What do you mean by "upper hand"?
And what is the nature of the dispute?
And prove it to whom?
Hi Tim,
As brief as possible. $3,000 paid on 5.2.17 for 1994 car, more than 200,000ks. So no warranty. But bought from 2nd hand dealer working from home.
Serious headlight and comprimised steering ability defects realised on way home from purchase.
Independent inspection showed defective suspension parts etc, oil leaks and faulty headlight switch.
After contacting seller and seeing his mechanic, seller refused to replace all defective parts citing regulations from MTA.
I'd already been following advice from consumers, to give seller opportunity to respond and resolve all defects.
Seller argues MTA regulations directly to consumers who call me saying 'their hands are tied as my independent inspection report doesn't have words to the effect of, "this vehicle is unroadworthy. " '. I'm further advised to get around this I'd need to have the car defected by police or have it offically inspected at the Vehicle Inspection centre at Lonsdale.
This is where I question the legitimacy of MTA regulations vrs ACL?
Both of these things have now happened. Extra defects were found. Seller was provided with both police defect notice and vehicle inspection centre unroadworthy certificate but seller still will not agree to rectify.
Consumers have agreed to escalate action today to reconciliation. They hope it won't go to court.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be quicker to file in christies beach magistrates court.
I'm permanently disabled without a car.
