Im pretty sure that's really old news.-as in it went to "court' months ago Good news none the less. The rest of us playing by the rules get tarnished by the likes of those people. Looks like they are a wrecker selling cars they decided were worth fixing
apollo11,
Dec 14, 8:33am
Sounds like they are a wreckers just flicking off the cars they deem too good to break up. Not uncommon in the wrecking trade.
kazbanz,
Dec 14, 8:43am
true enough, But there are a set of rules anyone selling motor vehicles must abide by. Even more so if doing it as a business. you can't sell aiwi
sw20,
Dec 14, 10:49am
Fine works out at $876 a car. Sounds like thats the cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
yz490,
Dec 14, 11:01am
Am i wrong, or does it seem tough that if you specifically go to a wrecker to buy a car with [some good] life left in it & buy it at a good price [bargain price] for what it is, wouldn't you expect it to 'not' be covered by the cga & happily sign 'that' fact away. Till the @#$% hit the fan & it broke cam belt & tangled valves. You only go there for a bargain [well, till it breaks]. How do turners opt out from cga [or don't they]. Be interesting to know how often buyers pull that one on turners for repairs--& for how long. I dunno--woffling on something i'm not sure on. Starting again--another thought. I bought my car from a $1 reserve auction 3 years ago [$3860], but if i'd paid $1 for it would cga still be valid. Was a dealer as such [of Tractors utes & quads by memory, so was a trade in passat]. Luckily it's been pretty good except for stupid things like reverse beeper beeping at nothing lol, which eventually fixed itself. anyway, Thanks. ps, i gather a private seller can legally have an aiwi sale so long as its honestly advertised--well as honestly as the seller is aware of--which could open another can of worms--or snakes].
budgel,
Dec 14, 11:31am
Are auctions exempt from the CGA?
franc123,
Dec 14, 11:39am
You're not going to stop this until the public actually clue themselves up on what their rights actually are. That other crowd in Auckland who were importing, self complying then dollar reserving a whole lot of low grade junk got away with it for years before they got busted. When you start waving cheap cars in front of certain people common sense goes out the window, it's been proven. Theres always a market of suckers who can't help themselves.
kazbanz,
Dec 14, 11:50am
They had "nothing" to do with the change in the law but "coincidentally" live auction companies are indeed exempt from the CGA. Totally coincidently they were strong advocate for making online auctions (trade me auctions) be covered by the CGA. Short version is that a certain company was and did loose a massive market share when any dealer could compete directly with them by running online auctions. You will notice that that company showed a MASSIVE shift in their fortunes when the law change came into effect.
sw20,
Dec 14, 11:52am
Agree. Had a young bloke working for me. Wanted a basic car. A Tiida. So he says he is going to 2CheapCars. I tell him not to bother and find a better one at another dealer for $1000 more, you will thank me later. He didn't and it's a heap of shit.
hkjoe,
Dec 14, 1:00pm
I'm definitely used, and often feel a bit 'as is, where is'. Fortunately I'm not for sale at any price.
apollo11,
Dec 14, 1:06pm
You'd leak all over the drive, anyway.
franc123,
Dec 14, 1:43pm
He was probably lucky to get it for the price he did. They're actually not that competitive that outfit when comparing apples with apples.
curlcrown,
Dec 15, 2:13am
It is true that the CGA applies to every car sold by a dealer but if a dealer sells a car extreemly cheaply, say uder $1500 and makes it clear that it is on its last legs and the buyer understands that then although the CGA applies there should really be no comeback except if the cars fails drasicly on the way home. The CGA is not an automatic gaurentee of quality or longevity. Prices comes into it along with other factors. I suspect there is more to the story than in that article, it doesn't say how much the cars were sold for, or what other claims were made at the time.
tgray,
Dec 15, 2:18am
Doesn't need to be any more to the story. A dealer cannot sell cars as is where is, period.
kazbanz,
Dec 15, 4:51am
Sorry dude that is not the issue. The issue is not what you are covering off which the law sort of agrees with. It is the very specific breaches of the LAW. A dealer cannot legally advertise AIWI or attempt to contract out of the law. We are also required by law to supply a VOSA and a CIN card, THAT is what the dealer got prosecuted for.
kazbanz,
Dec 15, 6:19am
THAT ^^^^ side of things would have been a matter for the MVDT to decide on a case by case basis and quite likely will be or has been. The MVDT do take into account the vehicle age-both miles and chronological-and the price paid when making a decision. Under the current law I have sold end of life cars and cars with known faults major and minor with no comeback. But AIWI is never mentioned. Instead I list the known faults. To do so is completely legal
intrade,
Dec 15, 6:27am
i seen that in my google spams this morning . what gets me is they make a fortune on fines and usually the guy who get shafted gets 50 cent and is still out of pocket while the government gets rich on the backs of the poor people who lost money
curlcrown,
Dec 15, 7:04am
Good point.
curlcrown,
Dec 15, 7:05am
I agree. I suspect the did it in a misleading or dishonest way and that the cars were not extremely cheap.
curlcrown,
Dec 15, 7:18am
To clarify I’m not condoning dealers selling cars as is where is but just that there should be, and I believe is, a legal and fair way of selling cars that are well worn and may be expected to fail at any moment at a cheap price with full disclosure.
kazbanz,
Dec 15, 8:07am
MY view on this matter is that first of all there needs to be a TOTALLY level playing field. By that either ALL auction vehicles are covered under CGA or NO auction vehicles are covered. That said I feel that the government of the day took something that wasn't by design broken and replaced it with something that is open to interpretation. The old system of Category A.B.C and D clearly defined what period of time you were covered for and the extent of the cover,. An updated version would clarify the legal standing for both buyers and sellers. The formula clearly laid out in legislation so no room for interpretation, We are after all talking about USED appliances
franc123,
Dec 15, 9:06am
Too right, the category system needs to be brought back. The idiots that came up with the CGA (which is in principle very good) seem to have taken an easy route in creating a blanket piece of legislation with no regard to how it was going to be applied to complex used goods like motor vehicles. In my view RMVT's should have the right to dispose of motor vehicles with a fair disclosure of faults to parties who want them for parts or repair without having to provide a guarantee, ie the old Cat D. Even if an older car that seems reasonably sound a Cat C warranty of one month or 1500km should be able to be offered. Once these statutory fixed dealer warranties expire THEN the MBI you purchased if you chose to/vehicle was eligible should then apply. I feel that dealers should lobby for this to be reinstated.
curlcrown,
Dec 15, 9:48am
Yes, there was, and still is a lot of merit to the old system, but the requirements to becoe a dealer were to stringent. On the other hand I belive the current system is little more than revenue gathering. Pay a fee, full in some forms and you're a registered motor vehilce trader with almost no checks.
kazbanz,
Dec 15, 11:14am
Other than the huge money involved in the fidelity fund I can't agree with you about the old system for dealers. Yes it was tough but like any profession you needed to know the law of the day to even be allowed to trade. A lot different from today.
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.