Car faults under warranty, dealer not playing ball, help!
Discussion
In recent weeks we purchased an E91 BMW 335i, from a car dealer. I understand that the 28 day warranty is up next Wednesday.
I will firstly say I've no desire to reject the car. It's well speced, 1 owner +BMW from new, with 13 stamps in the book. It's also in Le Mans Blue, quite a rare and desirable colour.
Since purchase the following faults have been identified. The first bit I'd like advice around is if any of these come under the wear and tear clause, IE can't be bought in to the equation.
So, what do we need to prepare in order to take it to the small claims? Cost of work, some can by pinned down, some maybe 'how long is a piece of string' I'd imagine? How would we address this point? I presume video evidence of the problems, where possible, will assist? Considering we've now made a claim by letter to the dealer, does the Small Claims Court claim need to be put in by Wednesday, when the warranty period expires? We had stated in our first letter to them that we were happy to work with them to keep costs reasonable (EG key repair, instead of replace) with the car being a 2008 model, is it fair to claim for new replacement items, or would it be expected that if a second hand item would resolve the issue then this is fair?
It's really causing me quite a bit of stress. I adore the car, but this has massively tainted the purchase experience.
Any advice will be gratefully received, and I promise to update with any outcomes etc.
I will firstly say I've no desire to reject the car. It's well speced, 1 owner +BMW from new, with 13 stamps in the book. It's also in Le Mans Blue, quite a rare and desirable colour.
Since purchase the following faults have been identified. The first bit I'd like advice around is if any of these come under the wear and tear clause, IE can't be bought in to the equation.
- The car radio isn't receiving any stations, only white noise
- Both headlight washers are often sticking up after use
- Both front wheels have buckles, possibly a hard one to prove present at purchase.
- The remote function of both keys aren't working. We've already sent one off for repair at our own cost (under £25)
- One Angel Eye (headlight ring around main lights) is not lit, not bulb related.
- The boot latch has always been a little iffy, not always grabbing the hook, and now refuses to open. This is also leading to bongs when driving saying the boot is open, even though it's not, and leaving boot lights lit after locking up the car.
- Their is a slight groan from the power steering. I've added power steering fluid, as this was low, but it's not resolved the issue. Possibly the power steering pump?
So, what do we need to prepare in order to take it to the small claims? Cost of work, some can by pinned down, some maybe 'how long is a piece of string' I'd imagine? How would we address this point? I presume video evidence of the problems, where possible, will assist? Considering we've now made a claim by letter to the dealer, does the Small Claims Court claim need to be put in by Wednesday, when the warranty period expires? We had stated in our first letter to them that we were happy to work with them to keep costs reasonable (EG key repair, instead of replace) with the car being a 2008 model, is it fair to claim for new replacement items, or would it be expected that if a second hand item would resolve the issue then this is fair?
It's really causing me quite a bit of stress. I adore the car, but this has massively tainted the purchase experience.
Any advice will be gratefully received, and I promise to update with any outcomes etc.
Canon_Fodder said:
OP court is really not the best option here!
Just reject it - there are others.
As I stated, I don't wish to reject it. Firstly, for the reasons stated, secondly, I've already spent money on some bits to bring it up to scratch, and thirdly, because some bar-steward hit it on Tuesday in the hospital carpark, causing significant damage to the two nearside doors, this will add a world of complications I imagine.Just reject it - there are others.
Fermit said:
Canon_Fodder said:
OP court is really not the best option here!
Just reject it - there are others.
As I stated, I don't wish to reject it. Firstly, for the reasons stated, secondly, I've already spent money on some bits to bring it up to scratch, and thirdly, because some bar-steward hit it on Tuesday in the hospital carpark, causing significant damage to the two nearside doors, this will add a world of complications I imagine.Just reject it - there are others.
The dealer has shown you already they are not interested.
Age will be taken into account should there be any claim. A 15yo car will inevitably have some minor faults.
I'd keep on at the dealer to fix them - but more in hope than expectation - and at the same time research a good local BMW indy who'll be able to keep this lovely old thing on the road for you to enjoy.
I'd keep on at the dealer to fix them - but more in hope than expectation - and at the same time research a good local BMW indy who'll be able to keep this lovely old thing on the road for you to enjoy.
reggie747 said:
Have you tried phoning them up (I assume so before you sent the first recorded letter) but ya never know....
Yes, we attempted to. @ Cannon_fodder. Super messy situation but it's really hard to see court giving a good resolution to this tangled mess Surely this is exactly what the SC Court is for. A dealer not meeting their legal obligation to make faults good, or pay their dues? Where the former is concerned I have arguments as to why I don't feel this would be appropriate, but that's one that doesn't need discussing. reggie747 said:
Fermit said:
because some bar-steward hit it on Tuesday in the hospital carpark, causing significant damage to the two nearside doors, this will add a world of complications I imagine.
Ooooof !!!Sorry Fermit, sounds stressful. I've been there with a dealer who wouldn't play ball. I had him on WhatsApp and just kept bugging him. He stretched out a refund of (agreed) costs I'd incurred for about 6 months. I eventually got it all back.
how old is the car ?
whilst you may not want to post it here - how much did you pay?
These are relevant to what you can expect.
An old / cheap car will not be fault free.
Was the car described as faultless?
Were these issues you could reasonably be expected to be able to see for yourself before purchase?
Do any of these defects make the car "not fit for purpose".
13 stamps suggests it's not in the first flush of youth, and I wouldn't expect an older car to be 100% fault free.
I expect if you want to claim under the warrantee, you will need to contact the warrantee company, not the dealer.
Ah - just spotted its a 2008 car.
I think your expectations are unrealistic. The law states a second hand car:
- Be of satisfactory quality (taking into account its age and mileage)
- Meet any description given to you when you were buying it (whether in the ad or in discussions prior to sale)
- Be fit for the purpose (for example, to get you from A to B safely).
I suspect the only one that might be argued as "not fit fit purpose" is the boot lid not opening.
It's a 15 year old car - no court will expect it to be as new?
whilst you may not want to post it here - how much did you pay?
These are relevant to what you can expect.
An old / cheap car will not be fault free.
Was the car described as faultless?
Were these issues you could reasonably be expected to be able to see for yourself before purchase?
Do any of these defects make the car "not fit for purpose".
13 stamps suggests it's not in the first flush of youth, and I wouldn't expect an older car to be 100% fault free.
I expect if you want to claim under the warrantee, you will need to contact the warrantee company, not the dealer.
Ah - just spotted its a 2008 car.
I think your expectations are unrealistic. The law states a second hand car:
- Be of satisfactory quality (taking into account its age and mileage)
- Meet any description given to you when you were buying it (whether in the ad or in discussions prior to sale)
- Be fit for the purpose (for example, to get you from A to B safely).
I suspect the only one that might be argued as "not fit fit purpose" is the boot lid not opening.
It's a 15 year old car - no court will expect it to be as new?
Edited by OverSteery on Friday 30th June 15:28
As a previous owner of a E91 myself I can probably guess that a lot of your issues are due to the wiring loom which runs between the main body of the car and the bobt hatch, I had a number of similar electrical issues with mine and I did a DIY repair job, i moved the protective covering and found a number of split wires which I soldered and rewrapped.
I also had an issue with my radio the same as yours and that was due to the aerial which is built into the rear windscreen glass being damaged, BMW quoted a lot to replace it so I fitted a DAB radio instead with a DAB aerial.
I sold the car not too long after, well traded it in for a new car for the Mrs.
I also had an issue with my radio the same as yours and that was due to the aerial which is built into the rear windscreen glass being damaged, BMW quoted a lot to replace it so I fitted a DAB radio instead with a DAB aerial.
I sold the car not too long after, well traded it in for a new car for the Mrs.
OverSteery said:
how old is the car ?
whilst you may not want to post it here - how much did you pay?
These are relevant to what you can expect.
An old / cheap car will not be fault free.
Was the car described as faultless?
Were these issues you could reasonably be expected to be able to see for yourself before purchase?
Do any of these defects make the car "not fit for purpose".
13 stamps suggests it's not in the first flush of youth, and I wouldn't expect an older car to be 100% fault free.
I expect if you want to claim under the warrantee, you will need to contact the warrantee company, not the dealer.
Also, not fit for purpose is not the correct term in this instance. If I'd requested a car to seat 7, or one under a tonne as this was the weight limit of my workshop ramps, then this sale would be not fit for purpose.
Whilst you are right it won't be a new car, the CRA2015 states that under the statutory 30 day warranty you are protected against problems with the car that you were not told about, or that emerge soon after buying it.
I understand that the dealer is obliged to tell you about known faults. The DP's iphone was set up on Bluetooth, he'd been using prior to sale, he knew at least a number of these issues, and kept shtum. It's under it's 28 warranty, not an extended one. The dealer sells their own extended warranties which they write, it's them I need to speak with. £8000 thereabouts, cheap for one of these, but it's fairly high mileage, and has some cosmetic bits to do. You can improve cosmetics after purchase, you can't improve it's history.whilst you may not want to post it here - how much did you pay?
These are relevant to what you can expect.
An old / cheap car will not be fault free.
Was the car described as faultless?
Were these issues you could reasonably be expected to be able to see for yourself before purchase?
Do any of these defects make the car "not fit for purpose".
13 stamps suggests it's not in the first flush of youth, and I wouldn't expect an older car to be 100% fault free.
I expect if you want to claim under the warrantee, you will need to contact the warrantee company, not the dealer.
Also, not fit for purpose is not the correct term in this instance. If I'd requested a car to seat 7, or one under a tonne as this was the weight limit of my workshop ramps, then this sale would be not fit for purpose.
Whilst you are right it won't be a new car, the CRA2015 states that under the statutory 30 day warranty you are protected against problems with the car that you were not told about, or that emerge soon after buying it.
Edited by OverSteery on Friday 30th June 15:18
Edited by Fermit on Friday 30th June 15:35
OverSteery said:
That is not my understanding.
They must not misrepresent the car, but I don't believe they have to declare anything further.
The CRA2015 states that under the 30 day statutory warranty you are protected against problems with the car that you were not told about, or that emerge soon after buying it.They must not misrepresent the car, but I don't believe they have to declare anything further.
Fermit said:
The CRA2015 states that under the 30 day statutory warranty you are protected against problems with the car that you were not told about, or that emerge soon after buying it.
Yes OP, but also remember that age is taken into account in the CRA. The age-old issue of 'reasonableness' comes into play.If you do decide to go to court you'll need to be specific about the claim which means getting quotes for the repairs.
Fermit said:
OverSteery said:
That is not my understanding.
They must not misrepresent the car, but I don't believe they have to declare anything further.
The CRA2015 states that under the 30 day statutory warranty you are protected against problems with the car that you were not told about, or that emerge soon after buying it.They must not misrepresent the car, but I don't believe they have to declare anything further.
/www.legislation.gov.uk said:
What statutory rights are there under a goods contract?
9.Goods to be of satisfactory quality
10.Goods to be fit for particular purpose
11.Goods to be as described
12.Other pre-contract information included in contract
13.Goods to match a sample
14.Goods to match a model seen or examined
15.Installation as part of conformity of the goods with the contract
16.Goods not conforming to contract if digital content does not conform
17.Trader to have right to supply the goods etc
18.No other requirement to treat term about quality or fitness as included
No dealer could sell a car more than a few years old if they had to be 100% fault free.9.Goods to be of satisfactory quality
10.Goods to be fit for particular purpose
11.Goods to be as described
12.Other pre-contract information included in contract
13.Goods to match a sample
14.Goods to match a model seen or examined
15.Installation as part of conformity of the goods with the contract
16.Goods not conforming to contract if digital content does not conform
17.Trader to have right to supply the goods etc
18.No other requirement to treat term about quality or fitness as included
Edited by OverSteery on Friday 30th June 15:54
Canon_Fodder said:
Yes OP, but also remember that age is taken into account in the CRA. The age-old issue of 'reasonableness' comes into play.
If you do decide to go to court you'll need to be specific about the claim which means getting quotes for the repairs.
Yes, I'll do just this then. If anyone can answer the point about when I need to submit a claim to the SCC, in light of having reported the problems to the dealer, that would be really helpful.If you do decide to go to court you'll need to be specific about the claim which means getting quotes for the repairs.
And just so no one thinks I'm going silent now, I need to shortly begin getting ready and go out to my olds Golden Wedding anniversary do, so I'll likely be offline till tomorrow.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff