You can pretty much do the next two steps at the same time. Lodge your claim with MVDT and send a letter/ e mail to the dealer telling them "you" require the vehicle repaired by them as they are a dealer and you cannot contract out of the CGA.
Initially I went WTF then reading further its clear what happened. A favour was done for a friend that backfired in a big way. In the OP's case the dealer is making a "commission" on the sale and trying to hide from their responsibilities under the CGA.
supernova2,
Jul 4, 4:41pm
My 1st thoughts were like yours WTF. The dealer is a friend of the purchaser to the extent that they have day to day care of the purchaser's child yet the purchaser says they contacted the dealer as they were told they sell cars. Eh what? IMHO more holes than Swiss cheese. However, given that the dealer went to the bother of purchasing a car from Turners to onsell at cost (as reported in the decision)in my mind it gets very close to being the actions of a dealer rather than a friend. What hasn't been said was how was the Turners purchase made? Through the dealers account perhaps or just a random cash purchase? In those circumstances why didn't the dealer just take his friend by the hand and walk them through the Turners process and do the complete transaction in the friends name? There was no comment in the decision about who owned the "replacement" car either. Even if the 1st car had been a genuine purchase on behalf of a friend how do we then come to that car being swapped for another? Pretty sure that if I were silly enough to by something for a friend I wouldn't then be swapping it for something else just because it broke down. Wonder what eventually happened with the 1st faulty car? Can a dealer actually get involved in buying and then selling to a "friend" without it becoming a dealer sale? Hell I know lots of dealers. If I buy something from one of them can they wriggle out of the rules by saying they were just helping a "friend"?
My suspicious mind thinks that had a better advocate been at the MVDT, better questions asked etc, a very different decision might have been forthcoming. Oh and I agree this case is not like that of the OP. I just linked to it as I thought "that's an odd way to do things". But on reflection is it that different? In both cases it appears that the dealer is trying to avoid his responsibility.
alliancebroker,
Jul 4, 4:51pm
Company Registration describes them as:-
Business Classification: G391110 Car dealer - new and/or used (including associated vehicle servicing)
kazbanz,
Dec 5, 11:58am
supernova-The adjudicator in that case was "newish" at the time but even so I feel (Ie my personal opinion) he isn't stupid. So there had to have been strong evidence it was a good friend helping out rather than a profit making deal. -ie the default setting is generally to support the complainant
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.