Can you please stop trying to advertise your cars on Trademe "as is where is". You are either A, ignorant of current NZ laws, or B, trying to deceive the public by wriggling out of your legal obligations. Either way, it's not good enough and you should be reported. Solution? Up skill, OR be honest ,OR leave the industry. We don't want your type giving all the honest, law abiding dealers a bad name. Currently there are 93 dealer listings advertising cars 'as is where is'.
kazbanz,
Feb 17, 12:44am
I don't agree with ya dude.The current law is an apsolute ass.The more people that get taken to DT the more it gets proven to be an ass. When it becomes an epidemic and gets the attention of the powers that be maybe it will be sorted out once and for all.
motorboy2011,
Feb 17, 1:04am
I have to agree with the 2nd poster. Why shouldn't a dealer be able to sell a 18 year old 300km trade in (or say a rough newer vehicle) as is there is? People these days expect far too much for far too little and then don't take any responsibility.
rabbitt1000,
Feb 17, 1:05am
one for one against could get interesting. beer anyone. ?
timbo69,
Feb 17, 1:10am
I dont have a problem with it.
tgray,
Feb 17, 1:20am
It's not about whether you agree a dealer can sell as is where is or not, but about the fact it is against the law to do so. If you don't agree dealers should work legally, then you have to ask yourself some hard questions. Personally, I believe dealers SHOULD be able to sell trade ins as is where is, but that is not lawful in this country to do so right now. That is my point. People shouldn't be able to flout the law with no repercussions.
tamarillo,
Feb 17, 1:24am
The law might be an ass, but that doesn't mean you can flaunt it surely? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought one could no longer simply say as is where is and denounce all responsibility. Law is it must have wof less than 30 days or buyer signs to agree only to use to get a wof. In other words designed for things needing repair. Consumer protection gone mad maybe, but that's way it is as far as I can see. And surely it's best for dealer not to use it if it's got no legal standing by itself, I believe there been court decision on that. You could sell as is and find you're being done for repairs needed because you didn't get waiver signed. Personally don't mind and understand intent, but the law is, well the law.
tgray,
Feb 17, 1:25am
And that is my point.
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 17, 1:40am
I really like the practice, it makes it super easy for me to weed out the pond scum. Much easier than trying to spot subtleties like shiny hair gel patches on the hood lining.
Keep up the good work!
That said, I do see your point tgray. It must be a mongrel getting tarred with the same brush. The whole industry needs a real shake up IMO. Same goes for the service and repair side of the industry, the MTA etc.
I just hope if someone does it they have the brains to realise that regulation/red tape is NOT the answer to everything.
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 17, 1:45am
BTW. even though this is contrary to my previous statement. There is one piece of extra regulation I would like. That is the introduction of some consequences for "trying it on" with the CGA etc.
If you are going to have the CGA, it's totally unfair in my opinion that if you are elderly, too trusting or mentally challenged that you effectively don't get cover under the CGA. Because in my opinion, that's pretty much what it boils down to with far too many operators, "trying it on" is standard practice.
Easier said than done, but we need to try some sort of system where you get a warning and then if there are further clearly verifiable complaints for the same thing you get a fine. every time you do it.
vtecnet,
Feb 17, 2:13am
It may soon get to the point where it is not viable for dealers to trade in cars anymore, especially really old cars that are likely to have issues. A lot of people that trade in their vehicle are probably only doing so because the car is on its last legs and has some known issue/issues.
I've noticed that dealers still have to honor the CGA selling them via turners auctions also, I actually think its quite unfair, how are they meant to get rid of the crap people trade in? other than the wreckers for $50
The laws a bit messed up in that regard, I actually feel for the car dealers.
Its okay for the big dealerships selling new cars and trading in cars that are only a few years old as they can sell these to other car dealers, for the average dealer selling 7-10k Imports its not easy at all, as they are often stuck with trading in cars that are worth about $200, however the person trading in said car seems to think they are entitled to at least $2000 Trade in. I'm not a car dealer, but it doesn't take much to work out the issues this law causes.
thejazzpianoma,
Feb 17, 2:42am
I agree, and it's not just the CGA that is backfiring like this, it's over regulation in general.
We have similar absurdities wherever you look, be it a home owner wanting to do some repairs and encountering the obscene costs and hassle of getting a consent. The Police on our roads wasting millions trying to brainwash the public into thinking 1km/h over the limit is a crime. ACC/OSH going nuts at farmers over stupid things, and so on and so fourth.
People need to stand back and consider what over regulation actually costs us all, as a country and as individuals. Not only do you get direct costs, like with the CGA making it near impossible for dealers to sell trade ins so the public are denied both cheap buying and value trade in opportunities. But you get indirect costs in the billions as money is wasted on red tape, red tape that is "dead money" because it doesn't grow the economy, it's just taken out of our pockets and wasted. There is also a lost opportunity cost as many people don't go in to business because it's either "too hard" or not financially viable thanks to over regulation.
Don't get me wrong, we definitely need some regulation, but it has to be a happy and economical medium. Right now we just seem to add more regulation/tax as the knee jerk politically pleasing response to any problem.
People need to wake the hang up and realise we can't afford it!
franc123,
Feb 17, 2:51am
While some people trading cars in are clearly trying to offload their old dog onto anybody that would take it, dealers could help their own cause a lot more by being more careful about what they trade in, or at least getting a far better idea of the condition of these trades before attempting to sell them on. Not much responsibility in this area appears to be shown by a lot of dealers, you would think they would know better.
kimbo88,
Feb 17, 4:33am
This keeps going in circles all the time - we are effectively talking about "end of life" vehicles here technically, or even beyond end of life, but NZ in general tends to keep cars on the road longer than average. That is commendable, but there should be the facility that there used to be for cars to be able to be sold without any coverage, as is where is. It used to be "Category D" in the old days. Nobody had a problem with it, it was "caveat emptor" and if the buyer didn't like it, they bought something that had coverage, AND paid more for it. When manufacturers effectively are describing their vehicles as end of life at the 7 to 8 year mark, why on earth do people need to be mollycoddled with nanny state coverage on some vehicle that could be 15 - 20 years old or more. I'm not suggesting that people should break the law, but as other posters above have said, the current law is an ass and should be amended to reflect a more sensible approach. People are not forced to buy something that they don't want to buy, they chose to either buy it or buy something else.
franc123,
Feb 17, 5:20am
^^couldn't agree more, there is nothing like having a simple system where buyer and seller know exactly where they stand re aftersales support, it was stupid getting rid of the old used car categories. If you want heavy duty backup, its only fair enough that it comes at a cost. .
kazbanz,
Feb 18, 1:27am
I think you are missing the point. When a law is unfair or unreasonable then it needs to be changed you have to agree there don't you. Reasonable car dealers have paid for our "industry representation" to moderate the law or complete the process which was totally unsucessfull So unwittingly or argueably deliberately some dealers are flouting the law. You could say almost DEMANDING to be taken to DT or higher. The flood of DT cases will grow in time as the 400k 30 year old heaps die. Eventually I for one hope that the flood grows so big that "big brother" pays attention and sorts this ass of a law once and for all. Again to be clear---Im 100% for consumer protection but at what age/milage is a motor vehicle considered to be beyond end of life? Find that in the law and you are a better man than me. YET- ask ANY manufacturer,--audi through to Toyota and they have an age/milage where a vehicle is considered to be at end of reasonable life expectation. Sorry toby I know the guys selling the as is where is heaps of poo are directly competing in your exact market sector -you selling good reliable cars but honestly it will be long term better for the industry to have clear cut precise definitions.
bumfacingdown,
Feb 18, 11:41am
Perhaps the car sales industry needs to also look at why regulation was brought in, was there enough self regulation previously? Years ago I had the honour of having dealings with the MTA and what a self serving (to the industry) farce that was, how much has it improved over the years? Just an alternative view, there always has been enough sharks to tar honest dealers and I don't think enough was ever achieved to bring them to heal.
tgray,
Feb 18, 1:02pm
Yes I agree there, and I agree with you that the current law is an ass. What I disagree with, is breaking the law in order to achieve a more desirable alternative.
kazbanz,
Feb 18, 1:40pm
mate --I concider you to be enough of a friend to say--"lets just agree to disagree."
Any law where there is no clear cut definition of right or wrong is intrinsically flawed. To have the law changed you need the lawmakers to accept there is a flaw. The first step in doing so is bringing that flaw to their attention. This has not happened by normal means or by those who soposedly represent our interests. So other means are needed.
tamarillo,
Feb 18, 1:51pm
Agreed, though if I may, laws are often in need of interpretation and that is what our judges do, that's what case law is. For instance I know of a case where the law simp,y says it must be 'substantially' something. It is case law where it has been tested in court where there is any definition of what that means, in this case a judge has ruled 'about 80%'. I'm waiting for someone to take a summons for failing to keep left when all they've done is momentarily and safety cross a dotted white line. Until it goes to court cops will continue handing out tickets for something that in Uk is ok and used by police too. A long time back our law was based on theirs and I believe there is still some provision to use uk cae law. We need a judge to rule on it. Same goes for this end of life. Getting politicians to do anything is hopeless cause, it needs a case in from of judge to decide.
3tomany,
Feb 18, 2:01pm
the problem also is the court system is not fair as it will find in favour of the consumer more often than not
westwyn,
Feb 18, 2:30pm
I'm not going to re-visit and bore you with a lengthy repeat of my previous comments on this subject- but briefly, I was involved at the highest levels of lobbying and consultancy over the then-proposed CGA changes, and trust me, the implementation of the CGA was a pan-Ministry and consumer group juggernaut that was NOT going to be stopped. In the winners vs. losers, Consumer Affairs had a mindset, backed up by plenty of evidence (Tribunal rulings, District Courts rulings, CA complaints etc) that the need to protect the public from themselves (my interpretation, not theirs) was greater than the commercial difficulties the trade may face. They were backed by very strong arguments from Citizens Advice, Fair Go, TradeMe, the Law Society, etc etc (anyone on the "rights" bandwagon).
And- at the time, let us be very honest, there were a number of high profile cases in the media where dishonest dealers (and wannabes) HAD indeed used the previous law loopholes to defraud or otherwise hide from their obligations. For the 99% of us that comply with the law, this was a bit of an own-goal that slapped us in the face- repeatedly.
Fast-forward to today, and the current Disputes Tribunal rulings and law compliance IS being looked at seriously, not so much as to recommend changes- yet- but to benchmark the current legal framework and ramifications for both consumer and trader. It's too early to assess what the REAL effect of the law is, and whether it's actually working as planned for the 95% that comply (I'm being generous here, I reckon up to 10% of traders do NOT comply with the law at the moment, or attempt to fudge their way round it) for both buyers, and traders.
If all traders met their legal obligations under the new CGA then we'd have a much better picture of whether it's working, or not. But it's hard to make specific statements to a Ministry well aware that industry-wide compliance is still a long way off.
I don't agree with the CGA and that way it's applied to auctions, or for trade-in stock. Or, even the taking away of the "right" of a trader to market a car on the basis (via an auction) that the CGA does NOT apply as loing as both buyer and seller understand this, and the method of sale reflects the price attained. Pay more (where the Dealer determines the price)- get CGA coverage. Pay less via auction (where the market determines the value) no CGA. If everyone had complied with this, perhaps we'd not have the issues we have today.
kazbanz,
Feb 18, 3:26pm
Sorry mon but you're a bit late coming into this situation. To bring you up to speed a bit Ill use your example. Imagine instead of fixed /precise speed limits or keep left laws that the law said simply "the driver should drive in a safe manner." Imagine how full the courts would be. The driver of a Lambo gets pulled over on the open road doing 140km/h with no traffic around because the cop doesn't feel its "a safe manner" This is exactly where we are at under the current consumer laws. A dealer and their customer are required by law to be "fair and reasonable" when dealing with any failures. What is "fair and reasonable"? What reasonable expectation of reliability has a buyer of a 400000km 30 year old car got?
tgray,
Feb 18, 3:31pm
I respect your opinions too much to put up a counter argument, so let's agree to disagree then mate.
havin-a-bubble,
Mar 2, 11:38pm
Hi there, if it is an auction a dealer can sell on as is where is basis, if it is a classified this can not be done. Cheers
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.