and professional information supplied. I was trying to establish if A) it was financially worth it and from stated cases or individuals who had been through similar, what was the outcome? 

 

Once I learnt the information regarding my potential rights, I did as @toot has stated and contacted them to ask their policy around repairs and for more information around what was done. Although I was sent photos of the before and and after at the point of sale, this was over multiple emails and I have not got the photos of the before damage anymore. I must have deleted this email awhile back for whatever reason. 

 

I have also not got any information relating to the work that was carried out. I do have an email chain where damage to the rear bumper was discussed and agreed to be completed but I don't know to the extent they went with blending/spraying the area so didn't know if the boot lid would be covered and this was the reason for the poor finish.

 

The garage were very helpful (as they were when buying the car) and supplied part of an internal document which stated the work that was completed. They repaired some minor scuffs on the offside corner of the rear bumper for which they removed it. No remedial work was carried out on any of the other bodywork. The garage were perplexed at the finish and stated it wouldn't have left them like that, for which I agreed.

 

I checked the vehicle over fully and picked up on some points including having part of the intake replaced due to damage and noting some minor scuffs on the front bumper. I am 95% sure it wasn't there when I took delivery of it and I believe that if I had washed it more frequently it would have shown it earlier. But, I am no expert and I cannot categorically say it was/wasn't there.

 

To summarise, I am not going to do anything with it from a legal standpoint. I cannot prove, whether I believe they have caused the issue or not, that they are to blame and as @kodiaqsportline has stated, it wouldn't be financially worth it. I will take the internal plastic panel off to check for any damage underneath. My concern more than a poor finish is that there is damage underneath and it's been repaired due to this. If that's the case what has it been through? There is no registered accident from the vehicle check we paid for when we bought it.

 

More than a financial aspect, my family travel in this and although there are no other signs of repaired damage (broken glass in the wheel well, damage around this area, etc) I want it to be safe. I would like to think it's been resprayed because of scratches or scrapes rather than an accident but can't rule this out yet.

 

Thanks for the replies @toot and @kodiaqsportline, both useful.

 

Edited 2 June, 20233 yr by Dooge

If I've read that right ( apologies if I haven't ) are you asking what to do if there's additional damage you weren't informed about at the point of sale? 

 

At this stage you have zero evidence of a problem that might not exist so probably best asking the question when you do have a problem. But from what you say...

 

20 hours ago, Dooge said:

I understand after research that I could be covered under the Consumer Rights Act for it to be fit for purpose, as described and of satisfactory quality.

 

But the car is fit for purpose, it was as described ( you even checked it ) and it was of satisfactory quality. Not only were you told the car was damaged but they even sent before and after pictures of their repair which is very unusual ( and welcome ) in the used car business. Moreover, on a car that has no history of accident damage after a vehicle check. Did the car come with an MOT?  Have you had an MOT carried out in the past year? because that would be further evidence that car is roadworthy.

 

Question:  Based on what evidence are you concerned about the car's safety, flaking paint on a 7 year old car? 

 

Lets assume you've paid for an engineers report and the engineer finds evidence of damage that affects the safety of the car. I'm 99.9% sure this would be the outcome: You'll claim you were mis-sold a car, they'll claim you knew it was damaged and still accepted the car. They'll claim the car has been driven for the past year without any issue, therefore that any damage found must have occured after they sold it to you, which I may say, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, and then it would be up to you to prove the damage was present at the time of sale. Now how are you going to do that? An engineers report may well say there's damage, but how could they prove this occured at the time of sale after you've been driving it for a year?   Realistically that's just not going to happen is it.

 

You may claim the car wasn't fit for purpose or is not of satisfactory quality.  The same applies - you've been driving for a year without issue.

 

If you want to pay for an engineer's report that's up to you, but if a problem was found it's very likely you'd have to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 02/06/2023 at 21:37, Dooge said:

I could be covered under the Consumer Rights Act for it to be fit for purpose, as described and of satisfactory quality.

 

It's a motor car, a means of getting from A to B, not the Kohinoor diamond.

 

It was and still remains fit for purpose, as described and of merchantable quality, a slightly jagged masked edge of a paint repair on the tailgate is not going to compromise the vehicles capability of performing its function or endanger your family.

 

I'm so glad that I dont have a family to worry about, I would be a nervous wreck worrying about their safety with the 

stone chips, zinc inclusions etc on my vehicle.

8 minutes ago, kodiaqsportline said:

If I've read that right ( apologies if I haven't ) are you asking what to do if there's additional damage you weren't informed about at the point of sale? 

 

At this stage you have zero evidence of a problem that might not exist so probably best asking the question when you do have a problem. But from what you say...

 

 

But the car is fit for purpose, it was as described ( you even checked it ) and it was of satisfactory quality. Not only were you told the car was damaged but they even sent before and after pictures of their repair which is very unusual ( and welcome ) in the used car business. Moreover, on a car that has no history of accident damage after a vehicle check. Did the car come with an MOT?  Have you had an MOT carried out in the past year? because that would be further evidence that car is roadworthy.

 

Question:  Based on what evidence are you concerned about the car's safety, flaking paint on a 7 year old car? 

 

Lets assume you've paid for an engineers report and the engineer finds evidence of damage that affects the safety of the car. I'm 99.9% sure this would be the outcome: You'll claim you were mis-sold a car, they'll claim you knew it was damaged and still accepted the car. They'll claim the car has been driven for the past year without any issue, therefore that any damage found must have occured after they sold it to you, which I may say, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, and then it would be up to you to prove the damage was present at the time of sale. Now how are you going to do that? An engineers report may well say there's damage, but how could they prove this occured at the time of sale after you've been driving it for a year?   Realistically that's just not going to happen is it.

 

You may claim the car wasn't fit for purpose or is not of satisfactory quality.  The same applies - you've been driving for a year without issue.

 

If you want to pay for an engineer's report that's up to you, but if a problem was found it's very likely you'd have to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the conclusion I came to:

 

"To summarise, I am not going to do anything with it from a legal standpoint. I cannot prove, whether I believe they have caused the issue or not, that they are to blame and as @kodiaqsportline has stated, it wouldn't be financially worth it"

 

What I was initially asking was, where do I stand from a legal standpoint if they had resprayed the boot lid and this has happened. Do I have a cause to claim? What's my chances?

 

I'd say those questions are now answered.

 

I still want to check if there's damage for my own peace of mind but I doubt ill find something catastrophic.

By @Dooge request; he asked for this to be deleted, upon review I think it's concluded with some useful information/ideas and some less than helpful. So I'm locking it.

There is no harm in anyone asking a question of anything; there is no such thing as a stupid question. So a gentle reminder, guidelines of the site boil down to one simple phrase, be nice.

 

No I don't think this is a stupid question It's a repair, potentially more than was "honestly" offered. Good luck @Dooge I'm sure there are plenty of repair shops that for a small fee would give you some peace of mind, maybe even do a bit of an investigation to discover the limits. Then you're informed and you can remedy/keep/flog... love it or list it

HTH.