• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About FHP11

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Your industry
    Independent dealer
  • Dealership/company name

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Panoramic Roof's are a nightmare. If they don't leak, the motors will break, and if not this then they will be creaky and rattly. They are destined to become a problem on every car they are fitted to.
  2. Don't get confused, like much of the public is that "non Key workers" can't go to work. Thats not the case at all if following government guidelines. Most people can in fact go to work if that work can't be done from home - whether it's essential or not is irrelevant. As car dealers, we can still go into work, legitimately drive a car to an automated car wash, take it on a test run, picture it, fix it, etc etc. As with any other line of work. The restrictions are on opening retail outlets to members of the public which we are restricted from doing. And also restrictions on members of the general public from making non essential trips, for instance looking at a car. But its not against guidelines to deliver a sold car or do anything work related with a vehicle. There is though obviously a moral line to be drawn. But you can go to work if you can't work from home.
  3. Don't hold me to this, but this sounds to me like your insurance trying to pass the buck for something they should probably be liable for. I would not expect as a trader for you to be required to see a certificate of insurance from every person who may work on your car, bodyshops, tyre shops, mechanics etc. Indeed, even for members of the public, if you can reasonably believe that your re insured to drive a car, then you are not guilty of an offence if it turns out to not be insured. e.g. a car you have hired, a driving instructors car etc. I would say that the mechanic is guilty of an offence of driving whilst uninsured. This is nothing to do with you. He may have a defence if his lookers boss has told him he is insured, but this is none of your concern. The third parties claim therefore, given that it cannot be made against the uninsured driver, would fall back to either their own insurer, or probably your insurer given that you have the car on the MID with them. It sounds like your insurer is trying to be a bit sly by passing this liability on to you. I wouldn't put it past them to try and get you admitting this liability somehow, i.e. by getting you to say you knew he was driving the vehicle etc. Technically if you knew he was driving it, you are guilty of the offence of permitting him to drive without insurance, and also absolve them of the liability of paying out the claim. As I say the above is my interpretation, but seek professional advice before you let them do you over.
  4. We've been moved over to this new Autotrader portal Does anyone else think its absolutely awful and they've spent a load of money fixing something that wasn't broken?
  5. Caught as in stopped by the Police and summoned to court? A lot more information would be needed, and don't quote me on this, however I believe there is allowance within the law where there are circumstances where you can reasonably expect a car to be insured, these would include amongst other things: -Hire Cars -Courtesy Vehicles provided by a garage -Company owned vehicles such as vans or other commercial or company vehicles Where you can reasonably expect that the car would have been insured, you would not be guilty of the offence of driving without insurance. For example you would not ask a hire car company to show you their certificate of insurance before you took the hire car away. You would not necessarily ask your employer to show you their certificate of insurance before you drove a company van. A police officer similarly would not ask to see a certificate of insurance from the police service when they take a police vehicle out in the morning for a shift. They assume that it would be insured. Obviously this only extends to instances where you can reasonably expect the car to be insured by another, and a courtesy vehicle should fall into this. UNLESS you have signed something or made some other assertion that you have insured the car yourself. Probably best to seek some legal advice though, and the above is only my understanding of the law. I am happy to be corrected.
  6. Thanks I though as much. I began to question myself when people would act in sheer shock when we say it doesn't have one because it didn't come with one. At least I know were not alone! Just frustrating that the people that spot things after they bought it think that they are somehow more entitled than the people that bothered to look at the car in the first place!
  7. Hi All, Just a simple one, but interested to hear how everyone deals with this. We get through a lot of SUV/4x4 type vehicles. Loads of people it seems take the parcel shelves out, for whatever reason, and they don't find their way back into the cars. And, dependant on model, even on eBay these can be anywhere from £150 up to £300. We don't normally replace these, clearly picture the boot area with them absent. If a customer brings it up when they are looking, we just say sadly it didn't come in with it in. Never had anyone not buy one because of it. Problem comes from the punter that doesn't bother to look at the car properly, or even open the boot, only looking it over it seems when they get it home. They then bring up issues such as these which if they'd mentioned it on the forecourt, you'd just say thats how it is, we can remedy, but at cost. But because they've only noticed it after purchase, you'd think you'd sold the car without a wheel or something. "The Car had it when it was new" - Yes when it was "NEW", 6 years ago! Interested to hear other people approach to what must be a commonplace issue. Are you guys replacing them for sale? What are you telling people who bring it up after purchase?
  8. FHP11


    We also use Cardealer5 and have been very happy. Can get it looking exactly how you want it and the pricing is reasonable.
  9. Never try this on a Discovery, or Land Rovers in General for that matter, unless you want to be driven insane with frustration. Thankfully you can rely on the quality of most vehicles enough just to replace a faulty sensor. Not Discoveries. Just had a Discovery 3 in, Fault Codes inner right rear, front left. Great, two new sensors ordered. Fitted, now the faults have moved More sensors ordered to replace the lot. No Fault codes, not working. Replace front wiring loom, replace rear loom. Not working. At this point could be control module or greater wiring issue. Solution = Pull fuse, inform customer, who didn't mind. remember to avoid Land Rovers ....
  10. With your situation on the Range Rover. Doesn't the CRA require the fault to have been present AT THE TIME OF SUPPLY for it to apply? I.E, the engine wasn't blown at the time of supply, therefore you aren't obligated to offer anything? Its simply bad look for which you aren't required to have a crystal ball for? Not saying you would necessarily run a business that way and say sorry jog on. But surely a blown engine is a very Clear as day. It was obviously not like that at the time of supply, but as a good will gesture, as we understand this is bad luck we'll be happy to X, or Y. We as traders have no control over design flaws of a vehicle, how well it was serviced and looked after by the previous owner, nor how well the new owner looks after and drives it. All we can do is make sure its working at the time of supply. And if it is, that is all we are required to do. We might offer third party warranties etc, but nevertheless, my understanding of the CRA is that we are not required to provide cover for bad luck. Otherwise, the customer in theory has the right to give a car death if that is there driving style, many older cars wouldn't stand for it, yet they still have the right to ask for a CRA refund or repair?
  11. Any advise on how to manage unreasonable customers with faults. Wondering if my approach is right. As traders, we all know that a 6 year old car just isn't the same as a brand new car. Its highly probable of the many thousands of components on the vehicle, they aren't all working as they were when it was new. We're always happy to help with any issues customers find, but why are they always so unreasonable. Why do they think its OK to take a 6 year old Renault to the main dealer for a new battery and then just send you the bill... Why do they have to tell you how much of an inconvenience it is and how disappointed they are because they pushed their budget to afford the £7000 said vehicle. If experience tells me anything, its that a £30,000 Range Rover is more likely to cause you headaches than a £5000 Ford but hey ho.
  12. I think we have as much right as anyone else to sell cars privately as seen. But I think there are a few conditions to this. It's got to be registered to you, not an "In Trade" Car. And not that you have, but knowingly selling a faulty car whether private or trade Is likely to cause issues. And definitely apply good practice, sell it from home, not a forecourt, and definitely don't mention your a trader, else your just asking for trouble, and they will assume your doing one over on them. Punters assume we're doing them over normally, never mind if they sniff that your a trader making money off them masquerading as a private seller. But I've done it myself. We had a mint 2007 ML come in as a px last year. A few electrical issues (Panoramic Sunroof not opening), and passenger heated seat not working. No biggie on an 11 year old car, but you know if we sold it to a punter who doesn't understand that 11 year old cars aren't like new cars that we'd have problems so I bought it off the company save it going to auction. Ran it myself for 10 months, and fancied a change so sold it privately, disclosed faults on add. I don't see any issue with it.
  13. On the basis that we are all essentially chancing our luck by displaying them incorrectly (I've never seen a car with trade plates showing them externally, vertically but not obscuring the original plate), and still liable to a fine when they see us using them to the best of our abilities, perhaps we should all simply stop paying the trade plate fee on the basis that it is impossible to use, I'm sure they'd soon sit up and take notice then.
  14. What annoys me is their attitude to it. I asked for help and guidance as to where possibly I could display them on the vehicle given that its physically impossible and in some cases would be illegal on some vehicles, for instance obscuring a headlamp etc. I was simply told, the DVLA don't give guidance on how to adhere to the policy. When I stated again, I really do need guidance on this because I don't know how its possible, she simply hung the phone up on me!