Car purchase gone wrong….

sigma said:
Not sure how significant the 500 miles will be here. It is a fair bit of milage and I wonder if they could say it's wear and tear for a car of this age? Equally you'd expect a car you juat bought to be relatively trouble free. If it just a pipe that's popped off or split then the legal advice might be to get it fixed because it might not be considered a significant fault.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, the garage also say they serviced it and have put a stamp in the book, when I collected it... So I think I can also argue additionally, that it's broken after they've serviced it and guarenteed it defect free, but i'll defer to the laywer on that one tomorrow.

Again, the 500 miles as far as I'm aware, boils down to "fit for purpose" as I'd expect a car of that type, to be able to drive 500 miles without breaking, but again - another question for the lawyer...
 
Screeeech said:
This isn't loss of boost, this is like the engine won't go past 1500rpm and it's almost cutting out, lurching back and forth.
Click to expand...
1500 RPM is pretty much the point where you start gradually building boost, I'd be very surprised were this not the situation here.

Mine (with the intercooler pipe popped off due to the dodgy jubilee clip) was pretty much undriveable at anything above walking pace at tickover.

I may well be wrong - very! - but, just saying it mirrors my experience which turned out to be trivial in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
sounds like you'll have to wait for engineer report to find out if it is an unpredictable failure...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean the finance company will be sending a mechanic to look at it, but he won't be fixing it - it'll be an inspection. If it is deemed to be faulty, then the law states I have a right to reject it - according to the broker, and my own understanding, however I'll get a concrete answer from the legal firm tomorrow.

Scania said:
I may well be wrong - very! - but, just saying it mirrors my experience which turned out to be trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think you're probably going to be right, I'm not really disagreeing with the hose diagnosis, it's more the fact that due to this happening on day 6, I just have no faith in the vehicle at all... Because these things tend to just start breaking, one thing after another. If it had happened 6 weeks after or whatever, I'd have just gotten it fixed - but in less than a week, nah.. I'm not keeping it.

It's just too close to the point of purchase, especially with a significant fault that caused a breakdown - as in, it can't be driven at all... Like I said - if it was something silly like the windscreen wipers or a lightbulb, no problem - but stuff to do with engines, (even if it is just a split hose or whatever) forget it...
 
Last edited:
The dealer is coming across as a bit of a scumbag tbh. If he doesn't understand consumer law then he should have a solicitor on hand that he can bounce questions off. Instead he's choosing to throw his toys out the pram.

I would look at it as a blessing it's broken down early. Imagine trying to get this crook to agree to a repair 3 months into ownership.
 
Semple said:
The dealer is coming across as a bit of a scumbag tbh. If he doesn't understand consumer law then he should have a solicitor on hand that he can bounce questions off. Instead he's choosing to throw his toys out the pram.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, he could just accept it back, fix it and resell it - it's no skin off his nose in the grand scheme of things, it's his job as a dealer to handle this sort of thing...

This is another reason why I'm speaking with a lawyer tomorrow (at a cost of almost £200) as I just want my position to be crystal clear, from there I can either force it through - or back down, if the lawyers think it won't be worth it, or there's a poor chance of success... However, it seems pretty clear and straightforward to me...

I just don't want it to drag on for months and months...
 
Finance company called this morning,

They're basically saying I'm well within my rights to reject, not just due to the 30 day right to reject, but because I'm still within the 14 day cooling off period. They're saying I don't need to have a mechanic diagnose the problem or mess around, they're going to just put this through as a rejection and deal with it via their standard rejection process.

They're also saying that if this drags on for weeks, I won't need to make any payments against the finance whilst they're processing the rejection.

They (the finance company) said the dealer doesn't have a leg to stand on, so I feel a lot better about it now..

I'm going to hold off on speaking with the solicitors for now, because the finance people seem to be on the ball, and have an interest in getting this solved as it's legally their car and money.
 
Screeeech said:
Honestly, I think you're probably going to be right, I'm not really disagreeing with the hose diagnosis, it's more the fact that due to this happening on day 6, I just have no faith in the vehicle at all... Because these things tend to just start breaking, one thing after another. If it had happened 6 weeks after or whatever, I'd have just gotten it fixed - but in less than a week, nah.. I'm not keeping it.
Click to expand...
Outcome of this particular rejetion aside for a minute.

You keep going on about this "day 6" business and loosely implying that due to this one failure the rest of the car is a shed.

But the failure has not really appeared on day six has it. The car is 8 years old so this (as yet unknown) failure has happened on somewhere around day 3,000 which just happens 6 days into your ownership. If the vehicle was fresh off the manufacturing line I could see sense in an immediate rejection, likewise if multiple problems occured shortly into your ownership or if upon mechanic accessment the problem stems from a catastrophic failure. But to not even let them assess what could potentially be a common issue that is simple to fix? I cannot see your logic here.

I think perhaps you need to stick to buying new or nearly new cars in future.
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
It's just too close to the point of purchase, especially with a significant fault that caused a breakdown - as in, it can't be driven at all... Like I said - if it was something silly like the windscreen wipers or a lightbulb, no problem - but stuff to do with engines, (even if it is just a split hose or whatever) forget it...
Click to expand...

The fault might not be significant. The outcome of the fault is significant. And strictly speaking a car without working wipers cannot not be driven either.
 
Last edited:
Jelly4mybelly said:
Outcome of this particular rejetion aside for a minute.

You keep going on about this "day 6" business and loosely implying that due to this one failure the rest of the car is a shed.

But the failure has not really appeared on day six has it. The car is 8 years old so this (as yet unknown) failure has happened on somewhere around day 3,000 which just happens 6 days into your ownership. If the vehicle was fresh off the manufacturing line I could see sense in an immediate rejection, likewise if multiple problems occured shortly into your ownership or if upon mechanic accessment the problem stems from a catastrophic failure. But to not even let them assess what could potentially be a common issue that is simple to fix? I cannot see your logic here.

I think perhaps you need to stick to buying new or nearly new cars in future.
Click to expand...

If you live out in the sticks and rely on a car it can be difficult if something happens which shakes your faith in the vehicle even if it is sometimes not completely rational.
 
Jelly4mybelly said:
Outcome of this particular rejetion aside for a minute.

You keep going on about this "day 6" business and loosely implying that due to this one failure the rest of the car is a shed.

But the failure has not really appeared on day six has it. The car is 8 years old so this (as yet unknown) failure has happened on somewhere around day 3,000 which just happens 6 days into your ownership. If the vehicle was fresh off the manufacturing line I could see sense in an immediate rejection, likewise if multiple problems occured shortly into your ownership or if upon mechanic accessment the problem stems from a catastrophic failure. But to not even let them assess what could potentially be a common issue that is simple to fix? I cannot see your logic here.

I think perhaps you need to stick to buying new or nearly new cars in future.
Click to expand...

Whilst that might seem logical, frankly it makes no odds. Your consumer rights are your consumer rights.
 
Update if anyone cares :p

I paid for a mechanic to come yesterday and diagnose it.

The hard plastic turbo boost pipe has cracked/split, where it runs down the back of the engine to the turbo, I think I'm looking at around £300 to fix by the sounds of it. I did this because it was relatively cheap and quick and I wanted to know what the fault actually was.

The finance company are sending their own mechanic tomorrow to do an inspection, where they'll obviously find the same fault.

Apparently when they have the report, they'll make a decision and we'll go from there. They did say on the phone, that if a pipe/hose has cracked or split, they count it as a "mechanical failure" and it's highly likely they'll support the rejection. However - quite a few times, they've said one thing, then back tracked and said the opposite an hour later, so I won't be suprised.
 
The finance appointed mechanic came and did a survey of the vehicle earlier, and the plot thickens a little bit..

