On going fault, warranty now expired. Mazda 2

[LucyTattoo]

I'll try to keep this brief.
Bought a 15 plate mazda 2 diesel from an independent, used dealer in August 2020.
low mileage. Purchase with cash, included basic 3 month warranty.

Within 2 weeks there was an intermittent misfire. Dpf light on.
Several issues with diagnosis, finally decided it was dpf fault.
Regeneration was done by dealership, but misfire remained and engine management light comes on shortly afterwards.

Dealership said it was now a fault with injector 3&4.
car sent to mazda garage and injectors replaced December 2020.
The car by this point had been seen 7 different times and in the garage for around 8 weeks. (Warranty extension was agreed on and started again from Dec for another 3 months as car was barely used by myself)

Car running okay upon collection, barely driven Jan-april because of lockdown (less than 200 miles added in that time) Mid April (conveniently out of warranty) same misfire happens, now injector 1 is showing an issue.
(Bounced around between garages as original dealership didn't want to know. finally looked at by same mazda garage early july)

Paid £95 for diagnostics by mazda and quoted £850 for injector replacement.

I'm wondering what grounds I have to argue that the original dealership have sold me a faulty car/ have some responsibility for the issue. What are my rights, if any, in this situation?

[SiH]

LucyTattoo said:

I'll try to keep this brief.
Bought a 15 plate mazda 2 diesel from an independent, used dealer in August 2020.
low mileage. Purchase with cash, included basic 3 month warranty.

Within 2 weeks there was an intermittent misfire. Dpf light on.
Several issues with diagnosis, finally decided it was dpf fault.
Regeneration was done by dealership, but misfire remained and engine management light comes on shortly afterwards.

Dealership said it was now a fault with injector 3&4.
car sent to mazda garage and injectors replaced December 2020.
The car by this point had been seen 7 different times and in the garage for around 8 weeks. (Warranty extension was agreed on and started again from Dec for another 3 months as car was barely used by myself)

Car running okay upon collection, barely driven Jan-april because of lockdown (less than 200 miles added in that time) Mid April (conveniently out of warranty) same misfire happens, now injector 1 is showing an issue.
(Bounced around between garages as original dealership didn't want to know. finally looked at by same mazda garage early july)

Paid £95 for diagnostics by mazda and quoted £850 for injector replacement.

I'm wondering what grounds I have to argue that the original dealership have sold me a faulty car/ have some responsibility for the issue. What are my rights, if any, in this situation?

There are others that are more qualified than I am but I have a sneaky suspicion that you're out of luck on this one. If the original problem was cured within the warranty period and the warranty period was extended then any new problem that occurs outside of this period is unlikely to be covered. In some respects it would have been worth pursuing a rejection earlier in the process but I suspect that the dealer may have pushed hard against this. Some may talk about the Consumer Rights Act and how any problem occuring in the first 6 months needs to be covered by the dealer but I'm not entirely sure how 'applicable' this element of the CRA is to used-car sales (should a 1-month old used-car be offered the same CRA protection as a 20 year-old banger?) In some ways injectors are consumables, my sister's car has just lost its first injector (it's a 10-year old VW Golf with a 1.6 diesel engine on 110,000 miles so not too bad), but injectors are not cheap so the £850 isn't orders of magnitude above what one might expect to pay at a main dealer.

[Canon_Fodder]

Fault with injectors occurred almost immediately and has not been fixed by the vendor despite many opportunities given by the patient buyer.

Reject it.

the relevant legislation is the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Link here:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tips-advice/34744/re...

Edited by Canon_Fodder on Thursday 29th July 20:32

[SiH]

Canon_Fodder said:

Fault with injectors occurred almost immediately and has not been fixed by the vendor despite many opportunities given by the patient buyer.

Reject it

Original injector fault repaired under warranty. Warranty period extended as a goodwill gesture. Car was fine for a period of months but not driven by the OP (not the fault of the dealer). Warranty now expired and a new fault (different injector) has arisen. How is this grounds to reject the car?

[T6 vanman]

Sounds like the cars been misfuelled with petrol in the past,

Injectors 3&4 died, injector 1 dying and injector 2 will be next

[TwistingMyMelon]

As above that sounds right

Car not really fit for purpose

[Canon_Fodder]

SiH said:

Original injector fault repaired under warranty. Warranty period extended as a goodwill gesture. Car was fine for a period of months but not driven by the OP (not the fault of the dealer). Warranty now expired and a new fault (different injector) has arisen. How is this grounds to reject the car?

Put the 'warranty' out of your mind, they are nothing to do with the OP's consumer rights.

Some used car warranties may (may!) add some benefit in addition to those rights but that's all they are. More often they are used by dealers as a smokescreen to try to convince inexperienced consumers into putting up with a car that's not fit for purpose

In this case we can clearly see that the car was sold with a fault present and it is still faulty despite the vendors numerous efforts to fix it.

My strong advice is to reject this car which seems very likely to continue to cause problems.

[ScoobyChris]

Canon_Fodder said:

In this case we can clearly see that the car was sold with a fault present and it is still faulty despite the vendors numerous efforts to fix it.

My strong advice is to reject this car which seems very likely to continue to cause problems.

I think this is the grey area. It was sold with a fault which was rectified within 6 months (the period the CRA covers). 8 months after purchase, another (similar) fault shows up and I think the OP will struggle to prove that this was present at time of sale because the Mazda garage who fixed the original problem didn't flag it in their diagnosis. No harm in trying though.

Chris

[stevensdrs]

I had a mazda 2 diesel from new which continually had injector problems. The car would go into limp mode which was frightening if you were doing any speed. Turning it off and then on again would cure the problem for days, weeks or even months but it woud return again. The dealers could find no fault with it until the warranty expired when it was diagnosed as injector failure. I had it repaired and an injector was replaced. That cost about £500.
Of course the fault came back, probably a different injector, so I got shot of it and got a Fiesta.
It would seem that injector failure is a common occurrence with these cars. Mine was certainly the worst car I have ever owned.

[SiH]

Canon_Fodder said:

SiH said:

Original injector fault repaired under warranty. Warranty period extended as a goodwill gesture. Car was fine for a period of months but not driven by the OP (not the fault of the dealer). Warranty now expired and a new fault (different injector) has arisen. How is this grounds to reject the car?

Put the 'warranty' out of your mind, they are nothing to do with the OP's consumer rights.

Some used car warranties may (may!) add some benefit in addition to those rights but that's all they are. More often they are used by dealers as a smokescreen to try to convince inexperienced consumers into putting up with a car that's not fit for purpose

In this case we can clearly see that the car was sold with a fault present and it is still faulty despite the vendors numerous efforts to fix it.

My strong advice is to reject this car which seems very likely to continue to cause problems.

I totally get your point about the warranty vs the OP's consumer rights. The warranty that is offered is of a defined scope and time-period following the purchase of the car. The extent of the consumer rights are likely to depend on the specifics of the case (e.g. how old is the car, what's the mileage of the car, how much was paid for it) as I don't believe the full weight of the CRA can be applied to a car that was 20 years old that had 150,000 on the clock and that cost £600.
Injectors have a finite life and they do fail, even when the car has been appropriately serviced and the correct fuel used. The injectors that failed in the first instance were replaced by the dealer (OK, the service could have been better from the sounds of it) but the car was then fine for a period of a few months after this repair took place. How long can the dealer reasonably be expected to be liable for any future failures?

[Canon_Fodder]

ScoobyChris said:

I think this is the grey area. It was sold with a fault which was rectified within 6 months (the period the CRA covers). 8 months after purchase, another (similar) fault shows up and I think the OP will struggle to prove that this was present at time of sale because the Mazda garage who fixed the original problem didn't flag it in their diagnosis. No harm in trying though.

Chris

It's not and open and shut rejection I agree but if it was me I would reject and I have successfully rejected a car after more than 6 months

My view is that the car was sold with misfire faults and they persist to this day. Just cos injector 1 was fixed doesn't mean that injector 3 (say) failing is a separate issue.

While there are 30 day and 6 month stages in the CRA, one's rights under persist for 6 years.

In this case, as it's after 6 months, all the OP needs to be able to prove is that a) the fault was present when the car was purchased (this is clearly the case as it showed up after only 2 weeks) and b) it hasn't been fixed (see above).

[Dark Star]

In theory Cannon Fodder is correct.
Now for the however, after 6 months the balance of probability for you to win a rejection is against you and in the dealers favour.
You already know the dealer doesn’t wish to know about the new issue.
You would need to convince a court that your issue was present at the time of sale.
Did the initial test drive go ok?
I would say it probably did so you bought the car.
The car develops a fault.
Dealer rectified the issue and the car was running ok.
12 months later the car develops a new issue albeit another injector issue but not the same number injector.
To reject the car this far on is going to be more difficult with the issue you are having.
If let’s say it was 2 cars welded together and this was your first MOT whilst you owned it then a rejection would be more straightforward.
To reject the car as a bad car is going to be slight as it is a car with an issue not necessarily a bad car.
Looking on the internet Mazdas have injector issues which would possibly show the problem is a generic one not just your car.
If it were me I would get the other injectors changed but at an independent garage not the main dealer and put this down to running costs.

[Canon_Fodder]

A good range of views as always on PH...

OP are you still with us? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts