Legal eagles....where do I stand?

[jimxms]

To cut a long story short, at the beginning of December 2011 I bought an 2003 E Class Merc from a respectable dealership about an hour down the road from me. The test drive went fine, but it was when I drove it home that I instantly noticed a problem with the transmission. I took it back to the dealer the next day, and after lots of going back and forth they eventually took it to a transmission specialist and paid for it to be rebuilt. I eventually got the car back about a month later.

When I got the car back, the issue was much better but I could still detect some much smaller vibrations just before it shifted gear. They assured me that these vibrations were merely the transmission being in 'the wrong gear' and taking a second or two to shift to the correct gear...much like putting a manual in 5th at 30mph and accelerating.

I (possibly foolishly) accepted this at the time.

FFWD to now, and in the past 2 months the original transmission issues have slowly come back with full effect. I've only covered ~2k miles in this time, and I'm thinking that the original issue was not resolved at all, merely masked by new transmission fluid being introduced.

Do I have any recourse on this, based on the fact that I don't believe the original issue from day 1 was ever fully resolved and the car has only covered minimal mileage since January?

[randlemarcus]

I'd be tempted to talk to the transmission specialist to get an idea of how the land lies befoe going back to the supplying dealer. Where you go from here depends on the original purchase value, but I'd suggest that any warranty has now expired, given the elapsed time, and you'd be better chasing down the rebuild.

[jimxms]

randlemarcus said:

I'd be tempted to talk to the transmission specialist to get an idea of how the land lies befoe going back to the supplying dealer. Where you go from here depends on the original purchase value, but I'd suggest that any warranty has now expired, given the elapsed time, and you'd be better chasing down the rebuild.

Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure who performed the transmission rebuild. I know the dealer passed the car to a merc indie who then diagnosed the gearbox fault and passed it on to a gearbox specialist for the rebuild.

I have a reciept for the rebuild (at about £2k), but this was invoiced through the merc indie.

I'd bet my left testicle that they missed the actual issue though and new fluid just masked it. I've always thought it was the torque convertor, but they diagnosed otherwise.

Edit: and the original purchase was just shy of £10k

Edited by jimxms on Thursday 4th October 09:13

[carreauchompeur]

Absolutely. If the rebuild has been completed, chase the transmission company, if not it might be time to think about chasing the garage.

[AndyLB]

Sale of goods doesnt apply to transactions between businesses (like the dealer to merc specialist to transmission company relationship we see here), so I guess this would come down to whether or not the transmission place offers an implicit warranty with their work (legally).

Non-legally either one of those three parties may be willing to resolve it

[anonymous-user]

AndyLB said:

Sale of goods doesnt apply to transactions between businesses ...

That is incorrect, but in any event the OP's contractual relationship is with the dealer. Taking legal advice from made up people on the internet is always a bit daft, but it's marginally better to ask in S,P & L than in here, for a better standard of ill informed bloke in pub lawyering.

[confused_buyer]

10 months after purchase on a nearly 10 year old car I can't see you have a hope in hell legally with the dealer. Any legal obligation they had expired ages ago and you accepted the car as was.

That doesn't mean you can't ask them but I think if it comes down to it you're on your own.

I know I've said it before on this forum (and it is no help to you), but......please don't anyone buy an early W211 if you value your sanity.

[300bhp/ton]

jimxms said:

To cut a long story short, at the beginning of December 2011 I bought an 2003 E Class Merc from a respectable dealership about an hour down the road from me. The test drive went fine, but it was when I drove it home that I instantly noticed a problem with the transmission. I took it back to the dealer the next day, and after lots of going back and forth they eventually took it to a transmission specialist and paid for it to be rebuilt. I eventually got the car back about a month later.

When I got the car back, the issue was much better but I could still detect some much smaller vibrations just before it shifted gear. They assured me that these vibrations were merely the transmission being in 'the wrong gear' and taking a second or two to shift to the correct gear...much like putting a manual in 5th at 30mph and accelerating.

I (possibly foolishly) accepted this at the time.

FFWD to now, and in the past 2 months the original transmission issues have slowly come back with full effect. I've only covered ~2k miles in this time, and I'm thinking that the original issue was not resolved at all, merely masked by new transmission fluid being introduced.

Do I have any recourse on this, based on the fact that I don't believe the original issue from day 1 was ever fully resolved and the car has only covered minimal mileage since January?

Op take 15-20 mins and have a proper read of these:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-cus...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-cus...


I would assume there should have been some warranty on the rebuilt transmission, but you weren't the customer for that. But I think you do have a potential case that you should try and resolve. But do read up on your rights first and make sure you are happy with were you stand and what you should expect.

[AndyLB]

Breadvan72 said:

That is incorrect, but in any event the OP's contractual relationship is with the dealer. Taking legal advice from made up people on the internet is always a bit daft, but it's marginally better to ask in S,P & L than in here, for a better standard of ill informed bloke in pub lawyering.

Ah yes, my bad, must have been thinking of something else.

[anonymous-user]

Consumer law does not apply to business to business transactions, but most (NB most, not all) sale of goods law is of general application.

[SuperVM]

confused_buyer said:

10 months after purchase on a nearly 10 year old car I can't see you have a hope in hell legally with the dealer. Any legal obligation they had expired ages ago and you accepted the car as was.

That doesn't mean you can't ask them but I think if it comes down to it you're on your own.

I know I've said it before on this forum (and it is no help to you), but......please don't anyone buy an early W211 if you value your sanity.

I thought that if an issue was reported under warranty, then the consumer had vastly more time that the warranty period in which to force it to be resolved. I believe that is in an effort to prevent exactly this, masking of a problem for a period sufficient in length so that when it reappears, it does so outside of the warranty period.

[confused_buyer]

SuperVM said:

I thought that if an issue was reported under warranty, then the consumer had vastly more time that the warranty period in which to force it to be resolved. I believe that is in an effort to prevent exactly this, masking of a problem for a period sufficient in length so that when it reappears, it does so outside of the warranty period.

If it was repaired under warranty maybe, if it was repaired under SoGA to make the car satisfactory then probably not. The time to address the issue was when it wasn't right after repair, the buyer is deemed to have accepted the cae and been satisfied with it at the time.

The problem is it is a 10 year old car a year after purchase which is always going to be a difficult goer under under consumer legislation.

[jimxms]

confused_buyer said:

If it was repaired under warranty maybe, if it was repaired under SoGA to make the car satisfactory then probably not.

I'm not quite sure how it could be defined one way or an other really. They provided me with a RAC warranty when I purchased the car, but as it was only day 1 of my ownership and I knew that dealing with a warranty company would be a lot of hard work I drove the car back to them and told them to deal with it.

I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that there is a requirement for car dealers to provide a 1 month warranty regardless of any 3rd party warranties or SoGA? In which case I'd assume that the initial fault was covered by this?

[markmullen]

jimxms said:

I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that there is a requirement for car dealers to provide a 1 month warranty regardless of any 3rd party warranties or SoGA? In which case I'd assume that the initial fault was covered by this?

No there isn't.

You may well have read it but that doesn't mean it is true.

[jimxms]

markmullen said:

No there isn't.

You may well have read it but that doesn't mean it is true.

Thanks for the clarification then.

[confused_buyer]

jimxms said:

I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that there is a requirement for car dealers to provide a 1 month warranty regardless of any 3rd party warranties or SoGA? In which case I'd assume that the initial fault was covered by this?

No such requirement. It only has to be "fit for purpose" which reduces with age, mileage, price etc. That can be anything from 100% working for some time on a 2 year old car to making it to the end of the road on a £500 banger.

As a very general rule, the car trade works on a guide of 3 months responsibility on an average used car as a sort of guideline compromise but it isn't set in stone anywhere. Obviously this does not include wear or tear and once a car gets to 100k miles, under £2k, or 10 years old it really has to explode down the road for any comeback. Conversely, the buyer's comeback on a 2 year old 15k mile £15000 car is quite significant.

You don't get something for nothing and the reason why older cars are cheaper than newer ones is that they are a much higher risk for the buyer. If they weren't, they'd be worth a lot more.

A warranty is entirely different and seperate from your statuory rights. In this case, you have a warranty with the RAC but, for the first month, the dealer has to provide cover under that (otherwise dealers could just sell cars with any old faults and the warranty company have to pay - they're not that stupid!).

[confused_buyer]

Just to add, did they 100% confirm it wasn't glycol contaminated and, if it was, did you have a new radiator?

[jimxms]

confused_buyer said:

A warranty is entirely different and seperate from your statuory rights. In this case, you have a warranty with the RAC but, for the first month, the dealer has to provide cover under that (otherwise dealers could just sell cars with any old faults and the warranty company have to pay - they're not that stupid!).

Right, so just to confirm - during the first month of ownership with a car that is under warranty, if anythign goes wrong it is the sole responsibility of the dealer to sort it and the dealer has to pick up the tab?

Regarding the glycol contamination, I made it specifically clear that i wanted this tested, the radiator checked and I wanted the torque converter checked for associated wear. The dealer informed me that all of this had been done and that the transmission specialist had assured them that glycol contamination was not the cause.

However, I'm willing to bet the torque converter is sh*gged and at some point, if not now glycol was the cause of the issue because in the service records it has had penty of fluid flushes.

[markmullen]

jimxms said:

confused_buyer said:

A warranty is entirely different and seperate from your statuory rights. In this case, you have a warranty with the RAC but, for the first month, the dealer has to provide cover under that (otherwise dealers could just sell cars with any old faults and the warranty company have to pay - they're not that stupid!).

Right, so just to confirm - during the first month of ownership with a car that is under warranty, if anythign goes wrong it is the sole responsibility of the dealer to sort it and the dealer has to pick up the tab?

No, C_B is merely pointing out that most aftermarket warranties don't kick in till a month after purchase. The dealer has no obligation to offer any such warranty but most do. Your statutory rights are unaffected by this, those rights however would require court action to enforce them, and will depend on the age of the vehicle, mileage, price paid etc not to mention the view of the judge on the day which can never be 100% certain.

[confused_buyer]

jimxms said:

Right, so just to confirm - during the first month of ownership with a car that is under warranty, if anythign goes wrong it is the sole responsibility of the dealer to sort it and the dealer has to pick up the tab?

They vary - you need to check the terms and condition of the RAC provided warranty as to what happens with an issue in the first month. Whoever ends up paying in the first month the claim limit, coverage limiations etc, all still apply. It also applies that whatever the warranty on a warranty repair stated by the RAC one probably applies.

Whether going the 3rd party route or SoGA your claim potential on a 10 year old car is probably pretty limited I'm afraid and a year after purchase a legal minefield.

Back to the car, I don't understand why it has had numerous flushes unless there was an on going problem. They don't usually get flushed at all and, if they do, only once in the first 100k or so.