Help-valve through cylinder after 400miles....

[Calorus]

smhmotorsport said:

Plus youre assuming the mileage is correct, which as will be stated on the receipt that it cannot be guaranteed..... so could be 200k. TBH its the lowest mileage Audi Ive seen of that age, wonder how much it cost?

A little over average, surely - it's not a Ford, most are bought for personal use rather than a company cars.

[smhmotorsport]

Calorus said:

smhmotorsport said:

Plus youre assuming the mileage is correct, which as will be stated on the receipt that it cannot be guaranteed..... so could be 200k. TBH its the lowest mileage Audi Ive seen of that age, wonder how much it cost?

A little over average, surely - it's not a Ford, most are bought for personal use rather than a company cars.

Not so sure, look on AutoTrader and youll find most are 100k+. Still he might have paid a lot of cash for it.

[rallycross]

euroboy said:

AlastairM said:

If anyone wishes to know the dealer involved them PM me as i'm aware of Ted's name and sham policy. I'd not like anyone else to get stung by these guys.

TBH so far I dont think you have been 'stung' as such. From what I can tell the dealer would have been quite happy to sell the car at a higher price but with a full warranty. I dont think he would have been happy to do that IF he knew that the engine was about to die.

It sounds like you have a had a lot of bad luck, but I dont necessarily think the dealer was dishonest or out to get you.

I'd agree with that.

There's no way to tell if a valve is going to drop, you were just unlucky.

If you wanted a warranty then you should have been prepared to the pay the retail price.

If you want to get it sorted quick see if you can find a second hand engine from someone like douglas valley, mabye the dealer will help you with the labour cost of fitting the replacement engine?

[ATG]

Equinox said:

ATG said:

Equinox said:

Elaborating a bit: So to know that it is a valve that has broken I Guess that you have taken the head off? If so then I guess that as you had the fault diagnosed / took the head off that you were prepaired to pay for the repairs yourself. Surley if from the start you didnt want to pay then you would have just taken the car strait back to them.

I presume that you were just going to fund the repair yourself but then discovered that it was a more costly affair so decided against it!!

Equinox

So what?

So the owner was prepaired to pay for the repairs himself he obviously knew the car has no warranty or why would he spend money on diagnosing the fault himself. Until it gets expensive so the owner then trys another get out clause.

Equinox

And what's wrong with that? If a fix is cheap, then to avoid hassle most people would be prepared to deal with it themselves to avoid hassle. However, if it is expensive and it is someone else's responsibility to get it fixed, then most people will pursue a claim.

[ATG]

DocJock said:

ATG said:

Key bits are that the goods must be of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose. This means the goods must meet the standards that any reasonable person would expect, taking into account the description, the price and all other relevant information.

I'd imagine the key bit wrt the OP's position is how was the car described? If the dealer said "It's a nice runner and it will go for miles", then would a reasonable person expect that to mean "more than 400 miles". If the dealer said "it's a dog and I'd expect it to explode", then it was as described and fit for the purpose for which it was sold (i.e. a mobile fireworks display).

But it has done more than 400 miles, it has done 75400 miles.
It is unreasonable to be expected to accept a valve failure in 400 miles, but not after 75400 surely?

If you buy a 6 year old car you are buying a car full of worn parts. As Rob-C said earlier, a dropped valve can happen at any time. If there was no evidence of a problem at the test drive then the purchaser is the one being unreasonable if he expects the dealer to sort this out IMO

As I said, it depends entirely on how the dealer described the car. If he described the condition of the car in a manner that would give a reasonable person the impression that it would get more than 400 miles before blowing up, then I'd expect the dealer to be in the shit. It is not like we're debating some thing here that fundamentally undermines the basis on which second hand cars are sold. The point that some of us have been trying to get across is that a dealer can't waive a customer's rights to statutory protection or ask a customer to agree to waive those rights. Those rights always stand between a dealer and a customer. It also matters not one jot whether or not the dealer knew the actual condition of the car when he sold it. The question is only whether or not the car was as described and fit for the purpose for which it was being sold.

[Rob-C]

So in a nudge-nudge "trade sale" like this one, what's the purpose for which it's sold? Sold to another trader for future re-sale? Fit for purpose I'd say.

[llamekcuf]

I suppose this depends on either S12 UCTA or whether there was an actionable misrepresentation which is hard to tell on the facts. Did the buyer make the contract in the course of business or hold himself out as doing so, and can the seller show this?. If yes - buyer can't rely on SOGA automatically and seller can exclude/limit liability as is reasonable. If no - SOGA applies and consideration would then have to be taken as to whether it was fit for purpose etc taking in to account age, condition, description of goods etc.

Morally I think you knew the risks of what you were doing and should pay accordingly, with perhaps a bit of goodwill from the dealer for the bad luck, but that's just my opinion.

[Ribol]

Rob-C said:

So in a nudge-nudge "trade sale" like this one, what's the purpose for which it's sold? Sold to another trader for future re-sale? Fit for purpose I'd say.

A trade sale is just that, you move the car on for an agreed price and then it is every man for himself.

Going back to the top of the thread, the OP described this as a trade sale/purchase. Not too sure if that was the case as the OP did not comment on this but was it a retail sale where he opted out of an additional warranty for a slightly lower price. Or was it a trade sale where the garage moved it on for cost plus whatever, only the OP knows that, the price paid would be a clue. Lots of garages sell cars at what they "trade" just to make the punter feel they have had a result, the "Trade Centre" got rich doing it.

To the OP - so which was it?

A retail sale with no frills?
or
A trade sale with no come backs?

[AlastairM]

So, it transpires that a valve was fitted less than 1000miles ago and the spring on this was incorrectly fitted which caused the failure. I've spoken to the previous owner to see if he had the work done and he did not which means the dealer i bought it from that he traded it into must have had the work done. I'm still getting no where with the dealer and i know he's been reported to trading standards before so i'm not holding out a lot of hope here. However, i'm joe public and i did not buy it on trade terms (despite my previous claims-i assumed i did as i had no warranty) and the receipt makes no link to it being a trade sale so i guess i just have to go back to the dealer and get him to sort this or slur his name over every piece of media i can get my hands on and then take him to court??

Advice please from the wealth of knowledge that is on here.
Thanks

[Ribol]

AlastairM said:

So, it transpires that a valve was fitted less than 1000miles ago and the spring on this was incorrectly fitted which caused the failure. I've spoken to the previous owner to see if he had the work done and he did not which means the dealer i bought it from that he traded it into must have had the work done.

How do you know that it was fitted less than 1000 miles ago? I doubt a valve/spring incorrectly fitted would stay there for that sort of mileage.

If the previous owner did have the work done and then got shot of it knowing there was something wrong with it he is unlikely to put his hand up and admit to it and get drawn into this - would you?

Are you now saying this was a straightforward retail sale with no mention of a trade sale on paperwork?

[gwaredd]

Shit luck on the failure dude, but good luck on the valve repair find. That should carry a lot of weight if the dealer (or any Audi dealer) did the work, as the repair should be covered by at least a 3 month workmanship warranty, regardless if the entire car came with or without a warranty when you purchased it.

That aside, if it did fail of its own accord, then I'm in the 'hard luck fella' camp I'm afraid. If you buy a 2nd hand washing machine & it fails, you are only covered IF you have a warranty, or IF you can prove the part that failed was knowingly suspect by the dealer when you bought it. Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

Keep digging about that valve though, I reckon it's your only shot at not being out of pocket.