Foxearth Sports Prestige and 4x4 Ltd

Never buy a car sold as seen from this Dealer Not interested once he has your cash “2015 car with full service history and new MOT” £6550 yeah right Stupidly checked car next day to find Rear seat belts not retracting …MOT Failure Front washers not working …MOT Failure Exhaust heat shield ripped from its supports. DPF Light came on after 30 miles Sent various emails and here’s the last reply ————————————————————- RE: Faults found on Mazda 2 YA15XGJ [email protected] To 'dave bees' 12 Jul at 10:19 3 attachments Good morning dave Thank you for all you sent to me over the many emails, and the information containing the cars mot failure and dpf flashing light/error, which by the way could actually mean the car is not communication with the dpf sensor only?? Now I will point out to you all the information you have sent and how wrong you are in all of it and the parts missing. On the 17/06/2021 the car went in for a mot and it was refused on the basis of the rear seat’s belts, but then went back on 21/06/2021 where it was passed without any issues at all, yet you write some of the information and forget about the rest!!It went for a mot in June 2022 at 45315 miles when you collected it had 45918 miles so on that the car had covered 603 miles with no issues before you took ownership of it, or should I say your son as you are not the buyer of the car and neither did you pay for it directly and not anywhere is your name and address being the keeper of the car! You claim that the car yesterday has issues with the seat belts rear not connecting correctly and the window washers spraying water, yet when I spoke to Anita your wife, she said you had sorted these issues and everything was ok.yet you added it was a mot failure, yet when it went for the mot at 45315 miles there was no issues at all, yet after 603 miles later and over a month, there was minor issues which have been sorted, you mention that the heat shield is missing, that is not a mot issue, and not a failure at all! Before the purchase of the car was placed and actioned, there were emails and phone calls about it, where I said many times and even in my office that dpf and other issues can happen at anytime and even on your email you point out being concerned about it all, yet in the advert for sale it mentions you can have the car fully checked by an independent to make sure your happy with the car before purchase, yet you decided not to, but in your email you talk about have a RAC inspection, well dave you could have had that done before hand, and did not, and that was your choice not to! You mention you have spoke to legal about your rights, well where a car is pointed out for sale, as seen without any warranty at all added because of the low price it being offered for, that’s my right to give and not to give a warranty, and it was pointed out on the sale of the cars adverts plus in the window of the car and even on the sales paperwork that no where am I offering a warranty and all and any faults then and from the date of taking the car is the responsibility of the buyer and not mine, and this was signed and agreed after a full test drive was actioned by your son and girlfriend, at which time through the negotiations of emails, phone calls, and coming to see the car was your sons right to back away yet he did not.! You also point out although the dpf light is flashing orange in the car the car is driving very well to me. So dave I will now point out to you where a car is being sold at £1000s below the true retail price as this one was, I have the right to offer it as I have, should you wish to take it legal, then my Barristers and QCs based at the number 5 Chambers in Birmingham will be more that happy to go to court on my behalf And I will claim the full costs of it all against you and with time out, where this will be in the £1000s I have been more that fair with you and told you everything about the car and the faults it could have and has. And again, on that you should have walked away if you were not happy with anything that was said to you, yet you and your son did not. You also mention on the day of coming for the car, you knew it was cheap and was prepared to buy it and any faults it may have would be fine because of the price, plus I also opened the bonnet and should you and your son the car running with no smoke coming out of the exhaust, showing at that time it was fine. Lastly you mentioned that you were going to get a warranty on the car from Mazda to me on the day of collection at £400, yet in all of the conversations about it now, you’re talking about rising costs, yet you said that was fine, so none of this makes sense, plus saying you can’t hear very well on the phone, yet you seemed to be hearing me very well when we were talking about the car. Also, you asked me could you buy a warranty and I pointed you out that there are many warranty companies out there that can help, but I was not prepared to offer you one under the circumstance of the sale, again on that you had the right to walk away, you also offered a deposit on the car which I did not take. Dave, you have made all you email clear to me, and now I’ve made mine. I hope the dpf issues are all sorted now and the person who worked on it as warranted their work but this is the last time we will speak or write,unless you want to go legal which I will without any issues at all. But before please read the full invoice of sale in full about any other issues and all the information about the advert in my sales of it

Car looked tidy inside and out but failed its MOT a week later on 2 broken suspension coil springs (which turned out to be 3 after I replaced all 4) and a damaged ball joint on the track rod end. The car also has a wheel bolt broken off in the hub so only has 3 wheel bolts on one wheel, brakes were binding (MOT), anti roll bar linkages were knackered (MOT) rear tyres are perished (MOT), offside wheels are buckled (MOT), handbrake has an excessive amount of travel in it (MOT) All of this after I was told the car had been "140 point inspected" before sale. I was told the damage could have been caused by me and that it was sold as seen and that it was sold at a reduced price of £2500 instead of a claimed retail price of £4995 (i can assure you that its absolutely not worth anywhere near that) AND as a trade only sale which was purely a method of covering themselves whilst selling a car with issues. If the car was truly "140 point inspected" then these issues should have been noticed and stated in the advert, none of the above was ever mentioned which makes the advert dishonest to begin with. After a second MOT (it has now passed) Its also been pointed out the subframe is rotten, luckily not dangerous just yet though. Say what you want about this review but I'm not the one who was dishonest. Also don't preach to me about offering to help after you've told me the car is sold as seen and that these issues didn't exist before it was parked up, I wasn't born yesterday. You can also say i was happy with the car after a test drive but at what point would I have had the opportunity to check the car underneath and check it under MOT conditions. That was your job not mine. Its irrelevant to me now because ive carried the work out myself and here is my testimony to that.