Brake Pipes Anyone?
Discussion
Pericoloso said:
How do you know the fuel filter is the original ?
The replacement fitted at a dealer would look the same.....
The original filter is fitted using a steel ring that is shrunk into place,that is non adjustable and can only be removed by cutting it. Also fairly sure that while it has BMW stamped on it, they no longer have Mann Filter also written on it. Happy to be corrected.The replacement fitted at a dealer would look the same.....
N7GTX said:
No, there is a cut out on the calipers that allows for a lip.
In the image you’ve posted, it looks as though the body of the calipers is touching the lip of the disc, and the jaws of the callipers are at a slight angle. Might just be a misleading image, but it doesn’t look right.
stevieturbo said:
Sheepshanks said:
No! But test it, and change based on the results.
It's not so much that changing it in itself is the scam, it's the price - £100 on a Merc, for example, so I imagine BMW charge similar. It takes a dealer 10 mins, and that's if they do it properly. Or at all, a VW dealer hand wrote "brake fluid change" on the service invoice as proof that it been changed.
test what...the reservoir only ?It's not so much that changing it in itself is the scam, it's the price - £100 on a Merc, for example, so I imagine BMW charge similar. It takes a dealer 10 mins, and that's if they do it properly. Or at all, a VW dealer hand wrote "brake fluid change" on the service invoice as proof that it been changed.
Doesnt always prove anything.
And someone writing something on a service invoice means as much as a dealer service stamp in a book. Absolutely zero. It just means someone wrote something, or stamped a book.
In no way whatsoever does it mean that work was actually carried out. Which is a sad reality of many garages, especially main dealers, and perhaps an even worse reflection of any monitoring bodies who never do checks or raise prosecutions for it, given the safety implications ( and fraud of course )
As for the car being in banger territory, I don't consider £5,500 a banger. And checking it over on a forecourt - should I take my trolley jack and a boot full of tools and start dismantling it? The corroded pipes cannot be seen unless jacked up to wheels off the ground.
The fact the dealer goes to all the trouble of producing a glossy brochure, a 72 point PDI/Service booklet signed and dated by the servicing mechanic and the service manager declaring the work has been done, is AA Approved and Autotrader reviews are 4.7 (I think) gave me some reassurance. Where do you stop?
Surely the way to measure disc thickness is with a micrometer, so you measure inside the lip, and actually on the braking surface. And TBH I'm with the OP - those brake lines are terrible, and should (probably) have not passed an MOT.
Mind you, thinking that main dealers have actually done the 72 point test is pretty ridiculous as well. It's a far fetched list that obscures the basics under a layer of fluff. (Well my opinion anyway).
An 05 X5 - brave decision OP.
Mind you, thinking that main dealers have actually done the 72 point test is pretty ridiculous as well. It's a far fetched list that obscures the basics under a layer of fluff. (Well my opinion anyway).
An 05 X5 - brave decision OP.
I would think that 72 point check should have some legal repercussions for whoever signed it off, if there are safety failings present on the car relating to them.
Even more so then if a dodgy MOT station selling the car has also then signed off all as ok there too.
Even more so then if a dodgy MOT station selling the car has also then signed off all as ok there too.
Edited by stevieturbo on Sunday 27th January 18:02
bearman68 said:
Surely the way to measure disc thickness is with a micrometer, so you measure inside the lip, and actually on the braking surface. And TBH I'm with the OP - those brake lines are terrible, and should (probably) have not passed an MOT.
Mind you, thinking that main dealers have actually done the 72 point test is pretty ridiculous as well. It's a far fetched list that obscures the basics under a layer of fluff. (Well my opinion anyway).
An 05 X5 - brave decision OP.
The picture is misleading you all - sorry. The calipers do have a cut out where the lip is so the faces do meet the surfaces of the discs. Ideally a micrometer would be better. Mind you, thinking that main dealers have actually done the 72 point test is pretty ridiculous as well. It's a far fetched list that obscures the basics under a layer of fluff. (Well my opinion anyway).
An 05 X5 - brave decision OP.
Brave decision? Lol, yes it is. But I get bored easily and need something to fill the time. It did drive really well to Inverness after everything was done and even returned 47mpg. And her indoors likes it....
Yes I know the 72 point list is probably pretty ridiculous but combined with an 8 week old MOT, BMW service history and AA approved signs everywhere, where do you draw the line?
So, I've contacted Citizens Advice who have (in their speak) agreed the car was not fit for purpose under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 so the appropriate letter is on its way. Also advised that some traders will not accept recorded delivery letters for this very reason so advised to put the letter in a box as they will think it is something else.
N7GTX said:
So, I've contacted Citizens Advice who have (in their speak) agreed the car was not fit for purpose under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 so the appropriate letter is on its way.
What are you hoping to achieve? The normal thing is to reject the car, but you're not going to do that having spent a few bob on it, are you?No, I could have rejected it within the first 30 days but I quite like the old bus. I'm hoping to get the cost of the parts I've fitted. If I had wanted the dealer to repair it, it would have cost them the same in parts so by me doing it and not charging a labour cost, its a cheaper option for them. I've told them I don't trust them to do the jobs properly and they have never asked for the car to be returned to fix it as they say it doesn't need fixing. When the conversation started the service manager agreed it would be an easy way out for both parties. The problem is he doesn't have the authority to give me the go ahead on his own and so he has passed it to the directors who have never responded.
The AA are mediating in the dispute now (AA Approved Garage) so we'll see if we can progress without going down the county court route. Would be good if they can get somewhere with it.
The AA are mediating in the dispute now (AA Approved Garage) so we'll see if we can progress without going down the county court route. Would be good if they can get somewhere with it.
N7GTX said:
No, I could have rejected it within the first 30 days but I quite like the old bus. I'm hoping to get the cost of the parts I've fitted. If I had wanted the dealer to repair it, it would have cost them the same in parts so by me doing it and not charging a labour cost, its a cheaper option for them. I've told them I don't trust them to do the jobs properly and they have never asked for the car to be returned to fix it as they say it doesn't need fixing. When the conversation started the service manager agreed it would be an easy way out for both parties. The problem is he doesn't have the authority to give me the go ahead on his own and so he has passed it to the directors who have never responded.
The AA are mediating in the dispute now (AA Approved Garage) so we'll see if we can progress without going down the county court route. Would be good if they can get somewhere with it.
It's quite clear in your pic you've measured the discs incorrectly, the lip is bigger than the cut out on the verniers, but apart from showing you don't know what your doing that's irrelevant really.The AA are mediating in the dispute now (AA Approved Garage) so we'll see if we can progress without going down the county court route. Would be good if they can get somewhere with it.
You're wasting your time on this, the act of buying a car and then fixing it in itself proves acceptance of your actions in buying the car in the first place. It's quite black and white, you either:
Accept the car and get on with it.
Return the car for a refund on finding out the issues.
You've chosen the former.
The fact you needed it over Christmas is purely circumstantial and not evidence of anything. They will say that if you really did have no other form of transport (which i'm doubting) you should have organised alternative transport and you may have been able to claim the cost of that back.
You can't do what you've done and then go back and ask them to pay for it, no court in the land will accept that.
Act in haste, repent at leisure and Carpe Diem apply here.
227bhp said:
It's quite black and white, you either:
Accept the car and get on with it.
Return the car for a refund on finding out the issues.
You've chosen the former.
I don't think that's correct. There is a third option which is to ask the seller to deal with the problem. The seller has a legal obligation to do that under the consumer rights act and they may also offer a warranty which makes that obligation explicit. The options include compensation rather than fix, so it's perfectly reasonable to negotiate for the seller to pay the reasonable cost of repairs.Accept the car and get on with it.
Return the car for a refund on finding out the issues.
You've chosen the former.
Assuming we're not going down the under 30 days rejection of the vehicle:
"Between 30 days and 6 months
If a fault comes to light after 30 days but before 6 months you’re entitled to a repair, replacement or refund.
It’s assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise.
Unless you’ve agreed otherwise, the seller (dealer) has only one opportunity to repair (or replace) the faulty vehicle after which, if they fail to repair it, you’re entitled to a refund.
In the event of a refund following a failed attempt at repair during the first six months the seller may make a 'reasonable' adjustment to the amount refunded to take account of the use that you’ve had of the vehicle"
https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights
I suspect that might be a quote provided for the seller who could then decide to have the car back OR authorise & pay for the repair.
In the OP's case he has not given the seller the opportunity to repair but has just done the work & is now trying to present the seller with the bill & this might be a problem notwithstanding that he claims a court has previously awarded him.
Don't forget that the decision of one court is not necessarily binding on another.
"Between 30 days and 6 months
If a fault comes to light after 30 days but before 6 months you’re entitled to a repair, replacement or refund.
It’s assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise.
Unless you’ve agreed otherwise, the seller (dealer) has only one opportunity to repair (or replace) the faulty vehicle after which, if they fail to repair it, you’re entitled to a refund.
In the event of a refund following a failed attempt at repair during the first six months the seller may make a 'reasonable' adjustment to the amount refunded to take account of the use that you’ve had of the vehicle"
https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights
I suspect that might be a quote provided for the seller who could then decide to have the car back OR authorise & pay for the repair.
In the OP's case he has not given the seller the opportunity to repair but has just done the work & is now trying to present the seller with the bill & this might be a problem notwithstanding that he claims a court has previously awarded him.
Don't forget that the decision of one court is not necessarily binding on another.
As far as the disc measuring business is concerned my own vernier caliper is very similar to the OP's.
There is a small cutout on each of the jaws but it's a bit slim.
I've tried lengths of plastic tube over each tip & small magnets on the disc to get round the lip & whilst both will work - the magnets are better - it's not in the same league as a micrometer.
There is a small cutout on each of the jaws but it's a bit slim.
I've tried lengths of plastic tube over each tip & small magnets on the disc to get round the lip & whilst both will work - the magnets are better - it's not in the same league as a micrometer.
GreenV8S said:
227bhp said:
It's quite black and white, you either:
Accept the car and get on with it.
Return the car for a refund on finding out the issues.
You've chosen the former.
I don't think that's correct. There is a third option which is to ask the seller to deal with the problem. The seller has a legal obligation to do that under the consumer rights act and they may also offer a warranty which makes that obligation explicit. The options include compensation rather than fix, so it's perfectly reasonable to negotiate for the seller to pay the reasonable cost of repairs.Accept the car and get on with it.
Return the car for a refund on finding out the issues.
You've chosen the former.
They could (in theory) now say that he burst the pipe whilst working on it (well he did) and that there was nothing wrong with it before. It's too long ago to be pointing the finger at the MOT tester too.
227bhp said:
GreenV8S said:
227bhp said:
It's quite black and white, you either:
Accept the car and get on with it.
Return the car for a refund on finding out the issues.
You've chosen the former.
I don't think that's correct. There is a third option which is to ask the seller to deal with the problem. The seller has a legal obligation to do that under the consumer rights act and they may also offer a warranty which makes that obligation explicit. The options include compensation rather than fix, so it's perfectly reasonable to negotiate for the seller to pay the reasonable cost of repairs.Accept the car and get on with it.
Return the car for a refund on finding out the issues.
You've chosen the former.
They could (in theory) now say that he burst the pipe whilst working on it (well he did) and that there was nothing wrong with it before. It's too long ago to be pointing the finger at the MOT tester too.
ks. Clearly no idea what you are spouting about. You really need to read the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and actually understand what it says. No wonder I spend hours on the RAC website giving advice to consumers in the same position as myself. Oh dear oh dear.I'll clear up the position.
1. The vernier cut outs DO clear the lip. The readings are accurate. I still have them if you do not believe me.
2. If a fault arises after a sale it is up to the seller to prove that the fault did not exist before the sale. It is not the buyer who has to prove anything.
3. I contacted the seller and emailed him the details with photos. We later spoke on the phone and in an effort to resolve ALL the brake issues, I said I would do the repairs at no cost so long as the seller paid for the parts. The service manager agreed to this but the owners of the business have so far failed to respond at all. This in law is a contract.
4. As for the absolute tripe about it being too long to point the finger at the MOT tester, get your facts right. An appeal can be made up to 3 months after a test for a corrosion related issue. In this case it was 7 weeks. And for your information, the head of MOT enforcement in my area, who has seen all this replied:
Quote " The photographs you have submitted clearly show an excessively corroded brake pipe."
Quote " I have arranged for a Vehicle Examine to visit the VTS in question and carry out a re inspection of a vehicle they have recently tested and discuss testing standards in relation to brake pipes."
paintman said:
Assuming we're not going down the under 30 days rejection of the vehicle:
"Between 30 days and 6 months
If a fault comes to light after 30 days but before 6 months you’re entitled to a repair, replacement or refund.
It’s assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise.
Unless you’ve agreed otherwise, the seller (dealer) has only one opportunity to repair (or replace) the faulty vehicle after which, if they fail to repair it, you’re entitled to a refund.
In the event of a refund following a failed attempt at repair during the first six months the seller may make a 'reasonable' adjustment to the amount refunded to take account of the use that you’ve had of the vehicle"
https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights
I suspect that might be a quote provided for the seller who could then decide to have the car back OR authorise & pay for the repair.
In the OP's case he has not given the seller the opportunity to repair but has just done the work & is now trying to present the seller with the bill & this might be a problem notwithstanding that he claims a court has previously awarded him.
Don't forget that the decision of one court is not necessarily binding on another.
I did not want to reject the car as it was otherwise in good condition so, yes, we are well past the 30 day mark. "Between 30 days and 6 months
If a fault comes to light after 30 days but before 6 months you’re entitled to a repair, replacement or refund.
It’s assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise.
Unless you’ve agreed otherwise, the seller (dealer) has only one opportunity to repair (or replace) the faulty vehicle after which, if they fail to repair it, you’re entitled to a refund.
In the event of a refund following a failed attempt at repair during the first six months the seller may make a 'reasonable' adjustment to the amount refunded to take account of the use that you’ve had of the vehicle"
https://www.theaa.com/car-buying/legal-rights
I suspect that might be a quote provided for the seller who could then decide to have the car back OR authorise & pay for the repair.
In the OP's case he has not given the seller the opportunity to repair but has just done the work & is now trying to present the seller with the bill & this might be a problem notwithstanding that he claims a court has previously awarded him.
Don't forget that the decision of one court is not necessarily binding on another.
As you can see I did give the seller the opportunity to fix the car both in writing and on the phone. It should also be remembered that when the pipe burst the service manager immediately obtained 2 new ones and asked me to go over to the garage to pick them up as he was more than happy to let me fix them. He also wrote on the invoice a disclaimer that by providing the new pipes this would mean I agreed to not taking any further action in regard to them. The invoice also says, in the small print, that this does not affect my statutory rights.
I hear what you are saying and I appreciate you taking the time with your views which are helpful. Initially the service manager said that the service and PDI was done to 'MOT standards' and that if the car would pass an MOT, then that was the end of it. My argument was that a service and an MOT are entirely separate operations as no part can be removed or adjusted on a MOT test. Plus the signed declaration: 'check brakes for specified parameters in accordance with the specified manual.'
Citizens Advice are saying the verbal agreement with the service manager is enough. Plus, their permission to fix the brake pipes fits with the requirement to repair as the garage never, at any time said they would fix the car (for reasons just given above re MOT standard etc).
The AA Approved scheme office have called today to say they are still trying to get the garage to pay up as they believe they should. It seems the service manager is taking the same stance of the 'service/PDI was done to MOT standards' despite the signed declarations.
Conclusion.
I issued a court summons via Moneyclaim Online against the dealer. The dealer's legal representative, an online company in Gateshead (name and shame rules stop me saying who this is on PH) demanded an independent vehicle examiner's inspection. This was carried out by a Trading Standards approved company. Copies of photos and the report were sent to the dealer who ignored them and all correspondence. I received just one letter from the dealer's legal representatives misquoting the CRA 2015 in an attempt to put me off.
A did a check of the representative which revealed it was run by a fraudster, convicted of a scam that ran to £millions. He, a solicitor, was given a suspended sentence and struck off by the solicitors regulation authority. Later, after another court case, he was barred from being a company director until 2025. His company is now a partnership to get around this. Contacted Gateshead Trading Standards who had just been involved with the company regarding the letters they send out to unhappy customers of garages misusing the CRA Act to get them to go away.
In November last year the case was heard in the county court. The legal rep did not turn up for the dealer. The judge agreed the car was unroadworthy relying mainly on the expert's report. The right to reject within the first 30 days is not binding on a consumer and you can choose to not reject. The dealer must then repair the car at his expense. If he refuses or fails then the car can still be rejected or the consumer can have a refund. The judge awarded my claim for £300 for the brake parts plus the expert's report of £360 plus the cost of the summons £60 plus the court hearing fee of £80. Total of £800.
The dealer stated the car with a mileage of 110,000 would have wear and tear. The judge rejected that in relation to the brakes as the car must be roadworthy. The dealer immediately said he wanted to appeal and the judge listened to his argument. He was refused the appeal and the case was ended. The dealer then stood up and said that British justice was toast and walked out.
To the dealer's credit, he emailed me a couple of weeks later and paid the judgement in full. He did however, maintain that he was still right.
I got advice from Legal Beagles online which was accurate and very helpful as was Citizens Advice. That is in contrast to some on here who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Case closed.
I issued a court summons via Moneyclaim Online against the dealer. The dealer's legal representative, an online company in Gateshead (name and shame rules stop me saying who this is on PH) demanded an independent vehicle examiner's inspection. This was carried out by a Trading Standards approved company. Copies of photos and the report were sent to the dealer who ignored them and all correspondence. I received just one letter from the dealer's legal representatives misquoting the CRA 2015 in an attempt to put me off.
A did a check of the representative which revealed it was run by a fraudster, convicted of a scam that ran to £millions. He, a solicitor, was given a suspended sentence and struck off by the solicitors regulation authority. Later, after another court case, he was barred from being a company director until 2025. His company is now a partnership to get around this. Contacted Gateshead Trading Standards who had just been involved with the company regarding the letters they send out to unhappy customers of garages misusing the CRA Act to get them to go away.
In November last year the case was heard in the county court. The legal rep did not turn up for the dealer. The judge agreed the car was unroadworthy relying mainly on the expert's report. The right to reject within the first 30 days is not binding on a consumer and you can choose to not reject. The dealer must then repair the car at his expense. If he refuses or fails then the car can still be rejected or the consumer can have a refund. The judge awarded my claim for £300 for the brake parts plus the expert's report of £360 plus the cost of the summons £60 plus the court hearing fee of £80. Total of £800.
The dealer stated the car with a mileage of 110,000 would have wear and tear. The judge rejected that in relation to the brakes as the car must be roadworthy. The dealer immediately said he wanted to appeal and the judge listened to his argument. He was refused the appeal and the case was ended. The dealer then stood up and said that British justice was toast and walked out.
To the dealer's credit, he emailed me a couple of weeks later and paid the judgement in full. He did however, maintain that he was still right.
I got advice from Legal Beagles online which was accurate and very helpful as was Citizens Advice. That is in contrast to some on here who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Case closed.
N7GTX said:
1. The vernier cut outs DO clear the lip. The readings are accurate.
I don't know why people got worked up about that - even if you had been measuring them wrongly, they were still under the min thickness.Well done for sticking with it. Maybe the dealer will look a bit more closely at cars it's supposed to have examined in future.
Gassing Station | Suspension, Brakes & Tyres | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff