Vauxhall Corsa cdti smoking on start up

[Condi]

Claires828 said:

It is not fit for purpose ... the fault was not declared upon sale, the garage have provided no proof or evidence of work done , they have not carried out the checks suggested by a Vauxhall mechanic , the fault was not declared upon sale , it isn't a puff of smoke it's clouds of noxious smoke which is progressively getting worse. In all likelihood it will not pass it's next MOT .... New emission rules MOT ... it cost £2000 ... if it was £500 I would probably just say oh well and try and manage to write that money off ... but it was £2000 ....

If it would pass an MOT then its not a fault which makes the car unfit for purpose on a 10 year old vehicle. My understanding is that for DPF vehicles there is a 0 smoke limit, but yours isnt DPF, and you're still allowed smoke on start up.

Why not spend £30 on a MOT and see what the tester says? At the very least he might offer a different opinion as evidently taking it back to the same garage is getting you nowhere.

[stevieturbo]

Condi said:

I suspect at small claims you'll get nowhere and the garage has been very fair by looking at it for you.

Facts are....

You have bought a 10 year old vehicle.
It has a current MOT, and drives properly.
The car smokes for 30 seconds then stops smoking.
There are no other issues.


A judge is going to say that the car is fit for purpose, and that given the age and mileage, smoke on startup which then goes away is not grounds for rejecting the car.


I dont see what you are really complaining about? What did it cost, £1500? Just drive the thing and dont worry about it.

Even with over 600k on my van...it never smoked.

So no, it should not be accepted as normal at all, especially in this bonkers world where the tree huggers are always gurning about vehicles and emissions.

Although £2k isnt a huge sum for a vehicle by any means, but it should be fit for purpose, it should not be belching out smoke etc etc

[GreenV8S]

Condi said:

If it would pass an MOT then its not a fault which makes the car unfit for purpose on a 10 year old vehicle.

I disagree.

[Condi]

GreenV8S said:

Condi said:

If it would pass an MOT then its not a fault which makes the car unfit for purpose on a 10 year old vehicle.

I disagree.

Ok, so what would you describe as fit for purpose, taking into account 10 years worth of wear and tear?

By definition its purpose is to get from A to B safely and legally. You've not spent £20k on a factory fresh car, you've spent £2k on a 10 year old motor which will have its issues, the fact it has an MOT means it is was (on day of MOT) safe and legal for getting from A to B. Hence why I suggesting offering it up for another MOT and seeing what the tester says. If it passes again then you're going to struggle to convince anyone its not fit for purpose.

[Claires828]

Condi said:

Claires828 said:

We have ... but they are ignoring us ... not sure how to proceed when they won't reply to recorded delivery letters , texts , Phone calls or emails . It's now been nearly 5 months ... we have been complaining since the day after it was purchased ...

I suspect at small claims you'll get nowhere and the garage has been very fair by looking at it for you.

Facts are....

You have bought a 10 year old vehicle.
It has a current MOT, and drives properly.
The car smokes for 30 seconds then stops smoking.
There are no other issues.


A judge is going to say that the car is fit for purpose, and that given the age and mileage, smoke on startup which then goes away is not grounds for rejecting the car.


I dont see what you are really complaining about? What did it cost, £1500? Just drive the thing and dont worry about it.

I am complaining because the garage sold us a car that they knew was faulty . I can't even sell the car on as it is ... no one will touch it because of the start up problem ... best I have been offered is £500 ... If garages can get away with selling faulty goods without disclosure of the faults, how is that right ?

[Mignon]

I suggest you post a video so we can see this smoke and how bad it is.

[GreenV8S]

Condi said:

Ok, so what would you describe as fit for purpose, taking into account 10 years worth of wear and tear?

An MOT is not a report on the legality, condition or usability of the car - it is just a specific set of tests that the vehicle has to pass in order to be road legal. A car can pass an MOT and still be completely unusable.

The vehicle was sold with a substantial fault not disclosed. The fault reduces the value of the car. A ten year old car in serviceable condition does not have a misfire on startup and emit clouds of smoke. It's not right, it's not normal, it's not expected in a ten year old car and it's not what the buyer paid for.