New (used) car issues
Discussion
I'll not mention names for obvious reasons, but heres the brief details:
Bought a car through autotrader on 19th August for £29k.
A mate local to the dealership pops in to have a look at it for me, car wasn't roadworthy as it was having its gear selector switch replaced at the time. He has a look, flags a couple of possible issues, but overall, was happy'ish so went for it.
Car gets delivered 26th August, all looks ok on the face of it.
The following week I take it into a main dealer to do a cursory check, passes with full green bill of health, no issues. ( I take this with a pinch of salt as I know the exhaust needs replacing so book it into a specialist indie to get a proper check done)
Indie does a full check on the 19th Sept (earliest slot) Turns out theres a whole load of things from weeping diff to oil leak on front crank seal and vacuum pump, exhaust etc. But main issue is the rear brake disks being below the manufactures recomended min limit. They're ceramic! (yes I know, Im a sucker for willy waving cool things, but has assumed a car with 50k was still going to have plenty of life in a set of ceramic disks) Replacement cost, with new pads is IRO £8k.
Contact the dealer who has said they will happily have the car back and sort the issues, but not the brakes as they're wear and tear. I can usually blag/lose some money from the other half with my cars, but £8k is going to be a step too far.
Dealer is adamant that they wont cover the brakes.
"firends" have advised me about the distant selling regs and the fact that as the dealer never mentioned the 14 day cooling off period and its not on any of the contracts/invoices, I automatically get a year to return the car for a refund.
It appears the issue is the fact that I had someone pop in to see it acting on my behalf, so distant selling regs now aren't so clear for my case.
Ive spoken to legal colleagues who seem to think its now a bit grey and even CAB aggree that technically its no longer clear cut.
Question is, do I dig in, possibly go litigation route and hope they take the car back and refund me (clearly they're not going to fit £8k worth of brakes over a refund)
Or take this as a life lesson and in the future, don't buy a used car with CCB's! which is exactly what my mate told me initially.
I'll also add, I do really like the car, apart from the brake issue, i'd happily let them sort the issues and keep it. Just dont really want to spunk 1/3rd price of the car on brakes.
My apologies, I said I would keep this brief, I lied!
Bought a car through autotrader on 19th August for £29k.
A mate local to the dealership pops in to have a look at it for me, car wasn't roadworthy as it was having its gear selector switch replaced at the time. He has a look, flags a couple of possible issues, but overall, was happy'ish so went for it.
Car gets delivered 26th August, all looks ok on the face of it.
The following week I take it into a main dealer to do a cursory check, passes with full green bill of health, no issues. ( I take this with a pinch of salt as I know the exhaust needs replacing so book it into a specialist indie to get a proper check done)
Indie does a full check on the 19th Sept (earliest slot) Turns out theres a whole load of things from weeping diff to oil leak on front crank seal and vacuum pump, exhaust etc. But main issue is the rear brake disks being below the manufactures recomended min limit. They're ceramic! (yes I know, Im a sucker for willy waving cool things, but has assumed a car with 50k was still going to have plenty of life in a set of ceramic disks) Replacement cost, with new pads is IRO £8k.
Contact the dealer who has said they will happily have the car back and sort the issues, but not the brakes as they're wear and tear. I can usually blag/lose some money from the other half with my cars, but £8k is going to be a step too far.
Dealer is adamant that they wont cover the brakes.
"firends" have advised me about the distant selling regs and the fact that as the dealer never mentioned the 14 day cooling off period and its not on any of the contracts/invoices, I automatically get a year to return the car for a refund.
It appears the issue is the fact that I had someone pop in to see it acting on my behalf, so distant selling regs now aren't so clear for my case.
Ive spoken to legal colleagues who seem to think its now a bit grey and even CAB aggree that technically its no longer clear cut.
Question is, do I dig in, possibly go litigation route and hope they take the car back and refund me (clearly they're not going to fit £8k worth of brakes over a refund)
Or take this as a life lesson and in the future, don't buy a used car with CCB's! which is exactly what my mate told me initially.
I'll also add, I do really like the car, apart from the brake issue, i'd happily let them sort the issues and keep it. Just dont really want to spunk 1/3rd price of the car on brakes.
My apologies, I said I would keep this brief, I lied!
I assume it wasn't "approved" used?
If it was, I wouldn't expect it to need new brakes - but if it's simply "used" then I think the dealer has a point (I'm not a lawyer etc. etc).
FWIW - although they last a long time, at 50k I would definitely have had ceramics on the list of things that needed checking carefully.
ETA : I know that some CCBs can be resurfaced, a lot cheaper than replacements - do these fall into that category?
If it was, I wouldn't expect it to need new brakes - but if it's simply "used" then I think the dealer has a point (I'm not a lawyer etc. etc).
FWIW - although they last a long time, at 50k I would definitely have had ceramics on the list of things that needed checking carefully.
ETA : I know that some CCBs can be resurfaced, a lot cheaper than replacements - do these fall into that category?
Edited by davek_964 on Monday 6th October 14:28
Under onsumer rights legislation you have 6 months to return car om basis that faults existed at the time of purchase unless the dealer is able to prove otherwise. After 6 months you have to prove that faults were pre existing. Oil leeaks etc clearly would be preexisting but from what you said dealer is prepared to sort this out.
£8k is massive amount and need details of what exactly is wrong with the brakes..
If all discs, and pads need replacing because they are below manufacturers recommended minimum thickness they should have been replaced before you bought the car.. Has indie given you a detailed breakdown of disc and pad thickness of above minimum manufacturers requirements you will struggle IPO to get anything done about these unless badly corroded or some other obvious fault.
What's the indie said about the brakes and discs
Edit- it doesn't matter about how much the cost is the obligation is still the same that you can reject car. Are they ceramic discs? and and what exactly did the inspecting dealer say? Plenty of time to get proper details within the 6 month time line.
£8k is massive amount and need details of what exactly is wrong with the brakes..
If all discs, and pads need replacing because they are below manufacturers recommended minimum thickness they should have been replaced before you bought the car.. Has indie given you a detailed breakdown of disc and pad thickness of above minimum manufacturers requirements you will struggle IPO to get anything done about these unless badly corroded or some other obvious fault.
What's the indie said about the brakes and discs
Edit- it doesn't matter about how much the cost is the obligation is still the same that you can reject car. Are they ceramic discs? and and what exactly did the inspecting dealer say? Plenty of time to get proper details within the 6 month time line.
Edited by twokcc on Monday 6th October 14:36
twokcc said:
Under onsumer rights legislation you have 6 months to return car om basis that faults existed at the time of purchase uless the dealer is able to prove otherwise. After 6 months you have to prove that faults were pre existing. Oil leeaks etc clearly would be preexisting but from what you said dealer is prepared to sort this out.
£8k is massive amount and need details of what exactly is wrong with the brakes..
If all discs, and pads need replacing because they are below manufacturers recommended minimum thickness they should have been replaced before you bought the car.. Has indie given you a detailed breakdown of disc and pad thickness of above minimum manufacturers requirements you will struggle IPO to get anything done about these unless badly corroded or some other obvious fault.
What's the indie said about the brakes and discs/
I think ceramics are generally done by weight, not thickness?£8k is massive amount and need details of what exactly is wrong with the brakes..
If all discs, and pads need replacing because they are below manufacturers recommended minimum thickness they should have been replaced before you bought the car.. Has indie given you a detailed breakdown of disc and pad thickness of above minimum manufacturers requirements you will struggle IPO to get anything done about these unless badly corroded or some other obvious fault.
What's the indie said about the brakes and discs/
B3NNL said:
"firends" have advised me about the distant selling regs and the fact that as the dealer never mentioned the 14 day cooling off period and its not on any of the contracts/invoices, I automatically get a year to return the car for a refund.
It appears the issue is the fact that I had someone pop in to see it acting on my behalf, so distant selling regs now aren't so clear for my case.
Ive spoken to legal colleagues who seem to think its now a bit grey and even CAB aggree that technically its no longer clear cut.
It seems pretty clear to me, you had a representative physically inspect the car, so the Distance Selling Regulations don't apply.It appears the issue is the fact that I had someone pop in to see it acting on my behalf, so distant selling regs now aren't so clear for my case.
Ive spoken to legal colleagues who seem to think its now a bit grey and even CAB aggree that technically its no longer clear cut.
twokcc said:
Under onsumer rights legislation you have 6 months to return car om basis that faults existed at the time of purchase unless the dealer is able to prove otherwise. After 6 months you have to prove that faults were pre existing.
That's far to inaccurate to let stand. If there is a fault with the car. 1) the dealer has the right to inspect it themselves, 2) if its within the first 30 days, there is a "short term right to reject". 3) if its outside 30 days but within 6 months, the dealer has the choice to repair, refund, replace. They have one chance to repair, then if a fault recurs the consumer has the right to reject.
B3NNL said:
Just dont really want to spunk 1/3rd price of the car on brakes.
What was the new list price of the car? Unfortunately, Carbon Ceramic Brakes are expensive to replace and they seem to sometimes wear out quicker than some people expect.Notwithstanding they are below a manufacturer's guideline.......did the car come with a recent MoT? Presumably they assessed each axle's brakes on a rolling road machine, if so with that evidence, the dealer may also dig their heels in and argue that the brakes are not "faulty" and decline to pay for any of the work. So tread carefully.
Another approach might be to ask for a contribution towards having the brakes done.
BertBert said:
surely the rear disks being past the allowable wear limit is a fault and a safety related one at that. The fact that they are consumable doesn't provide the dealer with a get out of jail free card.
Maybe - but they are consumables. Although I'm sure he hasn't - the OP could have done several track days in the 3 weeks he owned the car..........paul_c123 said:
twokcc said:
Under onsumer rights legislation you have 6 months to return car om basis that faults existed at the time of purchase unless the dealer is able to prove otherwise. After 6 months you have to prove that faults were pre existing.
That's far to inaccurate to let stand. If there is a fault with the car. 1) the dealer has the right to inspect it themselves, 2) if its within the first 30 days, there is a "short term right to reject". 3) if its outside 30 days but within 6 months, the dealer has the choice to repair, refund, replace. They have one chance to repair, then if a fault recurs the consumer has the right to reject.
It's very odd that the car, with apparently several issues, came out of a main dealer with a fully green health check - normally dealers techs are extremely pedantic. Often the techs get bonused on work they identify. I just got an amber on brake pads with 40% left.
davek_964 said:
I assume it wasn't "approved" used?
If it was, I wouldn't expect it to need new brakes - but if it's simply "used" then I think the dealer has a point (I'm not a lawyer etc. etc).
FWIW - although they last a long time, at 50k I would definitely have had ceramics on the list of things that needed checking carefully.
ETA : I know that some CCBs can be resurfaced, a lot cheaper than replacements - do these fall into that category?
No, it was from an indie dealer so no approved used scheme unfortunately. Good old Google et at quite happily stated they should be good for 100k+ if not ragged. Clearly it had been tracked/driven hard prior and now they need doing. Unsure about resurfacing, will have a look.If it was, I wouldn't expect it to need new brakes - but if it's simply "used" then I think the dealer has a point (I'm not a lawyer etc. etc).
FWIW - although they last a long time, at 50k I would definitely have had ceramics on the list of things that needed checking carefully.
ETA : I know that some CCBs can be resurfaced, a lot cheaper than replacements - do these fall into that category?
Edited by davek_964 on Monday 6th October 14:28
VSKeith said:
Is it not possible to just replace the CC discs with standard ones? Even if that requires different callipers it should still be a lot cheaper
Thats the fallback, but it will need new calipers and knuckles etc. Had quotes in the region of £6-£9k for all 4 to be replaced with Steel. Will see how it goes.BertBert said:
surely the rear disks being past the allowable wear limit is a fault and a safety related one at that. The fact that they are consumable doesn't provide the dealer with a get out of jail free card.
Funny old thing, noone could give me a definitive answer on the MOT thing. It has a valid MOT and when I asked both the Indie and the dealership about how they inspect disks, they both just stated a visual check, nothing measured etc, so seems that CCBs might be quite easy to slip though MOTs as long as the pads show life.119 said:
One would have thought the last mot would have picked up on the various leaks and brakes?
Assuming it is older than three years.
Although I do realise some MOTs are more accurate then others.
Being an previous TVR owner, I'll never hold much faith in an MOT as to a guide of a vehicles state ;-)Assuming it is older than three years.
Although I do realise some MOTs are more accurate then others.
twokcc said:
£8k is massive amount and need details of what exactly is wrong with the brakes..
There is nothing "wrong" with the brakes. They have worn below the minimum thickness.twokcc said:
If all discs, and pads need replacing because they are below manufacturers recommended minimum thickness they should have been replaced before you bought the car..
Why?The car isn't unroadworthy. It would still pass an MOT. It is 'fit for purpose'
OP - I think you bought a car with worn brakes and are now expecting the dealer to stump up for a replacement. AIUI, consumer law doesn't work that way......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff