RAC Certified Dealer and car not fit for purpose

[gattoincavolato]

Good morning,

My name is Roberto and I'm new here although I've been lurking in the shadows for a bit.
I hope I'm not breaking any rules.

I've posted the same question on the RAC forum as I need as much good advice as I can get with this situation.

On the 1st of March 2019, I bought a used car from a RAC Certified dealer and I hope someone here could point me in the right direction as the car suffered a number of serious issues during my first 5 months of ownership.

The car is a 2000 Porsche Boxster S. I was offered 6 months of RAC warranty but had never been given the booklet related to the warranty and I've been told they would'send it to me via email (but they never did despite reminding them with a phone call).

They provided me with a RAC Report of items that were checked (ie: break pads wear around 50%).

Fifteen days after the sale the clutch exploded without warning, leaving me stranded on the road, I got in touch with the dealer, they told me that the clutch was a wear and tear item and not covered by the warranty, however they could look at fixing the car.

I was a bit disappointed but I understand that with an old car it could happen so I had the car towed to a garage they recommended.
I've tried to call the dealer for two days to check the state of the car but they didn't pick up the phone and stopped replying to my emails.
As I was a bit concerned, I gave a phone call to the garage where they wanted me to tow the car and to my surprise they were aware of the car being there but they didn't know who it belonged to and what was the reason for it.

I've decided to tow back the car to a different garage of my choice as the dealer handled the situation in a very appalling way.

Now I wish this was the end of the story, as I was fine with replacing the clutch and took the opportunity to do some improvement work on the car such as new tyres and IMS bearing upgrade.

However, upon inspection, the brake pads that were supposed to be within 50% of wear and tear according to the RAC report, resulted to be 70/75% worn on the fronts and in need of a change in the back (the light on the dashboard came on as well), the cleaning fluid was not refilled and other minor issues.

This leads me to believe the car wasn't thoroughly checked and that the seller is in breach of contract.

I still wasn't going to do anything about it, as I liked the car and it was more trouble than anything to pursue legal action until the latest issue happened.

Four months into my ownership, my car had a water leak from a blocked drain which damaged the electronics of the central locking unit and left me again stranded on the road and in need to tow the car. I don't park the car under trees and this shouldn't have happened.

I suffered around £1600 of repairs costs for that issue alone and given the situation I believe the car was not sold fit for purpose as it wasn't thoroughly checked.

Given all the issues with the car, I want to reject the car or at the very least force the dealer to compensate me for the losses that I have incurred to and that are not caused by my driving style as claimed by them.

I've already sent a letter to the dealer asking for the maximum claim (car rejection and expenses) but offered room for negotiation.

Their lawyer denied my claims with quite a ridiculous letter blaming it on my driving style and not understanding the attached documentation (invoices for work and explanations of how and when the issues happened).

I gave them a final warning to find an agreement or I will file a claim at a small claims court.

I know this is a long story and I've tried to give you the short version, but what would you do in my position, considering the seller is supposed to be a RAC Certified dealer and what would be reasonable to claim?

The reason I want to reject the car is that I lost the confidence in its ability to carry me from point A to point B and the history of those issues undermines my ability to re-sell it at a competitive price as not everything has yet been fixed.

Thank you for your help and apologies for the long post.

[mk2driver]

It’s a 20 year old car with wear and tear issues associated with age and usage

You are going to get nowhere with this and rightly so to be honest

[p4cks]

You have to expect a 20 year old Porsche to need some stuff doing, and not be as cheap as a Focus to repair.

You're pissing in the wind I'm afraid

[anonymous-user]

Clutch is wear and tear. I would say brakes 50% wear is a judgement call, are you really trying to reject the car over this, as blocked drains isn't a fault per se i it sounds like something that should be checked weekly.

Legally standing it doesn't seem straightforward, considering it is 20 years old and would expect a lot of maintenance to keep it going.

Can't see anything about checking drain plugs...

https://www.rac.co.uk/buying-a-car/rac-approved-de...

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Saturday 17th August 12:36

[gattoincavolato]

I got that the clutch is wear and tear and when I bought the car I took that into my budget.

I still don't think the dealer handled the situation well as they could've ended up with a happy customer and not one that threatens legal action.

The clutch is also not the main issue, the reason for me rejecting the car is that it was advertised as a good roadworthy car and instead it cost me around £1000 a month in repairs to keep running, broke down within 15 days and so on, which to me doesn't really sound like a roadworthy vehicle.

My issue is with the overall situation and the lack of help and communication from the dealer, not with a single faulty item on the car.

I still believe they are at fault here at least to compensate me for some of the expenses.

To this day I still don't know what is covered by the warranty and what is not.

I'm trying to understand whether its a waste of time or if I have some legal grounds.

Thanks for your replies though it's good to hear some impartial opinions.

[Novexx]

A car of this age & ilk is pretty much a spin of the dice regardless of what pre sale inspection has or has not been carried out I'm afraid. You could purchase a shiny, concourse example & have it go bang or fizz the next day...

I would be querying the warranty though - that fact that you have no documentation despite requesting it seems odd - policy documentation is required when requesting warranty work. It might be wise to contact RAC directly & query the status of the warranty.

[Nickp82]

For perspective, how much did you pay for the car and what was the mileage?

[vtchequers]

Should've got your own car inspection done. but saying the'd done it themselves must mean there is some comeback on their part!?

[p4cks]

gattoincavolato said:

the reason for me rejecting the car is that it was advertised as a good roadworthy car and instead it cost me around £1000 a month in repairs to keep running, broke down within 15 days and so on, which to me doesn't really sound like a roadworthy vehicle.

Welcome to Porsche ownership. They might be cheap to buy but they aren't cheap to run, but surely you'll have done some research about runnings costs when doing your due dilligence when buying and deciding upon a car?

This is not for the dealer to sort. This is your car and your problem.

[gattoincavolato]

Nickp82 said:

For perspective, how much did you pay for the car and what was the mileage?

£5250 for the car and 93000 Miles.

I was happy with the price and I budgeted another £5000 for repairs through the year in case the clutch failed or things like that.

To be fair the engine runs well, it's more the overall context of this situation and that I still believe the car wasn't checked at all and falsely advertised.

They could've been in good faith as I drove the car before buying it and was happy with it, however, their lack of help leads me to believe they were not.

[Deep Thought]

gattoincavolato said:

• STUFF **

I suffered around £1600 of repairs costs for that issue alone and given the situation I believe the car was not sold fit for purpose as it wasn't thoroughly checked.

Given all the issues with the car, I want to reject the car or at the very least force the dealer to compensate me for the losses that I have incurred to and that are not caused by my driving style as claimed by them.

• STUFF

20 year old Porsche costs £,£££s to run shocker.

All wear and tear issues on a 20 year old car. No dealer will warrant against those.

[Poppiecock]

Clutch and brakes are never going to be part of a warranty.

I'd possibly try a consumer rights claim for the clutch, given that it gave up very soon after purchase.

However, as you're discovering, Porsche maintenance isn't cheap - I've been lucky with my Boxster in that it only cost me servicing, brakes and alternator and window regulators over the last 5 years... but I'm just about to spend money on a starter motor and a refurbished tiptronic solenoid pack.

Best thing I can suggest is to stockpile things like brakes when they're on offer - I think I paid £300 for a full set of Brembo discs and pads on a Eurocarparts offer weekend.

[Deep Thought]

gattoincavolato said:

£5250 for the car and 93000 Miles.

I was happy with the price and I budgeted another £5000 for repairs through the year in case the clutch failed or things like that.

To be fair the engine runs well, it's more the overall context of this situation and that I still believe the car wasn't checked at all and falsely advertised.

They could've been in good faith as I drove the car before buying it and was happy with it, however, their lack of help leads me to believe they were not.

So you'd budgeted for such eventualities anyway?

Its a £5K 20 year old car. It will have had minimal checks and the dealer probably had quite a narrow profit margin to work within.

Their lack of help is because your ask is unreasonable of them.

[gattoincavolato]

Deep Thought said:

So you'd budgeted for such eventualities anyway?

Its a £5K 20 year old car. It will have had minimal checks and the dealer probably had quite a narrow profit margin to work within.

Their lack of help is because your ask is unreasonable of them.

I did budget for that otherwise I wouldn't have bought a Boxster, hence I wasn't going to do anything about it until the water blew the central locking unit and I got upset as some issues can really be avoided and I don't feel I am responsible for them.

I understand that they had very little profit from the car and that my ask in unreasonable now but I want the maximum ground for negotiation, I only expect them to cover what is right for them to cover or legally what they need to cover.

My original ask, to sort out the car when the clutch exploded wasn't unreasonable and I could've rejected the car then if I knew about my rights.

But since they stopped answering my calls when the car was in their custody I had to take action and found out all the other things.

[Deep Thought]

gattoincavolato said:

I did budget for that otherwise I wouldn't have bought a Boxster, hence I wasn't going to do anything about it until the water blew the central locking unit and I got upset as some issues can really be avoided and I don't feel I am responsible for them.

I understand that they had very little profit from the car and that my ask in unreasonable now but I want the maximum ground for negotiation, I only expect them to cover what is right for them to cover or legally what they need to cover.

My original ask, to sort out the car when the clutch exploded wasn't unreasonable and I could've rejected the car then if I knew about my rights.

But since they stopped answering my calls when the car was in their custody I had to take action and found out all the other things.

But the water leak happened 4 months in to your tenureship, so if avoidable, could have been avoided by you?

[Dolf Stoppard]

It's a £35k car that's 20 years old. The fact you paid £5k is irrelevant. The running costs will be those of a £35k car, and this includes the inevitable wear and tear costs of a 20 year old car. I'd put it down to experience, and at least you now know that a lot of the big jobs have been done and you've got a pretty sorted motor.

[Poppiecock]

Just wait until the IMS bearing goes.

[gattoincavolato]

Deep Thought said:

But the water leak happened 4 months in to your tenureship, so if avoidable, could have been avoided by you?

It could've been avoided by me if I knew that the drains had never been unblocked but as they had serviced the car I would've expected them to do it.

To be honest and that's certainly my fault I didn't know that was a common issue on these cars until it happened to me however my garage told me that they got clogged over the years.

If the car develops a fault within the first 5 months shouldn't it be the dealer's responsibility to prove it wasn't there to begin with?

I'm trying to contact RAC and see if they can at least provide me with the details for the warranty, assuming they registered my name.

[gattoincavolato]

Poppiecock said:

Just wait until the IMS bearing goes.

I've replaced that, hopefully at least that's sorted lol

[Deep Thought]

gattoincavolato said:

It could've been avoided by me if I knew that the drains had never been unblocked but as they had serviced the car I would've expected them to do it.

To be honest and that's certainly my fault I didn't know that was a common issue on these cars until it happened to me however my garage told me that they got clogged over the years.

If the car develops a fault within the first 5 months shouldn't it be the dealer's responsibility to prove it wasn't there to begin with?

I'm trying to contact RAC and see if they can at least provide me with the details for the warranty, assuming they registered my name.

Oh now come on - you're making this up as you go along!

A service by a car at that price from a small time dealer is going to be an oil and filter change and the worlds quickest check round to make sure nothing is about to drop off.

It sounds like you neither did any due diligence before hand, nor had it inspected, nor subsequently did any investigation in to common, preventable problems.