Faults with recently purchased used car
Discussion
Sorry, another one of these threads.
I would welcome the thoughts of the good people of PH with regards to a car I recently purchased. The facts, the car is 12 years old, covered 81k miles at purchase and cost me £8k. I bought the car little over a month ago and have covered around 2k miles since then.
Since I've owned the car the following issues have appeared:
1. Coolant loss and warning light (I fixed this myself- replacing a faulty expansion tank, sensor and one of the pipes)
2. Parking sensor failures
3. Transmission fault (automatic box)
4. Engine management light
The first and second faults are trivial, one is dealt with and the second is easily fixed (though annoying).
For faults 3 and 4, I spoke with the selling dealer and they agreed that I should book it in with a specialist for diagnosis, and if it's within their own warranty then they would settle the bill. The dealer has their own warranty (not a third party one) which has the usual limitations (though limits labour rates at £40 per hour- I'm yet to find a competent and equipped garage charging that).
The transmission fault has been diagnosed as a failed torque convertor and will be an expensive repair. So far the dealer I've bought it from hasn't said that this fault wouldn't be covered, however the balance of how much I would need to pay is to be discussed (I believe my contribution should be £0).
The engine fault has been found to be a variable valve timing motor, which isn't receiving power (the motor itself is fine). So this requires further investigation. This is where things get tricky. The dealer is insisting that they are not obliged to assist.
I quote, from written communication with them- "....that the vehicle has covered 2,000 miles (fault free) is proof in itself that no faults were present at point of sale". They are sticking to the line that the faults were not there when the car was sold, though my understanding is that they need to prove that this is the case, and me having covered 2k miles is not absolute proof of this.
From my perspective, I don't believe I should be shelling out large sums of cash this early into ownership. The car is back in my possession, with the specialist garage due to discuss the required next steps with the dealer. Each of these major faults are big bills, now I don't want to get into a legal battle over this, but could anyone shed any light into what I should be doing to help steer this towards an amicable solution?
Thanks in advance for any contributions.
I would welcome the thoughts of the good people of PH with regards to a car I recently purchased. The facts, the car is 12 years old, covered 81k miles at purchase and cost me £8k. I bought the car little over a month ago and have covered around 2k miles since then.
Since I've owned the car the following issues have appeared:
1. Coolant loss and warning light (I fixed this myself- replacing a faulty expansion tank, sensor and one of the pipes)
2. Parking sensor failures
3. Transmission fault (automatic box)
4. Engine management light
The first and second faults are trivial, one is dealt with and the second is easily fixed (though annoying).
For faults 3 and 4, I spoke with the selling dealer and they agreed that I should book it in with a specialist for diagnosis, and if it's within their own warranty then they would settle the bill. The dealer has their own warranty (not a third party one) which has the usual limitations (though limits labour rates at £40 per hour- I'm yet to find a competent and equipped garage charging that).
The transmission fault has been diagnosed as a failed torque convertor and will be an expensive repair. So far the dealer I've bought it from hasn't said that this fault wouldn't be covered, however the balance of how much I would need to pay is to be discussed (I believe my contribution should be £0).
The engine fault has been found to be a variable valve timing motor, which isn't receiving power (the motor itself is fine). So this requires further investigation. This is where things get tricky. The dealer is insisting that they are not obliged to assist.
I quote, from written communication with them- "....that the vehicle has covered 2,000 miles (fault free) is proof in itself that no faults were present at point of sale". They are sticking to the line that the faults were not there when the car was sold, though my understanding is that they need to prove that this is the case, and me having covered 2k miles is not absolute proof of this.
From my perspective, I don't believe I should be shelling out large sums of cash this early into ownership. The car is back in my possession, with the specialist garage due to discuss the required next steps with the dealer. Each of these major faults are big bills, now I don't want to get into a legal battle over this, but could anyone shed any light into what I should be doing to help steer this towards an amicable solution?
Thanks in advance for any contributions.
The consumer protection act 2015 is your friend here, google it and print/highlight the relevant sections.
Discuss with the dealer and suggest that he should be footing the whole bill for repair/rectification.
Suggest that will be contacting the local trading standards office for advice and you will probably find he changes his attitude.
Discuss with the dealer and suggest that he should be footing the whole bill for repair/rectification.
Suggest that will be contacting the local trading standards office for advice and you will probably find he changes his attitude.
Thanks for the response. I have pointed this out to them, but they are sticking to their guns at the moment. Though their stance may change once they have discussed this with the specialist (I don't hold out much hope though). Here are a few redacted points made so far:
Me- "Under the Consumer Rights Act any faults occurring during the first six months after purchase is the responsibility of the seller to prove the fault wasn't there, not the 30 days as you mention. See Section 19 of said Act."......"I am reasonable with regards to faults, and would not expect every defect to be covered within reason but I cannot overlook gearbox and engine faults. As previously mentioned, these defects should be put right at no cost to me."
Their response is mostly in the OP, though with reference to the variable valve timing issue: "in keeping with the car's age/mileage and does not constitute to a major fault. This fault was not present at the time of sale and does not mean we are obliged to offer a repair free of charge."
It's easy to argue what is and what isn't a major fault, but I perceive one with a potential bill of over 10% of the car's value occurring within 5 weeks of ownership to fit the definition of a major fault.
Really frustrating, as I've wanted one of these cars for years and this is seriously ruining my enjoyment of it.
Me- "Under the Consumer Rights Act any faults occurring during the first six months after purchase is the responsibility of the seller to prove the fault wasn't there, not the 30 days as you mention. See Section 19 of said Act."......"I am reasonable with regards to faults, and would not expect every defect to be covered within reason but I cannot overlook gearbox and engine faults. As previously mentioned, these defects should be put right at no cost to me."
Their response is mostly in the OP, though with reference to the variable valve timing issue: "in keeping with the car's age/mileage and does not constitute to a major fault. This fault was not present at the time of sale and does not mean we are obliged to offer a repair free of charge."
It's easy to argue what is and what isn't a major fault, but I perceive one with a potential bill of over 10% of the car's value occurring within 5 weeks of ownership to fit the definition of a major fault.
Really frustrating, as I've wanted one of these cars for years and this is seriously ruining my enjoyment of it.
Edited by StuTheGrouch on Thursday 3rd August 17:53
SLCZ3 said:
The consumer protection act 2015 is your friend here, google it and print/highlight the relevant sections.
Discuss with the dealer and suggest that he should be footing the whole bill for repair/rectification.
Suggest that will be contacting the local trading standards office for advice and you will probably find he changes his attitude.
+1, Couldn't have said it better myself. Discuss with the dealer and suggest that he should be footing the whole bill for repair/rectification.
Suggest that will be contacting the local trading standards office for advice and you will probably find he changes his attitude.
Thanks. I'll keep the Consumer Rights Act in mind and pursue that route if needed. I see that this going to be a long and frustrating process.
At least the dealer is still communicating, which is a good sign. The specialist has spoken with them now and outlined all issues with the car, and I'm now awaiting to hear from the dealer to find out what they propose to do.
At least the dealer is still communicating, which is a good sign. The specialist has spoken with them now and outlined all issues with the car, and I'm now awaiting to hear from the dealer to find out what they propose to do.
That sounds positive and I wish you the best of luck. It's times like that you find out if the dealer is any good/honest.
I can't imagine ever selling used cars for a living though. The grief used cars dealers must go through must be a joke. How can they stay in business if they guarantee 12 year old plus cars are fault free? Any profit they make from the cars will be eaten up by repairs.
I doubt very much there was enough meat on the bone of that sale to offset the cost of repairing the gearbox and engine issues.
I can't imagine ever selling used cars for a living though. The grief used cars dealers must go through must be a joke. How can they stay in business if they guarantee 12 year old plus cars are fault free? Any profit they make from the cars will be eaten up by repairs.
I doubt very much there was enough meat on the bone of that sale to offset the cost of repairing the gearbox and engine issues.
StuTheGrouch said:
Me- "Under the Consumer Rights Act any faults occurring during the first six months after purchase is the responsibility of the seller to prove the fault wasn't there, not the 30 days as you mention. See Section 19 of said Act.".....
Christ, how do dealers ever make money on selling second hand cars ? Edited by StuTheGrouch on Thursday 3rd August 17:53
Gary C said:
StuTheGrouch said:
Me- "Under the Consumer Rights Act any faults occurring during the first six months after purchase is the responsibility of the seller to prove the fault wasn't there, not the 30 days as you mention. See Section 19 of said Act.".....
Christ, how do dealers ever make money on selling second hand cars ? Edited by StuTheGrouch on Thursday 3rd August 17:53
t on the buyer if the car develops a fault later on that was present at the time of sale? 
That's exactly what the Consumer Rights Act is designed to stop happening!
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
4rephill said:
Gary C said:
StuTheGrouch said:
Me- "Under the Consumer Rights Act any faults occurring during the first six months after purchase is the responsibility of the seller to prove the fault wasn't there, not the 30 days as you mention. See Section 19 of said Act.".....
Christ, how do dealers ever make money on selling second hand cars ? Edited by StuTheGrouch on Thursday 3rd August 17:53
t on the buyer if the car develops a fault later on that was present at the time of sale? That's exactly what the Consumer Rights Act is designed to stop happening!
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
Of course, we want a fair law when buying a car, but has this now gone too far? What is a reasonable expectation on any 12 year old car? You cannot expect new car reliability, or warranty. If that's what you want, buy a new car?
4rephill said:
So you think car dealers should be allowed to sell any old load of crap, and tough st on the buyer if the car develops a fault later on that was present at the time of sale?
That's exactly what the Consumer Rights Act is designed to stop happening!
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
But the flip side to that argument is that legit car dealers have to price in enough margin on every car they sell to cover a cost like this.t on the buyer if the car develops a fault later on that was present at the time of sale? That's exactly what the Consumer Rights Act is designed to stop happening!
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
Or, they have to be much more picky about the stock they accept at trade in.
Ultimately, if you buy an old-ish car, there's a level of risk that has to be accepted. If consumers get better protection via the law, then the cost goes up, whilst auction sites and unscrupulous driveway traders continue to set low price expectations.
Hence, the point about "how are [legit] traders supposed to make any money" is perfectly legitimate, and recognisable, given the trader apparently didn't know the car had these faults 2k miles ago.
Whether it's better that everyone gets better protection from lemon cars - albeit with higher 2nd hand prices - is debatable.
But I bet they'll still be plenty of people going for the cheapest example for sale from a one man band, because the "other" dealers are rip-offs, andthen posting up a tale of woe about how the dealer is not answering calls..
Funk said:
Me: "...sounds like a BMW..."
<checks Stu's post history>
Stu: "..I've recently bought a 645Ci..."
Me: "Yup."
Stu, whereabouts in the UK did you buy from out of interest?
Ahh, a complicated car, 12 years old, is always going to be an 'eyes wide open' purchase. The faults that have arisen will be expensive to repair. If the selling dealer is digging his heals in with the 2,000 miles of trouble free motoring defence, then OP may face a struggle to convince a court the faults did exist at point of purchase. A compromise seems the best solution.<checks Stu's post history>
Stu: "..I've recently bought a 645Ci..."
Me: "Yup."
Stu, whereabouts in the UK did you buy from out of interest?
4rephill said:
Gary C said:
StuTheGrouch said:
Me- "Under the Consumer Rights Act any faults occurring during the first six months after purchase is the responsibility of the seller to prove the fault wasn't there, not the 30 days as you mention. See Section 19 of said Act.".....
Christ, how do dealers ever make money on selling second hand cars ? Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 3rd August 17:53
t on the buyer if the car develops a fault later on that was present at the time of sale? That's exactly what the Consumer Rights Act is designed to stop happening!
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
Just how can a car develop a fault later on that was there at the time?
REALIST123 said:
Just how can a car develop a fault later on that was there at the time?
If you test drive a car and you are happy with it then how can you really complain if the clutch gives up or the oil pump explodes after three months? (particularly on a 10+ year old car)
4rephill said:
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
Why must the fault have been there at the time of sale?(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
4rephill said:
So you think car dealers should be allowed to sell any old load of crap, and tough st on the buyer if the car develops a fault later on that was present at the time of sale?
That's exactly what the Consumer Rights Act is designed to stop happening!
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
Yep, dealers should be able to sell any old crap without having to warrant it as perfect. We live in the snowflake age where something is always someone else's fault.t on the buyer if the car develops a fault later on that was present at the time of sale? That's exactly what the Consumer Rights Act is designed to stop happening!
I bet if you were to pay £8K for a car and it developed a fault within 6 months of purchase that must have been present when you bought it, and it could cost a couple of grand to put right, you wouldn't simply say: "Oh dear.....Oh well that's just My bad luck.....I'll have to pay for the repairs Myself.....Hey ho!"
(There again, perhaps you would - In which case, you're a dodgy dealers wet dream come true!)
If a buyer can't understand that an old used car is an old used car that is cheap because it's an old used car, then they shouldn't by buying old used cars.
The real protection should be for people who are buying cars that are made to look better than they are. If a dealer sells a 150k 206 honestly for a fair price, why should the buyer expect it to have no faults ? It's old, used and likely to break down.
The result is, dealers either won't touch them, or they are shifted by dodgy dealers who are more likely to misrepresent them, then conveiniently disappear when the poor thick entitled sap who expects his £1k 20,000 miles, one careful owner (honest guv) Zafira to lug their family about for the next 10 years
Not a comment on this case, or this buyers rights.
I bought a 9 year old Cayenne, on the way home the stat was playing up - dealer said get an indie to fix it and they will pay, then a hose let go after 4 weeks I didnt think anything other than to pay for it - now a cat is a bit rattly after 5 months again thats my call - the car at collection had a fault, the dealer sorted it and anything after that is really my responsibility. Its a great car though and the £700 or so I need to pay is fair enough (stat was £550 that the dealer paid for)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff