Problems with Volvo and dealer
Discussion
I would really appreciate some advice from those in the know please.
I recently bought a 2005 Volvo S40 2.0 Diesel Sport. The car came from a dealer in
and has 134,000 miles on the clock. I checked the dealer out and all seemed good but this has since proved not to be the case.
The car had a rattle from the passenger side rear on the test drive and despite being advertised with 12 months MOT it only had five months left. The dealer said they would sort these out for when we picked up the car two days later on the Tuesday.
I picked up the car on Tuesday and all seemed OK. Drove to work the next day, all fine. Then on the way home the rattle came back, I also noticed some heavy vibrations under braking and further along the journey the car became sluggish (losing speed at 65mph in 6th gear with foot flat on the floor). It's also using a lot of diesel.
I told the dealers and they asked me to take the car in. I did so on the Saturday morning and was told it would be ready for Monday or Tuesday just gone. I called on Monday to ask how it was going and was told that they would start work on Tuesday because it was bank holiday. (Not too pleased about it but I accepted it anyway).
I got an email today saying that the rattle was because the spare wheel was loose. I then got a call saying the car was ready. After finishing work I drove the 40 minutes to the dealer to pick it up. Get in and drive off down the road and none! of the problems have been fixed.
I went back in and told them that it wasn't fixed. They then had a go at me telling me that I shouldn't accuse them of not fixing it. The guy then went and got the mechanic and told him what I had said. The mechanic then went out in the car with me and tried to convince me that it was all OK.
We got back and the mechanic told the owner that I claim it still isn't right and that I want more power. I reply by saying it isn't that I want more power but that I want the car to work as it should and that I have driven it for two days since I picked it up a week ago. He then tells me I have attitude and says I should be grateful that he is not refusing to fix it.
I reply that he's fixing it because he has to. He tells the mechanic to take the keys and give me another car as he heads off. I tell him I've had enough and want a refund on the car now. He refuses so I say that I'll seek legal advice.
I'm unsure of what I should do now. I like the car but this has become ridiculous. I finished uni and started my new job recently, I sold my Civic Type R and bought this to save on fuel but so car it's costing me more in sorting it out.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading the long post too.
ETA
Location removed.
I recently bought a 2005 Volvo S40 2.0 Diesel Sport. The car came from a dealer in
and has 134,000 miles on the clock. I checked the dealer out and all seemed good but this has since proved not to be the case.The car had a rattle from the passenger side rear on the test drive and despite being advertised with 12 months MOT it only had five months left. The dealer said they would sort these out for when we picked up the car two days later on the Tuesday.
I picked up the car on Tuesday and all seemed OK. Drove to work the next day, all fine. Then on the way home the rattle came back, I also noticed some heavy vibrations under braking and further along the journey the car became sluggish (losing speed at 65mph in 6th gear with foot flat on the floor). It's also using a lot of diesel.
I told the dealers and they asked me to take the car in. I did so on the Saturday morning and was told it would be ready for Monday or Tuesday just gone. I called on Monday to ask how it was going and was told that they would start work on Tuesday because it was bank holiday. (Not too pleased about it but I accepted it anyway).
I got an email today saying that the rattle was because the spare wheel was loose. I then got a call saying the car was ready. After finishing work I drove the 40 minutes to the dealer to pick it up. Get in and drive off down the road and none! of the problems have been fixed.
I went back in and told them that it wasn't fixed. They then had a go at me telling me that I shouldn't accuse them of not fixing it. The guy then went and got the mechanic and told him what I had said. The mechanic then went out in the car with me and tried to convince me that it was all OK.
We got back and the mechanic told the owner that I claim it still isn't right and that I want more power. I reply by saying it isn't that I want more power but that I want the car to work as it should and that I have driven it for two days since I picked it up a week ago. He then tells me I have attitude and says I should be grateful that he is not refusing to fix it.
I reply that he's fixing it because he has to. He tells the mechanic to take the keys and give me another car as he heads off. I tell him I've had enough and want a refund on the car now. He refuses so I say that I'll seek legal advice.
I'm unsure of what I should do now. I like the car but this has become ridiculous. I finished uni and started my new job recently, I sold my Civic Type R and bought this to save on fuel but so car it's costing me more in sorting it out.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading the long post too.
ETA
Location removed.
Edited by Big Al. on Wednesday 29th August 18:45
Little googling: 1) Write to the seller informing him of the fault(s) and offer him the opportunity to rectify (he has that right under SOGA). Even if you have asked him verbally, you need to also ask in writing. 2) If he refuses or is unable to, then you can formally reject the vehicle and ask for a full refund as you have only had the car a very short while. If you do the latter, the car must not be used following rejection.
Thank you for the help Ben. I originally emailed the details of the faults to him and he has not rectified them. I have the car at home now. I suggested that I thought it was the turbo but they have denied this.
As I emailed him the faults previously and they havent rectified them, Should I now reject the car and take it back?
As I emailed him the faults previously and they havent rectified them, Should I now reject the car and take it back?
Edited by R1chy11 on Tuesday 28th August 21:00
Can't give you much advice as i don't know too much about law in this area but id go write a official letter in the post to the garage, recorded delivery. Give them a week or two to rectify it with a time allocation on the letter, if still no joy do the same rejecting the car. Id include a copy of soga, if still no joy from them, id also get a trusted garage ideally volvo to have a quick look over the car so they can tell you whats wrong, may cost you a few quid but firmly puts the odds in your favour regarding the issue and grab an appointment with the cab to get a small amount of legal advice on how to proceed. let us know how you get on.
ben5732 said:
Little googling: 1) Write to the seller informing him of the fault(s) and offer him the opportunity to rectify (he has that right under SOGA). Even if you have asked him verbally, you need to also ask in writing. 2) If he refuses or is unable to, then you can formally reject the vehicle and ask for a full refund as you have only had the car a very short while. If you do the latter, the car must not be used following rejection.
The dealer doesnt have that right as at this stage (within 3-4 weeks of purchase) the buyer has not yet 'accepted' the car, therefore the buyer could hand the car back, under non acceptance.daemon said:
The dealer doesnt have that right as at this stage (within 3-4 weeks of purchase) the buyer has not yet 'accepted' the car, therefore the buyer could hand the car back, under non acceptance.
He can hand it back but the dealer doesn't have to refund the money, this keeps coming up on these threads and lots of people are kidding themselves - there is no absolute right to reject.Lets say that the power is down to a lose turbo pipe and the knocking noise is a rear anti rollbar link, one takes ten minutes to fix, the other takes ten pounds. Under those circumstances I don't see you getting court backing for rejection there no matter how short a time you have had the car.
In the OPs circumstances, he has been reasonable in taking the car back for repair and should set a deadline by which it should be fixed; if they don't sort it by that time he has then got a sensible chance of being able to enforce a rejection of the vehicle.
What do the fault codes say? You can ask your 'dealer this, but you'll get blank stares I bet * 
). It might be worth a visit to an 'indie' (independent garage, preferably for Volvo but NOT a main dealer) to get the fault codes read, removed then re-read after driving the car a wee bit 
. Yes, it'll cost some money, but keep receipts and present them to the 'dealer' when you go back.
Might also be worth posting on Volvo fora for the car range in question and asking what the codes mean if it isn't clear from the 'indie' garage .
* PS I'd wager my hard-earned that the 'dealer' haven't had a code reader near the car, and double-or-drop that they don't have one in their business . Loose spare wheel causing rear end rattle??? 
aren't they...
). It might be worth a visit to an 'indie' (independent garage, preferably for Volvo but NOT a main dealer) to get the fault codes read, removed then re-read after driving the car a wee bit . Yes, it'll cost some money, but keep receipts and present them to the 'dealer' when you go back.Might also be worth posting on Volvo fora for the car range in question and asking what the codes mean if it isn't clear from the 'indie' garage
.* PS I'd wager my hard-earned that the 'dealer' haven't had a code reader near the car, and double-or-drop that they don't have one in their business
. Loose spare wheel causing rear end rattle??? aren't they... A lot of the 3rd party diagnostic tools are useless on Volvos (even the latest expensive ones). For about £30 a Volvo dealer should give you a full code read.
It sounds like it is limp mode - could be anything - problem with the DPF (not unusual on these), boost leak, turbo governor, turbo its self etc.
On the other issues - not sure you're going to get too far on a rattle on a car with 134k.
The DPF is only rated to last 72k miles and is replaced as part of the 72k service (about £1000) so, depending on if/when it was replaced, it could be it is on its way out.
It sounds like it is limp mode - could be anything - problem with the DPF (not unusual on these), boost leak, turbo governor, turbo its self etc.
On the other issues - not sure you're going to get too far on a rattle on a car with 134k.
The DPF is only rated to last 72k miles and is replaced as part of the 72k service (about £1000) so, depending on if/when it was replaced, it could be it is on its way out.
Steve H said:
daemon said:
The dealer doesnt have that right as at this stage (within 3-4 weeks of purchase) the buyer has not yet 'accepted' the car, therefore the buyer could hand the car back, under non acceptance.
He can hand it back but the dealer doesn't have to refund the money, this keeps coming up on these threads and lots of people are kidding themselves - there is no absolute right to reject.Lets say that the power is down to a lose turbo pipe and the knocking noise is a rear anti rollbar link, one takes ten minutes to fix, the other takes ten pounds. Under those circumstances I don't see you getting court backing for rejection there no matter how short a time you have had the car.
In the OPs circumstances, he has been reasonable in taking the car back for repair and should set a deadline by which it should be fixed; if they don't sort it by that time he has then got a sensible chance of being able to enforce a rejection of the vehicle.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54
35 Acceptance.
(1)The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods subject to subsection (2) below—
(a)when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them, or
(b)when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.
(4)The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
That is to say, you can reject the item due to non acceptance for a 'reasonable time' after purchase. That is generally considered to be 3-4 weeks after purchase.
Grounds for rejection are another somewhat grey are in the SOGA, however the O/P could simply have said 'i reject this car as it has faults and is therefore not fit for purpose' - they didnt 'have' to give the trader the opportunity to examine / attempt to fix the problems.
daemon said:
Grounds for rejection are another somewhat grey are in the SOGA, however the O/P could simply have said 'i reject this car as it has faults and is therefore not fit for purpose' - they didnt 'have' to give the trader the opportunity to examine / attempt to fix the problems.
Of course they did if they want any chance of making it stick later on. It's massively unlikely that the OP, or any buyer, would win in court when rejecting a car on what could be a minor fault on a vehicle without giving the seller chance to put things right. It is a lot more difficult to reject a 7-8 year old car with 134k on the clock than a 1 year old one with 10k unless it has actually exploded in a cloud of smoke 100yds down the road.
If the OP really does intend to reject it then they need to get a much better diagnosis than "a bit of a rattle" and "losing go in 6th gear" because should it end up in a legal case that is far too vague and subjective.
At the very least, if they cannot agree with the seller, they should invest £30-£50 getting it code read and finding out (a) that it is losing power and (b) what the car is storing as a fault code when it does. Then, at least, they can claim they are rejecting it based on substanted fact and an actual defined recorded fault.
If the OP really does intend to reject it then they need to get a much better diagnosis than "a bit of a rattle" and "losing go in 6th gear" because should it end up in a legal case that is far too vague and subjective.
At the very least, if they cannot agree with the seller, they should invest £30-£50 getting it code read and finding out (a) that it is losing power and (b) what the car is storing as a fault code when it does. Then, at least, they can claim they are rejecting it based on substanted fact and an actual defined recorded fault.
Thank you for the advice everyone. The car is booked in with a Volvo dealer on Monday for the faults to be diagnosed. I will get them to tell me the problems as well as the dealer who sold the car to me.
Once it is all sorted, I will be having the car checked over by a Volvo specialist to make sure that all is as it should be.
I will update with the outcome but thanks again.
Once it is all sorted, I will be having the car checked over by a Volvo specialist to make sure that all is as it should be.
I will update with the outcome but thanks again.
Only quoting parts of the act is one of the main reasons so much mis-information is all over the internet. Even some dealers I know think they are more liable than they actually are.
The act applies to everything from a multimillion pound super yacht to a 10p hair tie, and there are many items which come down to "fit for purpose" "satisfactory quality" and "what a reasonable person would expect" these are all very subjective terms and among many others are all "questions of fact" that can only be decided in court.
When applied to used cars the price paid and any other relevant information (such as but not limited to age/mileage/testing the goods in advance) is taken into account.
For example you could argue that any car with over 100k should be expected to go wrong, and the buyer should take responsibility for the decision to buy this car instead of a much cheaper brand that is younger with lower mileage for the same money he paid for an older prestige car with high mileage.
Also a dealer may be able to prove that the buyer paid below market price, thus the implied quality is lower. The buyer should also take responsibility if he decides to buy a cheap example of a particular car.
Both of these examples could be "what a reasonable person would expect" but like I say we will never know until two parties go to court, argue their respective points and a judgement is made.
Of course every used car is unique just as every set of circumstances is also unique.
I've never heard of a successful judgement against a dealer in relation to a car with over 100k.
I'm not saying the dealer is right in this instance, he doesn't sound like one of the best, but there are two sides to every story and the fact the that it descended into an argument (it takes two to tango), it sounds like the OP didn't help his own cause either.
I dont think the SoGA would give much protection in court in this case.
However I would still write to dealer quote all the scary legal stuff you can, and see how he responds.
If he know his stuff he could become offended by the threatening tone and tell you "do one" and you will be no worse off because I don't think he is liable anyway.
If he doesn't know his onions in relation to SoGA he might play ball.
The act applies to everything from a multimillion pound super yacht to a 10p hair tie, and there are many items which come down to "fit for purpose" "satisfactory quality" and "what a reasonable person would expect" these are all very subjective terms and among many others are all "questions of fact" that can only be decided in court.
When applied to used cars the price paid and any other relevant information (such as but not limited to age/mileage/testing the goods in advance) is taken into account.
For example you could argue that any car with over 100k should be expected to go wrong, and the buyer should take responsibility for the decision to buy this car instead of a much cheaper brand that is younger with lower mileage for the same money he paid for an older prestige car with high mileage.
Also a dealer may be able to prove that the buyer paid below market price, thus the implied quality is lower. The buyer should also take responsibility if he decides to buy a cheap example of a particular car.
Both of these examples could be "what a reasonable person would expect" but like I say we will never know until two parties go to court, argue their respective points and a judgement is made.
Of course every used car is unique just as every set of circumstances is also unique.
I've never heard of a successful judgement against a dealer in relation to a car with over 100k.
I'm not saying the dealer is right in this instance, he doesn't sound like one of the best, but there are two sides to every story and the fact the that it descended into an argument (it takes two to tango), it sounds like the OP didn't help his own cause either.
I dont think the SoGA would give much protection in court in this case.
However I would still write to dealer quote all the scary legal stuff you can, and see how he responds.
If he know his stuff he could become offended by the threatening tone and tell you "do one" and you will be no worse off because I don't think he is liable anyway.
If he doesn't know his onions in relation to SoGA he might play ball.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff