Re: Old cars and MOTs
Sandy
> I thought old cars were supposed to be expensive to maintain and keep
> going wrong all the time? Now, who was saying that?
The Cubans seem to manage.
Triffid
> Well, the old Xantia Activa passed it's MOT first time again this
> morning.
>
> That's two years in a row now. It's cost me a couple of gallons of
> oil,some plugs and filters, a set of discs and pads and a couple of
> spheres over the last 12 months, and a full set of tyres. Still, the
> total cost was less than £500 all done, and it won't need any of them
> for at least two years.
>
> I thought old cars were supposed to be expensive to maintain and keep
One exception does not make a rule!
In any case - there is more to owning a modern up-to-date car than saving on
cost of maintenance and repairs.
--
Triff
Adrian
were saying:
>> I thought old cars were supposed to be expensive to maintain and keep
>> going wrong all the time? Now, who was saying that? GT? Kev? Silk?
> One exception does not make a rule!
No, but it does disprove the sweeping generalisations. Combined with the
similar extensive experience of many of us...
> In any case - there is more to owning a modern up-to-date car than
> saving on cost of maintenance and repairs.
Very true. There's the finance payments, the dull blandness, the huge
labour rates from main dealers...
Triffid
Everyone to their own. Virtually every household in my road buys new cars -
even the kids have nearly new. My grand-daughter's 18 year old boyfriend has
just bought a brand-new (and considerably up-specced) Corsa. If you don't
mind being regarded as a pauper who can only afford old bangers then fairy
duff.
New cars are considerably more refined, more technologically advanced and
safer than old cars - but, as I say, everyone to their own. There are pros
and cons for both buying new and buying old.
--
Triff
Adrian
were saying:
>>> In any case - there is more to owning a modern up-to-date car than
>>> saving on cost of maintenance and repairs.
>> Very true. There's the finance payments, the dull blandness, the huge
>> labour rates from main dealers...
> Everyone to their own. Virtually every household in my road buys new
> cars - even the kids have nearly new.
Ah, it's the "Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" thing.
> My grand-daughter's 18 year old boyfriend has just bought a brand-new
> (and considerably up-specced) Corsa.
One single entry-level Corsa lists for under £10k.
The next up the range is near £11.5k, and the range goes to just under
£20k.
Shouldn't an 18yo be prioritising his finances slightly differently?
> If you don't mind being regarded as a pauper who can only afford old
> bangers then fairy duff.
Heavens, Maud, we can't have the neighbours thinking we're _poor_...
Whatever floats your boat, you deeply vacuous and gullible little man.
Dave Plowman
Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In any case - there is more to owning a modern up-to-date car than
> saving on cost of maintenance and repairs.
Yup. Paying for the horrendous depreciation.
--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *
Dave Plowman da...@davesound.co.uk London SW 12
Dave Plowman
Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Everyone to their own. Virtually every household in my road buys new
> cars - even the kids have nearly new. My grand-daughter's 18 year old
> boyfriend has just bought a brand-new (and considerably up-specced)
> Corsa. If you don't mind being regarded as a pauper who can only afford
> old bangers then fairy duff.
Perhaps it would be better to save up your money and move out of that
council estate?
--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *
Steve Firth
> In article <4d95939c$0$17207$882e...@usenet-news.net>,
> Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Everyone to their own. Virtually every household in my road buys new
>> cars - even the kids have nearly new. My grand-daughter's 18 year old
>> boyfriend has just bought a brand-new (and considerably up-specced)
>> Corsa. If you don't mind being regarded as a pauper who can only afford
>> old bangers then fairy duff.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to save up your money and move out of that
> council estate?
I was thinking similar thoughts. There's an estate close to my home. All of
the cars tend to be old, I can't recall anyone from there buying a new car
in the last decade or so. There are large numbers of pickup trucks and
4x4s, there are "old bangers" from the 1960s and 1970s.
None of the householders seems to be bothered about keeping up with the
Jones family.
Of course if one's name is prefixed with "Lord" or "Lady" and one is
related to the Mitfords there's probably no knowledge of who the Jones
family are.
Conspicuous consumption is for hoi polloi.
Triffid
> In article <4d957d34$0$3039$882e...@usenet-news.net>,
> Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> In any case - there is more to owning a modern up-to-date car than
>> saving on cost of maintenance and repairs.
>
> Yup. Paying for the horrendous depreciation.
If you can afford it - why not? You get a brand new car with brand new
tyres, brakes, exhaust, - in fact, brand new everything. It is completely up
to date with all the latest technological advances and conveniences. It will
be safer and more refined - and it is more than likely to be trouble-free
for several years, requiring nothing more than servicing and tyre
replacement. Also, of course, it will have at least three years warranty,
meaning that if anything does go wrong - it wont cost you anything to put
right. It is also likely to be cleaner and more economical than an older
car.
There is also the rather nice feeling of getting into a brand new car
knowing that it has not been mistreated or neglected by a previous owner.
There is nothing quite like it! In a nutshell - you get what you pay for.
Did you buy your TV, washing machine, tumble dryer, mobile phone, etc second
hand? If not, why not? You could save yourself a bundle by doing so. You
can pick up some very decent clothes in the Oxfam shop as well you know...
Personally I try to avoid buying other people's cast offs...
--
Triff
Triffid
I take it then, that you buy your clothes from the Oxfam shop, and all your
household goods (TV, washing machine, tumble dryer, mobile phone etc) second
hand as well? Far better to look like a tramp, and have a house full of
other people's cast-offs, than be accused of 'conspicuous consumption' eh?
What a load of tosh. Do you really believe that people who buy new cars do
so just to impress the neighbours?
--
Triff
Adrian
were saying:
> What a load of tosh. Do you really believe that people who buy new cars
> do so just to impress the neighbours?
It seems to be the belief of the person who wrote this...
BartC
"Huge" <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
news:8vlmut...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2011-04-01, Dave Plowman <da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4d95939c$0$17207$882e...@usenet-news.net>,
>> Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Everyone to their own. Virtually every household in my road buys new
>>> cars - even the kids have nearly new. My grand-daughter's 18 year old
>>> boyfriend has just bought a brand-new (and considerably up-specced)
>>> Corsa. If you don't mind being regarded as a pauper who can only afford
>>> old bangers then fairy duff.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be better to save up your money and move out of that
>> council estate?
>
> Oh, I don't think it's just limited to council estates. "Keeping up with
> the Jones" is pretty universal.
>
> Mind you, if they can afford to buy new cars, they shouldn't be living
> in taxpayer subsidised housing.
I used to wonder why many council houses were even built with off-road
parking. If someone can afford a car, that means they don't need me to
subsidise their rent for them. (And a few years of paying a low rent, that
of course is a right to buy at a huge discount!)
--
Bartc
BartC
"Mike P" <he...@there.com> wrote in message
news:8vkb9b...@mid.individual.net...
> Well, the old Xantia Activa passed it's MOT first time again this morning.
>
> That's two years in a row now. It's cost me a couple of gallons of
> oil,some plugs and filters, a set of discs and pads and a couple of
> spheres
Spheres?
> over the last 12 months, and a full set of tyres. Still, the total
> cost was less than £500 all done, and it won't need any of them for at
> least two years.
> I thought old cars were supposed to be expensive to maintain and keep
> going wrong all the time? Now, who was saying that? GT? Kev? Silk?
You don't know what else is going to break in the next two years. Old cars
are full of surprises.
--
Bartc
bolta...@boltar.world
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>Mind you, if they can afford to buy new cars, they shouldn't be living
>in taxpayer subsidised housing.
They can afford new cars BECAUSE they live in subsidised housing. If you
have to pay full rent or a mortgage a new car is quite a way down your
list of essential purchases.
B2003
Steve Firth
No, I tend to buy decent versions of everything and have them last, not
replace them with badly made tat every few months.
I'm not averse to buying from or donating to Oxfam.
> What a load of tosh.
Ineed it was, you wrote it.
> Do you really believe that people who buy new cars do so just to impress the neighbours?
That or they are morons like you who think that a new car = status.
Triffid
I don't know what the council estates are like around your way - but the one
that is near to my owner-occupied estate most certainly does not have new
cars parked outside the houses. Most of the cars are ancient.
--
Triff
Triffid
I will be picking up a brand new car next week. If I wanted to impress the
neighbours I would probably want to be picking up a second hand Merc or
Beemer. It will be a small family car.
--
Triff
Triffid
Indeed. In my experience, once the failures begin - they never stop, and
it's just one thing after another. Car parts have a finite life - and the
older the car, and the higher the mileage when you buy it, the closer you
are to the end of the finite lifetime of those parts.
--
Triff
Triffid
That does not explain why you do not buy them second hand. If you prefer to
buy second hand cars - why not second hand TVs or washing machines etc?
>
> I'm not averse to buying from or donating to Oxfam.
I certainly donate to Oxfam, and pass on no-longer wanted items to them. But
I don't buy stuff from them.
>
>> What a load of tosh.
>
> Ineed it was, you wrote it.
Do you insult everyone who you disagree with?
>
>> Do you really believe that people who buy new cars do so just to
>> impress the neighbours?
>
> That or they are morons like you who think that a new car = status.
Do you not accept that many new car owners buy new cars simply for the
pleasure of owning something that is brand new and not someone else's
cast-off?
--
Triff
Adrian
Really? But surely they might regard you as a pauper who can only afford
old bangers?
> It will be a small family car.
A little more detail, please?
Triffid
>>
>> I take it then, that you buy your clothes from the Oxfam shop, and
>> all your household goods (TV, washing machine, tumble dryer, mobile
>> phone etc) second hand as well? Far better to look like a tramp,
>> and have a house full of other people's cast-offs, than be accused
>> of 'conspicuous consumption' eh?
>
What has that got to do with anything? Overall you could save a fortune by
buying your household goods second hand. So why don't you?
>
>> What a load of tosh. Do you really believe that people who buy new
>> cars do so just to impress the neighbours?
>
> Mostly, yes.
>
> It just makes them look like mugs in my eyes.
People who can afford to buy new cars generally do so. People who cannot
afford to buy new cars generally buy second hand - but, if they were honest,
would prefer to be in a position to buy new.
--
Triff
Clive George
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2011-04-01, Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>> Conspicuous consumption is for hoi polloi.
>>>
>>> I take it then, that you buy your clothes from the Oxfam shop, and
>>> all your household goods (TV, washing machine, tumble dryer, mobile
>>> phone etc) second hand as well? Far better to look like a tramp,
>>> and have a house full of other people's cast-offs, than be accused
>>> of 'conspicuous consumption' eh?
>>
>> When was the last time you bought a £20K fridge?
>
> What has that got to do with anything? Overall you could save a fortune
> by buying your household goods second hand. So why don't you?
If you think the money in those household goods is a fortune, you're not
quite as well off as you like to think.
> People who can afford to buy new cars generally do so. People who cannot
> afford to buy new cars generally buy second hand - but, if they were
> honest, would prefer to be in a position to buy new.
There's quite a few of us on here who don't fit into your
generalisations. I know plenty of people IRL who don't either. That
leads me to conclude that your statements are wrong.
Triffid
> On 01/04/2011 12:39, Triffid wrote:
>> Huge wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-01, Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Conspicuous consumption is for hoi polloi.
>>>>
>>>> I take it then, that you buy your clothes from the Oxfam shop, and
>>>> all your household goods (TV, washing machine, tumble dryer, mobile
>>>> phone etc) second hand as well? Far better to look like a tramp,
>>>> and have a house full of other people's cast-offs, than be accused
>>>> of 'conspicuous consumption' eh?
>>>
>>> When was the last time you bought a £20K fridge?
>>
>> What has that got to do with anything? Overall you could save a
>> fortune by buying your household goods second hand. So why don't you?
>
> If you think the money in those household goods is a fortune, you're
> not quite as well off as you like to think.
Over a lifetime of buying TVs, Computers, Hi-Fi eqpt, washing machines,
tumble driers, dishwashers, toasters, kettles, fridges, freezers, radios,
mobile phones, etc. etc. etc. - you would indeed save a lot of money buying
second hand. On the other hand, you may not - because they would be likely
to break down/fail a lot sooner than a new product and therefore require
replacing sooner.
>
>> People who can afford to buy new cars generally do so. People who
>> cannot afford to buy new cars generally buy second hand - but, if
>> they were honest, would prefer to be in a position to buy new.
>
> There's quite a few of us on here who don't fit into your
> generalisations. I know plenty of people IRL who don't either. That
> leads me to conclude that your statements are wrong.
Fair enough. That's your assessment. I don't know many rich people who buy
second hand cars however...
It also depends, of course, on how you define 'can afford'. When I refer to
people who can afford to buy new cars - I am referring to people who can buy
new cars without those purchases affecting their financial 'well-being'. In
other words - you cannot really afford to buy a new car if, by doing so, you
can longer afford to go on holiday or meet your everyday leisure
expenditure.
--
Triff
Steve Firth
[snip]
>
> People who can afford to buy new cars generally do so. People who cannot
> afford to buy new cars generally buy second hand - but, if they were
> honest, would prefer to be in a position to buy new.
Drivel. My last s/h car cost more than many "small family cars", and a few
years ago my car cost about 4x the price of the average new car. It was
still "secondhand". Buying new cars is for people with more money than
sense.
Triffid
> On 2011-04-01, Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Huge wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-01, Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Conspicuous consumption is for hoi polloi.
>>>>
>>>> I take it then, that you buy your clothes from the Oxfam shop, and
>>>> all your household goods (TV, washing machine, tumble dryer, mobile
>>>> phone etc) second hand as well? Far better to look like a tramp,
>>>> and have a house full of other people's cast-offs, than be accused
>>>> of 'conspicuous consumption' eh?
>>>
>>> When was the last time you bought a £20K fridge?
>>
>> What has that got to do with anything?
>
> want those nasty old cast-offs, would you?
Houses tend to be different because, in general, new-build houses are not as
well built as older houses.
>
>> Overall you could save a fortune by
>> buying your household goods second hand. So why don't you?
>
> When appropriate, I do. Indeed, I bought a s/h amp on eBay just last
> week.
>
>>>> What a load of tosh. Do you really believe that people who buy new
>>>> cars do so just to impress the neighbours?
>>>
>>> Mostly, yes.
>>>
>>> It just makes them look like mugs in my eyes.
>>
>> People who can afford to buy new cars generally do so. People who
>> cannot afford to buy new cars generally buy second hand - but, if
>> they were honest, would prefer to be in a position to buy new.
>
> Bullshit. Depreciation is money thrown down the drain. You might like
> the pretty colours of burning tenners, but I have better things to
> spend the money on. Buy cars at the knee in the curve and let some
> mug like you
> eat the depreciation.
But if you can buy a new car and *still* have enough money to spend on other
things - then you can truly afford to buy and enjoy brand new cars without
affecting your ability to purchase other things as well...
If you had the income of David Beckham - would you still buy second-hand
cars?
--
Triff
Man at B&Q
> "Triffid" <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> going wrong all the time? Now, who was saying that? GT? Kev? Silk?
>
> No, but it does disprove the sweeping generalisations. Combined with the
> similar extensive experience of many of us...
>
> > In any case - there is more to owning a modern up-to-date car than
> > saving on cost of maintenance and repairs.
>
> labour rates from main dealers...
I've never taken a car to a main dealer, including a 9 month old still
under warranty and a brand new company car. All are/were serviced &
repaired by our village garage just around the corner.
MBQ
Triffid
What? You mean an ultra-successful, multi-skilled, 'fingers in many pies',
businessman such as yourself buys second-hand cars? Maybe you aren't as
well-off as you like to make out...
It's not a question of having 'more money than sense' - it's a question of
being sufficiently comfortably off that you can afford to buy a new car
without the purchase affecting your ability to enjoy everything else that
you want to do.
--
Triff
The Revd
The Revd
wrote:
You're often better off buying a nearly new car...one that has had all
the bugs fixed...unless you actually like spending most of your time
at the dealership.
ARWadsworth
Buy? People give these things away for free. My washer, tumble drier,
dishwasher and mobile phone are all second hand and cost me almost nothing
(it cost me for a new element for the drier).
The free dishwasher has lasted longer than the one that I bought new and the
washer was just too good an offer not to take it (my old one was given away
and is still in use).
> What a load of tosh. Do you really believe that people who buy new
> cars do so just to impress the neighbours?
Sometimes, yes.
--
Adam
Adrian
were saying:
> If you had the income of David Beckham - would you still buy second-hand
> cars?
Kev? Is that you?
Triffid
I fully accept that some will certainly do that. Others buy new cars simply
because they like the experience of stepping into a brand-new car with that
'brand new' smell - and knowing that it has not been abused or neglected by
any previous owners.
A lot depends, of course, upon how long you intend to keep a car. If you are
buying new and replacing every 2 or 3 years then certainly you are losing a
lot of money. But if you buy new with the intention of keeping for a long
time - then you will be able to keep it for a lot longer than a second-hand
buyer - and it should remain trouble-free for a lot longer than a
second-hand buy.
I am certainly not criticising people who buy second-hand. Over my motoring
life-time I've bought many more second-hand cars than I've bought new ones.
All I'm suggesting is that most drivers, if they were honest, would like to
buy brand-new cars. And if those who claim otherwise suddenly won several
million on the lottery - I doubt very much that they would still buy
second-hand.
--
Triff
--
Triff
Man at B&Q
So you would rather buy a new car for, say, £20k because you can
afford it, rather than a much better second hand car for the same
money?
Guess which has depreciated the most the minute you drive it away?
If you can afford to piss money away like that then that's your
choice.
MBQ
Steve Firth
[snip]
>
> Fair enough. That's your assessment. I don't know many rich people who
> buy second hand cars however...
That's because you don't know *any* rich people. My boss at one time was
rich, proper rich not some wannabe millionaire. He owned and bought more
secondhand cars than I'm ever likely to own. Jay Leno - do you imagine all
those cars in his garage were bought new?
Man at B&Q
> ARWadsworth wrote:
> > Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Steve Firth wrote:
> >>>> In article <4d95939c$0$17207$882e7...@usenet-news.net>,
Why?
> buyer - and it should remain trouble-free for a lot longer than a
> second-hand buy.
Why?
>
> I am certainly not criticising people who buy second-hand. Over my motoring
> life-time I've bought many more second-hand cars than I've bought new ones.
> All I'm suggesting is that most drivers, if they were honest, would like to
> buy brand-new cars. And if those who claim otherwise suddenly won several
> million on the lottery - I doubt very much that they would still buy
> second-hand.
I would, but it would be far more expensive than any *new* car I would
buy now.
MBQ
Adrian
they were saying:
>> Fair enough. That's your assessment. I don't know many rich people who
>> buy second hand cars however...
> That's because you don't know *any* rich people. My boss at one time was
> rich, proper rich not some wannabe millionaire. He owned and bought more
> secondhand cars than I'm ever likely to own. Jay Leno - do you imagine
> all those cars in his garage were bought new?
There's a guy lives not far from here - very, very rich - with a b, not
an m.
His everyday car is an 8yo Chrysler sprogbus.
Adrian
were saying:
> I am certainly not criticising people who buy second-hand.
So when you said...
ARWadsworth
> I am certainly not criticising people who buy second-hand. Over my
> motoring life-time I've bought many more second-hand cars than I've
> bought new ones. All I'm suggesting is that most drivers, if they
> were honest, would like to buy brand-new cars. And if those who claim
> otherwise suddenly won several million on the lottery - I doubt very
> much that they would still buy second-hand.
I would not buy a new car if I won the lottery. I would send my butler out
to buy it for me.
--
Adam
BartC
news:1b61cd91-57a3-427e...@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 1:36 pm, "Triffid" <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's not a question of having 'more money than sense' - it's a question
>> of
>> being sufficiently comfortably off that you can afford to buy a new car
>> without the purchase affecting your ability to enjoy everything else that
>> you want to do.
> So you would rather buy a new car for, say, £20k because you can
> afford it, rather than a much better second hand car for the same
> money?
>
> Guess which has depreciated the most the minute you drive it away?
>
> If you can afford to piss money away like that then that's your
> choice.
I buy my cars new, and the total cost of owning one (depreciation, fuel for
the mileage I do, etc) is perhaps £60 per week, or 30p per mile.
That seems reasonable. But then I buy fairly low-spec cars (that £60 was for
a car that was £9000 new; you can get new cars for a lot less that that).
How much could I have saved buying second hand? New, I get peace of mind and
no worries about MOTs for three years, or what someone may or may not have
spilt on the seats or done to the engine; and I have a shiny new number
plate for a few months.
It depends also on how frequently the car is replaced. If I have to drive a
4-year-old car, I'd rather drive *my* 4-year-old car, than someone else's.
(And no, I don't want a 'better' car for the same money. They usually come
with lower fuel consumption, more expensive repairs and maintenance, and
might be bigger and more awkward to drive and park. And it might look like I
actually care about what car I drive.)
--
Bartc
Mike P
> On 2011-04-01, Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Huge wrote:
> >> On 2011-04-01, Triffid <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> >>>> Conspicuous consumption is for hoi polloi.
>
> >>> I take it then, that you buy your clothes from the Oxfam shop, and
> >>> all your household goods (TV, washing machine, tumble dryer, mobile
> >>> phone etc) second hand as well? Far better to look like a tramp,
> >>> and have a house full of other people's cast-offs, than be accused
> >>> of 'conspicuous consumption' eh?
>
> >> When was the last time you bought a £20K fridge?
>
> > What has that got to do with anything?
>
> want those nasty old cast-offs, would you?
>
> > buying your household goods second hand. So why don't you?
>
>
> >>> cars do so just to impress the neighbours?
>
> >> Mostly, yes.
>
> >> It just makes them look like mugs in my eyes.
>
> > People who can afford to buy new cars generally do so. People who cannot
> > afford to buy new cars generally buy second hand - but, if they were honest,
> > would prefer to be in a position to buy new.
>
> pretty colours of burning tenners, but I have better things to spend the
> money on.
Indeed. I worked out recently that I could go and buy a Porsche
Boxster PDK. New. For cash.
Why I'd ever want to is another matter. Especially as I could get a
near mint earlier model, with full dealer history for less than
£9,000.
You see, it's the mugs who spend big money on them that make them much
cheaper for people like Huge, I and others..
Mike P
Hello Kev.
Clive George
> I suppose you insist on buying a new house, too? After all, wouldn't
> want those nasty old cast-offs, would you?
There are people who believe that. Hey ho.
Clive George
> If you had the income of David Beckham - would you still buy second-hand
> cars?
We went through this with Kev a few weeks ago. The answer is "Hell,
yes". Having his income opens up _so_ many opportunities to buy
otherwise unaffordable second-hand cars.
Adrian
like they were saying:
> On 01/04/2011 13:23, Triffid wrote:
>> If you had the income of David Beckham - would you still buy
>> second-hand cars?
> We went through this with Kev a few weeks ago.
And now we're going through it with Kev again.
It is you, isn't it, Kev? Another alias on top of your real name, Uno-
hoo, Ret?
Triffid
That's not a criticism - it is simply a fact. As I have said elsewhere -
over my car-buying life-time I have owned far more second hand cars than I
have owned new ones.
--
Triff
Triffid
LOL!
--
Triff
Adrian
>> So when you said...
Mmm. Speaking of which, how come you're getting rid of the Golf so soon?
Triffid
LOL - took you long enough!
Kev
Triffid
There is a long story to that - do you want to hear it?
Kev
ARWadsworth
You're shagging Beckham?
--
Adam
Ret.
Nothing quite so dramatic...
--
Kev
Adrian
>>>> So when you said...
Do you need to ask?
Chris Bartram
>> honest, would prefer to be in a position to buy new.
>
> years ago my car cost about 4x the price of the average new car. It was
> still "secondhand". Buying new cars is for people with more money than
> sense.
newness of it is nice, but the eye-watering depreciation on a new car
soon takes the shine off that. Never again :-).
Ret.
You may recall that back in November I traded in my Rover for a Golf 1.4 TSi
DSG SE. The car was a demonstrator that was just 8 months old and had 4.5k
on the clock. You may also recall that I mentioned that I paid £14,995 for
the car which was at least £2k less than similar spec/mileage/age Golfs were
selling for on the VW Approved Used Cars list.
During my negotiations I queried the price and was told by the salesman (who
no longer works for Liverpool VW) that they had a policy of getting rid of
their demonstrators before they were 9 months old and, if cars approach that
age, they discount them for a quick sale. I also specifically asked the
salesman (as I always do when buying a car), if it had suffered any damage.
He replied that there was a minor parking 'ding' on the rear nearside door
and minor scuff on the front bumper. He showed both marks to me (which were
indeed minor) and assured me that both would be fixed prior to collection
(which they were).
It was unfortunate that within a week of me buying the car the really bad
winter weather set in and so, for several weeks, the car was little used and
not washed at all.
On 23rd January this year, when drying the car off after a wash, I noticed a
mismatch of paint colour above the rear offside wheel arch. At first I
thought it was a fuel stain from spilt petrol - but it didn't budge with
polish, and I began to suspect that re-spraying was involved.
To cut a very long story short, a close examination of the offside of the
car revealed that the entire offside of the car, including the doors, plus
the bonnet and both front and rear bumpers had been resprayed. Had I been
buying a 3 or 4 year old car I would have given the body a much closer
inspection than I did this car - but when the car is just 8 months old, and
with less than 5k on the clock, you just don't really expect this sort of
thing.
So, I get onto Liverpool VW and was put through to the bodyshop manager who
promised to make enquiries and get back to me. He eventually did - and
intially tried to claim that the only work that had been done to the car was
the parking ding and the bumper scuff. When I persisted he finally agreed
that some work had been done to the rear wheel arch; "But we only charged
the showroom £400 so it wouldn't have been serious..." He denied any
knowledge of work to the front wing, even though I told him that I had found
the remains of masking tape near to the offside bonnet hinge.
I then emailed the 'Brand Manager' at the dealership. He was very apologetic
and said that the car had been 'keyed' while it was a demonstrator and so
had had no accident damage but pointed out (correctly of course) that you
cannot 'touch-in' a long scratch and that was why the offside had been
re-sprayed. He offered to have the offside re-sprayed again if I wasn't
satisfied with the quality of the existing work. I refused!
Fortunately I am still a member of the Cheshire Police Group Insurance
Scheme which includes legal representation for consumer disputes. I
contacted them and they agreed that it was a straightforward case of
misrepresentation and asked if I wanted them to take on the case. I said I
would try and sort it out with the dealership first.
After threatening legal action I was immediately offered either a full
refund of everthing I had paid, or a 'like for like' replacement of the car.
I opted for the latter because I love the car and a refund would have left
me with cash - but no car to go looking for another.
This was fine, but week after week passed with no sign of the replacement
car turning up. Whenever I emailed LVW, I was told to bear with them - they
were still looking for a suitable replacement. When I pointed out that there
were suitable replacements at other dealerships elsewhere in the country - I
was advised that it was not as simple as that, and for them to obtain a
vehicle from a dealership outside their group would mean them having to pay
full retail price for the car (Sad...).
After about four weeks I lost patience. I e-mailed the CEO of VW UK and also
VW Finance and again threatened legal action.
Initially I was again asked to 'bear with them' - they were trying their
hardest to locate a vehicle. Then, all of a sudden, I received an email
asking if I would be prepared to accept a brand new car as a replacement.
They said I *may* be asked for a *small* contribution - but they would cover
the rest by way of compensation for all I had been put through. Naturally,
I agreed, on the understanding that the 'small contribution' would be no
more than a few hundred pounds.
They initially offered me a stock car (brand new and unregistered) - but it
was a 1.6 diesel DSG, was considerably up-specced, and, horror of horrors,
was in black. Because of the up-speccing they said they would have to ask
for a contribution of £900. I turned it down because both my wife and I
loathe black cars and were not prepared to pay an additional £900 for a car
in colour we disliked. Added to which I wanted another 1.4 TSi - not a 1.6
diesel.
They said that if I wanted to order a new car there would a 14 - 16 week
lead-in time. They then said that they had found a new 1.4 TSi Match DSG in
silver and would I be interested in that. Silver is not a colour that I
would have chosen - but I'm quite happy with that and agreed. It was on the
dockside in Germany and would have to be brought over.
I queried what contribution, if any, they would require for this car and
they have now told me that they hope not to have to ask me for anything. (In
fact the road tax ran out on my existing car last month and when I asked
them what they wanted me to do about that, they told me to tax it for six
months and they would refund the cost).
The car arrived at the dealership yesterday and I expect to pick it up next
week. The SE trim (which my present car is) has been replaced with the
Match - which is considerably up-specced from the SE.
So, that brings us up to date. I have been put through a great deal of
hassle and aggravation - but I am ending up with a brand-new up-specced car
(OTR with metallic paint, and accessories around £20,970) for £14,995. Not
too shabby...
--
Kev
Bod
Took the words out of my mouth. It has been most amusing waiting for
the penny to drop....Ha!
--
Bod
Adrian
saying:
> After about four weeks I lost patience. I e-mailed the CEO of VW UK and
> also VW Finance and again threatened legal action.
Riiight. So - just to remind ourselves...
You started a thread asking if there was such a thing as an honest car
salesman.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/uk.rec.driving/-xCjs52M2G8/overview
"Over the years I've had nothing but hassle and aggravation from
dealerships - both in relation to sales and to servicing"
Now you've been threatening legal action against VW UK and the dealer.
Two out of your three most recent cars have been from main dealers and
new or very-near-new, yet have had to be rejected and handed back to the
dealer.
But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of money...
> (In fact the road tax ran out on my existing car last month and when I
> asked them what they wanted me to do about that, they told me to tax it
> for six months and they would refund the cost).
I seem to remember a similar line originally - something about taking
your wife out for a meal. Did they ever pay up for that?
Adrian
saying:
>>>>> If you had the income of David Beckham - would you still buy
>>>>> second-hand cars?
>>>> We went through this with Kev a few weeks ago.
>>> And now we're going through it with Kev again.
>>>
>>> It is you, isn't it, Kev? Another alias on top of your real name, Uno-
>>> hoo, Ret?
>> LOL - took you long enough!
> Took the words out of my mouth. It has been most amusing waiting for the
> penny to drop....Ha!
Triffid's first post in this thread - 8.21am.
Subsequent posts - 10.01, 11.27, 11.34, 12.13pm, 12.16, 12.19, 12.28,
12.39, 1.19, 1.23, 1.36
First explicit suggestion that he might be Kev - 1.48pm.
So that's a grand total of a dozen posts to this thread (and only nine to
other threads since Saturday), mostly within ONE hour, before he's
rumbled.
You're a bit impatient, aren't you?
Silk
> Conspicuous consumption is for hoi polloi.
No doubt your place is full of tat.
Steve Firth
> "Triffid" <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> If you had the income of David Beckham - would you still buy second-hand
>> cars?
>
It's either KeV or Silk.
Ret.
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:57:58 +0000, Adrian hissed:
> only time I look at GG from work as I now have a proper job, it took
> me all of 2 of Kev's posts to work it out..
>
> Anyway, welcome back you old git. Even I'll admit it's been a tad
> tedious around without you. GT isn't 1/4 as much fun ..
LOL! I just hope that you know who is not going to start hassling me
again...
--
Kev
Adrian
saying:
>> Anyway, welcome back you old git. Even I'll admit it's been a tad
>> tedious around without you. GT isn't 1/4 as much fun ..
> LOL! I just hope that you know who is not going to start hassling me
> again...
<cough> Remind me why you buggered off?
ARWadsworth
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:40:37 +0000, Adrian hissed:
>
>> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>> After about four weeks I lost patience. I e-mailed the CEO of VW UK
>>> and also VW Finance and again threatened legal action.
>>
>> Riiight. So - just to remind ourselves... You started a thread
>> asking if there was such a thing as an honest car salesman.
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/uk.rec.driving/-xCjs52M2G8/overview
>> "Over the years I've had nothing but hassle and aggravation from
>> dealerships - both in relation to sales and to servicing"
>>
>> Now you've been threatening legal action against VW UK and the
>> dealer.
>>
>> Two out of your three most recent cars have been from main dealers
>> and new or very-near-new, yet have had to be rejected and handed
>> back to the dealer.
>>
>> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of money...
>
> dealer if he were on fire TBH.
But would you waste expensive petrol trying to put out the fire?
--
Adam
Ret.
> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> After about four weeks I lost patience. I e-mailed the CEO of VW UK
>> and also VW Finance and again threatened legal action.
>
> Riiight. So - just to remind ourselves...
> You started a thread asking if there was such a thing as an honest car
> salesman.
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/uk.rec.driving/-xCjs52M2G8/overview
> "Over the years I've had nothing but hassle and aggravation from
> dealerships - both in relation to sales and to servicing"
>
> Now you've been threatening legal action against VW UK and the dealer.
>
> Two out of your three most recent cars have been from main dealers and
> new or very-near-new, yet have had to be rejected and handed back to
> the dealer.
True - but in both cases, because I bought from main dealers, I ended up on
top. Do you think I would have achieved what I have with this Golf if it had
been a second hand car from a small dealer?
>
> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of money...
I'm not suggesting any such thing. Everyone must do what they personally
want to do. You have to admit, however, that I have done rather well out of
this latest debacle. I have been running the existing Golf (which is a
terrific car) for four months. It is now 12months old - but is about to be
replaced with a brand new up-specced car. I'm happy enough with that!
>
>> (In fact the road tax ran out on my existing car last month and when
>> I asked them what they wanted me to do about that, they told me to
>> tax it for six months and they would refund the cost).
>
> I seem to remember a similar line originally - something about taking
> your wife out for a meal. Did they ever pay up for that?
Surprisingly - yes they did. We went out for a decent Indian, cost was
£66.00 and they sent me a cheque just before Christmas with a nice little
note saying 'Merry Christmas from Liverpool VW' !
--
Kev
Steve Firth
And now you know what Kevin Lunn's word is worth. Slightly less than a
plugged nickel.
Steve Firth
Ah yes, hassling you, just remind me which person was outed as the
blackmailing, stalking liar?
Adrian
saying:
>> Two out of your three most recent cars have been from main dealers and
>> new or very-near-new, yet have had to be rejected and handed back to
>> the dealer.
> True - but in both cases, because I bought from main dealers, I ended up
> on top. Do you think I would have achieved what I have with this Golf if
> it had been a second hand car from a small dealer?
You admitted that you wouldn't have given a toss about the paintwork if
it hadn't been a near-new car.
B'sides, who's to say that the brand-spanker won't have been damaged in
transit and repainted before delivery?
>> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of money...
> I'm not suggesting any such thing.
Of course not. You could, of course, be _thought a pauper_.
It's kinda difficult to buy a new car without doing precisely that. Or
getting arrested for fraud.
Ret.
I buggered off because you-know-who had been mercilessly hounding me for
days. Have you forgotten all the bogus posts he made in my name?
I made an attempt, which in retrospect was a mistake, to get him off my
back - that was all.
Anyway, I'm hoping that we can just move on from that.
--
Kev
Silk
> It's along similar lines - I said a "posh" person will buy a top of the
> range Merc and keep it for years and years and years, because it's
> (allegedly) a bloody good car.
>
> A snob will buy one every couple of years, on lease, just to impress the
> neighbours.
Meanwhile, you're sitting at home muttering into your computer, going
green and wishing you could afford to do either.
Adrian
saying:
>>>> Anyway, welcome back you old git. Even I'll admit it's been a tad
>>>> tedious around without you. GT isn't 1/4 as much fun ..
>>> LOL! I just hope that you know who is not going to start hassling me
>>> again...
>> <cough> Remind me why you buggered off?
> I buggered off because you-know-who had been mercilessly hounding me for
> days. Have you forgotten all the bogus posts he made in my name?
No, Kev, that's not why you buggered off, is it?
> I made an attempt, which in retrospect was a mistake, to get him off my
> back - that was all.
"That was all"?
> Anyway, I'm hoping that we can just move on from that.
Mmm. You're not exactly getting off to a great start, are you, with such
a lame attempt to deny your identity?
I did think "I'm bowing out of Usenet" might last more than two months.
Silk
> Do you not accept that many new car owners buy new cars simply for the
> pleasure of owning something that is brand new and not someone else's
> cast-off?
Apart from the fact that, in my case, it's actually more cost effective
to buy new, you can't beat having a brand new car in the exact colour
and spec you've ordered, knowing that you can account for every single
mile it's been driven.
There are a lot of envious people out there. If only they'd put that
brain power to use, get a better job and then they could have something
decent.
Adrian
saying:
> you can't beat having a brand new car in the exact colour and spec
> you've ordered
Well, that's Kev's brand-spankin'-new car ruled out then.
Or - come to that - my mother's last two brand-spankin'-new cars.
Ret.
> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>> Two out of your three most recent cars have been from main dealers
>>> and new or very-near-new, yet have had to be rejected and handed
>>> back to the dealer.
>
>> True - but in both cases, because I bought from main dealers, I
>> ended up on top. Do you think I would have achieved what I have with
>> this Golf if it had been a second hand car from a small dealer?
>
> You admitted that you wouldn't have given a toss about the paintwork
> if it hadn't been a near-new car.
Did I? Where did I say that? The question is: "Would I have bought the Golf
had I known that 3/4s of the car had been resprayed?" The answer of course
is no. Because of the dishonesty of the salesman I had ended up with a car
that would not be attractive to a future purchaser for the same reason. It
was a dirty trick to have played - and I was not prepared to let them get
away with it.
>
> B'sides, who's to say that the brand-spanker won't have been damaged
> in transit and repainted before delivery?
I'll go over this one with a fine-tooth comb! But there is a bit of a
difference between a minor touch up - and three quarters of the car having
been resprayed.
>
>>> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of money...
>
>> I'm not suggesting any such thing.
>
> Of course not. You could, of course, be _thought a pauper_.
>
> It's kinda difficult to buy a new car without doing precisely that. Or
> getting arrested for fraud.
What I am suggesting, and what I believe, is that the overwhelming majority
of people, if money was no object, would not buy secondhand - they would buy
brand new. I am not, of course, including people who buy vintage cars for a
hobby or interest - but rather everyday motorists.
--
Kev
Ret.
Well, if I'm not welcome - I'll bugger off again.
--
Kev
Ret.
> Silk <m...@privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> you can't beat having a brand new car in the exact colour and spec
>> you've ordered
>
> Well, that's Kev's brand-spankin'-new car ruled out then.
Indeed. It's a real shame that we are losing our 'Tornado Red' Golf. It may
be a 'solid' colour and not metallic - but it's a lovely red and suits the
car perfectly. My wife is really sad that the next car will not be the same
colour. Silver is a bit plain and anonymous - but it's popular, which is
good when trade-in time comes around.
Still, bearing in mind what I'm paying for this brand-new car - I'm prepared
to put up with it...
--
Kev
Adrian
saying:
>> You admitted that you wouldn't have given a toss about the paintwork if
>> it hadn't been a near-new car.
> Did I? Where did I say that?
<checks back>
OK, my apologies. I mis-recalled you saying you'd have checked it more
thoroughly.
> Because of the dishonesty of the salesman
> It was a dirty trick to have played
Did you ask him if it had any paintwork before you bought it?
>> B'sides, who's to say that the brand-spanker won't have been damaged in
>> transit and repainted before delivery?
> I'll go over this one with a fine-tooth comb! But there is a bit of a
> difference between a minor touch up - and three quarters of the car
> having been resprayed.
And who's to say that the new one won't have had substantial paint?
>>>> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of money...
>>> I'm not suggesting any such thing.
>> Of course not. You could, of course, be _thought a pauper_.
>>
>> It's kinda difficult to buy a new car without doing precisely that. Or
>> getting arrested for fraud.
> What I am suggesting, and what I believe, is that the overwhelming
> majority of people, if money was no object, would not buy secondhand -
> they would buy brand new.
And, in doing so, they "give dealers large amounts of money", right?
Silk
> Bullshit. Depreciation is money thrown down the drain. You might like the
> pretty colours of burning tenners, but I have better things to spend the
> money on. Buy cars at the knee in the curve and let some mug like you
> eat the depreciation.
Money's for spending. Unless you're one of those mad people who keeps
cash in carrier bags and dresses in rags. If you want nice things, you
have to pay.
Ret.
> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>> You admitted that you wouldn't have given a toss about the
>>> paintwork if it hadn't been a near-new car.
>
>> Did I? Where did I say that?
>
> <checks back>
> OK, my apologies. I mis-recalled you saying you'd have checked it more
> thoroughly.
>
>> Because of the dishonesty of the salesman
>> It was a dirty trick to have played
>
> Did you ask him if it had any paintwork before you bought it?
I specifically asked him if it had had any accident damage. I also asked
him, while we were out on the test drive, what the history of the car was.
If you want to be pedantic, of course, it is possible to argue that the car
had not suffered any 'accident damage' - the damage inflicted was deliberate
(if the tale about the 'keying' was true that is). However, it is patently
obvious what I was asking and why. I have noticed that the seam between the
rear offside bodywork and the bumper is not quite as perfect as it is on the
nearside. The bumper is very slightly 'proud' of the bodwork on the offside.
This may be nothing but suggests to me that the rear offside may have
suffered something slightly worse than a keying.
It is also clear that the dealer recognises that they haven't got a leg to
stand on - otherwise they would not have capitulated so readily.
>
>>> B'sides, who's to say that the brand-spanker won't have been
>>> damaged in transit and repainted before delivery?
>
>> I'll go over this one with a fine-tooth comb! But there is a bit of
>> a difference between a minor touch up - and three quarters of the car
>> having been resprayed.
>
> And who's to say that the new one won't have had substantial paint?
If it has - I'll refuse to accept it and demand a replacement that has not
been repainted.
>
>>>>> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of
>>>>> money...
>
>>>> I'm not suggesting any such thing.
>
>>> Of course not. You could, of course, be _thought a pauper_.
>>>
>>> It's kinda difficult to buy a new car without doing precisely that.
>>> Or getting arrested for fraud.
>
>> What I am suggesting, and what I believe, is that the overwhelming
>> majority of people, if money was no object, would not buy secondhand
>> - they would buy brand new.
>
> And, in doing so, they "give dealers large amounts of money", right?
Indeed - but I'm not suggesting that they should go and do it - I'm
suggesting that if they had the money they would *want* to do it.
Do you honestly doubt it? Do you really believe that the majority of big
lottery winners would carry on buying secondhand cars? Of course they
wouldn't.
People cut their cloth according to their means. I owned two Ladas during
my poorer days - one after the other. It was a choice of 2 year old Ladas -
or 5 or 6 year old Escorts or similar. Those were the days when anything
over 4 years old was already starting to rust through. Would I have bought
Ladas (or even a nearly new Escort) if I'd had the means to buy a new car?
Of course I wouldn't.
I've no doubt that my neighbours looked down on my Ladas at the time. It
didn't bother me - they satisfied my requirements at the time (and neither
of them ever let me down!).
--
Kev
Adrian
saying:
>>> Because of the dishonesty of the salesman It was a dirty trick to have
>>> played
>> Did you ask him if it had any paintwork before you bought it?
> I specifically asked him if it had had any accident damage.
Which he answered truthfully.
> I also asked him, while we were out on the test drive, what the history
> of the car was.
And he told you...?
>>>>>> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of money...
>>>>> I'm not suggesting any such thing.
...but...
>>> What I am suggesting, and what I believe, is that the overwhelming
>>> majority of people, if money was no object, would not buy secondhand -
>>> they would buy brand new.
>> And, in doing so, they "give dealers large amounts of money", right?
> Indeed - but I'm not suggesting that they should go and do it
Riiiight.
Ret.
> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>>>> Because of the dishonesty of the salesman It was a dirty trick to
>>>> have played
>
>>> Did you ask him if it had any paintwork before you bought it?
>
>> I specifically asked him if it had had any accident damage.
>
> Which he answered truthfully.
>
>> I also asked him, while we were out on the test drive, what the
>> history of the car was.
>
> And he told you...?
That it was a demonstrator and had been used for a short time as personal
transport for a female salesperson who was no longer with them. Nothing at
all about any damage being done to it.
>
>>>>>>> But we should all go out and give dealers large amounts of
>>>>>>> money...
>
>>>>>> I'm not suggesting any such thing.
>
> ...but...
>
>>>> What I am suggesting, and what I believe, is that the overwhelming
>>>> majority of people, if money was no object, would not buy
>>>> secondhand - they would buy brand new.
>
>>> And, in doing so, they "give dealers large amounts of money", right?
>
>> Indeed - but I'm not suggesting that they should go and do it
>
> Riiiight.
Absolutely. I didn't do it when I was less comfortably off either. If you
cannot afford to easily pay for a new car and not leave yourself short in
other areas - then you shouldn't do it.
--
Kev
Steve Firth
Yes, that's how people in council houses think. The apple never falls far
from the tree.
Steve Firth
> Adrian wrote:
>> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>> Anyway, welcome back you old git. Even I'll admit it's been a tad
>>>> tedious around without you. GT isn't 1/4 as much fun ..
>>
>>> LOL! I just hope that you know who is not going to start hassling me
>>> again...
>>
>> <cough> Remind me why you buggered off?
>
> I buggered off because you-know-who had been mercilessly hounding me for
> days. Have you forgotten all the bogus posts he made in my name?
I didn't make a single post in your name. You're a liar.
> I made an attempt, which in retrospect was a mistake, to get him off my
> back - that was all.
Lie.
> Anyway, I'm hoping that we can just move on from that.
Since your opening move was an attack on me, that's also a lie.
Steve Firth
And Silk's repmobile.
Steve Firth
> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>> You admitted that you wouldn't have given a toss about the paintwork if
>>> it hadn't been a near-new car.
>
>> Did I? Where did I say that?
>
> <checks back>
> OK, my apologies. I mis-recalled you saying you'd have checked it more
> thoroughly.
>
>> Because of the dishonesty of the salesman
>> It was a dirty trick to have played
>
> Did you ask him if it had any paintwork before you bought it?
>
>>> B'sides, who's to say that the brand-spanker won't have been damaged in
>>> transit and repainted before delivery?
>
>> I'll go over this one with a fine-tooth comb! But there is a bit of a
>> difference between a minor touch up - and three quarters of the car
>> having been resprayed.
>
> And who's to say that the new one won't have had substantial paint?
Someone is obviously unaware of how car manufacturers work, in particular
German ones. It's not at all uncommon for a car to fail final paint
inspection and be sent back around for a respray. The respray is rarely as
good as the usual finish because no one will strip a car down to bare metal
to spray damaged panels. You get a job about as good as that done by a
vehicle repairer, no better.
To quote an Arfa Daley type I once met "They've all had paint".
Steve Firth
[snip]
>>
>> And he told you...?
>
> That it was a demonstrator
i.e. secondhand
> and had been used
i.e. used
> for a short time
It doesn't matter how short a time. Set a wheel on the road and the vehicle
is used.
> as personal transport for a female salesperson who was no longer with
> them. Nothing at all about any damage being done to it.
Caveat emptor, or not in this case.
Weren't you getting sniffy about buying a secondhand car? Yet here you are
admitting that you bought a secondhand car.
Ret.
> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>> were saying:
>>>
>>>>> Anyway, welcome back you old git. Even I'll admit it's been a tad
>>>>> tedious around without you. GT isn't 1/4 as much fun ..
>>>
>>>> LOL! I just hope that you know who is not going to start hassling
>>>> me again...
>>>
>>> <cough> Remind me why you buggered off?
>>
>> I buggered off because you-know-who had been mercilessly hounding me
>> for days. Have you forgotten all the bogus posts he made in my name?
>
> I didn't make a single post in your name. You're a liar.
They were as close as it is possible to be to my name - and certainly caused
some posters to believe that they had been made by me.
>
>> I made an attempt, which in retrospect was a mistake, to get him off
>> my back - that was all.
>
> Lie.
You know full well what was in that email I sent to you - and why I sent it.
Did I or did I not just ask you to get off my back?
>
>> Anyway, I'm hoping that we can just move on from that.
>
> Since your opening move was an attack on me, that's also a lie.
It was not an attack - it was a factual statement and you know it.
--
Kev
Ret.
Except for the fact that in this case they admitted that the car had been
'keyed' down its offside and across its bonnet while parked up in
Liverpool - and that was why it was resprayed in their own bodyshop. If you
stand a few feet back from the car you would not think that there was a
problem - but examine it closely and you can see the defects. Suffice it to
say that I would not recommend anyone having repair work done on their car
at that particular bodyshop!
--
Kev
Ret.
> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> And he told you...?
>>
>> That it was a demonstrator
>
> i.e. secondhand
>
>> and had been used
>
> i.e. used
>
>> for a short time
>
> It doesn't matter how short a time. Set a wheel on the road and the
> vehicle is used.
Absolutely. I have never ever suggested that the car was not a used car. Of
course it was. It was eight months old and had 4,500 miles on the clock.
What makes you think I was trying to suggest that it was a new car?
>
>> as personal transport for a female salesperson who was no longer with
>> them. Nothing at all about any damage being done to it.
>
> Caveat emptor, or not in this case.
Absolutely - but when buying a nearly new, very low mileage, VW Approved
Used Car from a main dealer - you don't expect to be palmed off with a car
that has been 3/4 resprayed - particularly when you have specifically asked
questions about its condition. The fact that they are going so far to
compensate me indicates full well that they know they are totally in the
wrong.
>
> Weren't you getting sniffy about buying a secondhand car? Yet here
> you are admitting that you bought a secondhand car.
I was extolling the virtues of buying a new car - which I would have done if
I could have done it wholly comfortably. Having been retired now for ten
years, and not yet in receipt of my state pension, I am having to consider
my outgoings a little more carefully. I therefore decided to buy 'nearly
new'.
--
Kev
Steve Firth
> Steve Firth wrote:
>> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>> "Ret." <nos...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>> were saying:
>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, welcome back you old git. Even I'll admit it's been a tad
>>>>>> tedious around without you. GT isn't 1/4 as much fun ..
>>>>
>>>>> LOL! I just hope that you know who is not going to start hassling
>>>>> me again...
>>>>
>>>> <cough> Remind me why you buggered off?
>>>
>>> I buggered off because you-know-who had been mercilessly hounding me
>>> for days. Have you forgotten all the bogus posts he made in my name?
>>
>> I didn't make a single post in your name. You're a liar.
>
> They were as close as it is possible to be to my name - and certainly
> caused some posters to believe that they had been made by me.
Once again you miss the point by a mile.
>>> I made an attempt, which in retrospect was a mistake, to get him off
>>> my back - that was all.
>>
>> Lie.
>
> You know full well what was in that email I sent to you - and why I sent
> it. Did I or did I not just ask you to get off my back?
I know what was in that mail, it was a threat. You demanded that I cease to
post to a newsgroup or you would publish information that you thought would
embarrass me. The fact that you had misunderstood every fact in that mail
was most amusing. What it was not was a you asking me to get off your back.
>>> Anyway, I'm hoping that we can just move on from that.
>>
>> Since your opening move was an attack on me, that's also a lie.
>
> It was not an attack - it was a factual statement and you know it.
Untrue, again. And you have apparently forgotten that your first response
to me here was an attack. How do you manage your staggering levels of self
deceit?
Steve Firth
Odd, if it is do obvious, that you didn't notice something that I'm fairly
sure that most people who buy cars would have spotted fairly easily.
If you're going to buy a secondhand car, and if you are not competent to
assess condition, take along a grown up with dome experience.