Turns out the guy who came out to look at it on Saturday was wrong and didn't know what he was doing and was a waste of money..... (admittedly all he did was look whilst I revved it)

The mechanic from the finance company could see the turbo blowing fumes out, all the hoses appear to be ok visually - he thinks it might be the actual turbo, or something very close to it which we can't see (as this is all tucked right at the back of the engine) It's also throwing a "turbo underboost" fault code, which you'd also expect if there's a problem with the turbo or any associated connectivity to it.

The problem is, according to the mechanic - to properly diagnose it will probably require a lot of labour as the turbo and associated bits are all right at the back of the engine, so it might require a lot of disassembly to fix and costs in terms of labour, even if the part is only £10.

Last night, I was in two minds to just have somebody come out and fix the hose and be done with it, as otherwise the car is in good condition with no other issues .. But now, it's pretty clear this isn't just something that can be pushed back on and tightened up..
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
The finance appointed mechanic came and did a survey of the vehicle earlier, and the plot thickens a little bit..

Turns out the guy who came out to look at it on Saturday was wrong and didn't know what he was doing and was a waste of money..... (admittedly all he did was look whilst I revved it)

The mechanic from the finance company could see the turbo blowing fumes out, all the hoses appear to be ok visually - he thinks it might be the actual turbo, or something very close to it which we can't see (as this is all tucked right at the back of the engine) It's also throwing a "turbo underboost" fault code, which you'd also expect if there's a problem with the turbo or any associated connectivity to it.

The problem is, according to the mechanic - to properly diagnose it will probably require a lot of labour as the turbo and associated bits are all right at the back of the engine, so it might require a lot of disassembly to fix and costs in terms of labour, even if the part is only £10.

Last night, I was in two minds to just have somebody come out and fix the hose and be done with it, as otherwise the car is in good condition with no other issues .. But now, it's pretty clear this isn't just something that can be pushed back on and tightened up..
Click to expand...
The question is how do you know which mechanic is correct. Then again if the finance appointed one is basically saying it's going to be costly either way then surely that would support you deciding you'd rather not deal with the engine being taken to bits and support your rejection.
 
Last edited:
I am not legally minded but might the interference of a third party mechanic now muddy the water a bit with regards to forcing a rejection?

You have appointed somebody to work on the car and they have changed a pipe. Did they do anything else? Have they used the correct parts? If not has this caused damage to the turbo and or the error code?

Purely thinking of this from the original dealers perspective and how they might try to fight their corner.
 
Last edited:
Jelly4mybelly said:
I am not legally minded but might the interference of a third party mechanic now muddy the water a bit with regards to forcing a rejection?

You have appointed somebody to work on the car and they have changed a pipe. Did they do anything else? Have they used the correct parts? If not has this caused damage to the turbo and or the error code?

Purely thinking of this from the original dealers perspective.
Click to expand...
Nothing was changed by the first mechanic from the sounds of it.
 
Jelly4mybelly said:
You have appointed somebody to work on the car and they have changed a pipe. Did they do anything else? Have they used the correct parts? If not has this caused damage to the turbo and or the error code?
Click to expand...

The first guy was a mobile mechanic I paid for, to just look at it and give me an opinion, to see if it *was* definitely something silly like a hose that could be pushed back on, or whatever....

The guy who came this morning, was from the actual finance company (and it's his opinion that matters)

Nothing has been fixed or touched by anybody, as the moment that happens, it messes the whole process up.

tom_e said:
The question is how do you know which mechanic is correct. Then again if the finance appointed one is basically saying it's going to be costly either way then surely that would support you deciding you'd rather not deal with the engine being taken to bits and support your rejection.
Click to expand...

The guy who came this morning, actually pointed to an area at the back of the engine, where you can physically see smoke/fumes coming from the actual turbo itself, as opposed to the hard plastic pipe which the first guy pointed at, so I can physically see the issue myself now, whereas before - not really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom