Does he have a point car from trader?

Daff_Duck

Daff_Duck

Daff_Duck

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
797
Location
Manchester
Brother has bought a car from a BMW 318D from trader
Before I go any further the facts are he bought it knowing it was high motorway mileage but had full BMW warranty ex rep car and he took it for a test drive before he purchased it

Due to the high mileage he was offered only a 30 day engine warranty.. having driven diesels before he was aware of DPF problems so on test drive took it for a long drive and got the engine up to operating temp also ran it as high revs for a number of miles

he was happy and purchased it. having now said that a few days later he was on the motorway and the DPF warning light came on and kept coming on over the next few days. He raised this with the dealer who reluctantly agreed to take a look at expense to my brother as he had to swap cars and pick up his own the dealer took it in and provided a print out to say that the problem was fixed (this was not a BMW specialist just everyday generic garage)

However it hasn't been fixed and it is still present the dealer is now saying that it has nothing to do with him as he only offered a warranty on the engine.

My brother is questioning the fact that the dealer MUST have known there was an issue with the DPF and knowingly sold it on.. is there a case for taking the dealer to the small claims court for the cost of the fix. he has got a quote from the local BMW specialists who have put it on the computer and taken a look the cost will be @ £600 due to various components failing.

If you could advise I would appreciate it.
 
Daff_Duck said:
Brother has bought a car from a BMW 318D from trader
Before I go any further the facts are he bought it knowing it was high motorway mileage but had full BMW warranty ex rep car and he took it for a test drive before he purchased it

Due to the high mileage he was offered only a 30 day engine warranty.. having driven diesels before he was aware of DPF problems so on test drive took it for a long drive and got the engine up to operating temp also ran it as high revs for a number of miles

he was happy and purchased it. having now said that a few days later he was on the motorway and the DPF warning light came on and kept coming on over the next few days. He raised this with the dealer who reluctantly agreed to take a look at expense to my brother as he had to swap cars and pick up his own the dealer took it in and provided a print out to say that the problem was fixed (this was not a BMW specialist just everyday generic garage)

However it hasn't been fixed and it is still present the dealer is now saying that it has nothing to do with him as he only offered a warranty on the engine.

My brother is questioning the fact that the dealer MUST have known there was an issue with the DPF and knowingly sold it on.. is there a case for taking the dealer to the small claims court for the cost of the fix. he has got a quote from the local BMW specialists who have put it on the computer and taken a look the cost will be @ £600 due to various components failing.

If you could advise I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

A high mileage diesel from a dodgy back street garage that ends up costing more to fix than buying the petrol version.

In short, the trader has to fix this. The sales of goods act applies in this situation, and no, it doesn't just apply to the engine for 30 days. :rolleyes:

I'm sure that someone else will come along and state in far more detail what the trader must do - but the long and short of it is that the seller must prove that this problem wasn't with the vehicle when he sold it, which is going to be impossible for him as DPF's don't go bad in 3 days.

Tell your brother to pay nothing to him, to not go "50/50" or come up with any other little deal the trader will try and throw out (other than full refund or full cost of repair). This is entirely the trader's problem. If he won't play ball tell him you will be taking the car to a BMW main dealer to have it fixed, then be seeking to recover the costs from him via the small claims court (which is very easy to do these days as it's simply a form you must fill out online and pay a small amount!). This ought to light a fire under him.
 
Last edited:
That's great until you take him to court and he merely utters the phrase, it is perfectly reasonable to have to expect to replace the dpf on the given mileage.

What you're saying is that if you buy a 250 quid Mondeo with 200k from a trader and it drops a piston the next few days, the trader will have to replace the engine. This is incorrect.

It's not so cut and dry when there is high mileage involved.
 
pepsilol said:
That's great until you take him to court and he merely utters the phrase, it is perfectly reasonable to have to expect to replace the dpf on the given mileage.

What you're saying is that if you buy a 250 quid Mondeo with 200k from a trader and it drops a piston the next few days, the trader will have to replace the engine. This is incorrect.

It's not so cut and dry when there is high mileage involved.
Click to expand...

Correct, but there is a statutory expectation that the product you buy must be fit for purpose and last a reasonable amount of time. 3 days isn't reasonable and a failed DPF is not fit for purpose.

The trader must have thought that the engine had at least 30 days in it as he offered a bullet proof warranty on it (lol), which from even his conservative point of view as the seller, shows that he thinks that 30 days is reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Iik guessing the mileage is over 100k in which it is reasonable to have to expect to replace the dpf and something the owner could have expected to replace.

The car is fit for purpose. It just needs a part that would need replacing at high mileage replacing.
 
pepsilol said:
Iik guessing the mileage is over 100k in which it is reasonable to have to expect to replace the dpf and something the owner could have expected to replace.
Click to expand...

However, it is not reasonable for the buyer to assume this cost as this fault was clearly present at the time of sale, which makes it the seller's problem to rectify. There is obviously wiggle room when it comes to higher mileage and very old cars, but this does not absolve the seller of his responsibilities as a trader.

pepsilol said:
The car is fit for purpose. It just needs a part that would need replacing at high mileage replacing.
Click to expand...

The car is *not* fit for purpose at all! The car should largely operate in the way intended. Having a major component in the exhaust system failing may have an adverse reaction on the performance and fuel economy of the car and will mean car will, in all likelihood, no longer meet emission standards.
 
Last edited:
If you don't mind me asking how much was the car? How far your brother should be willing to pursue it and what is "reasonable" to expect of the car may be different if the car was £1,500 vs a car that costs £9,000 (as an example). In cars that are old/comparatively cheap there is an argument about what constitutes reasonable wear and tear - you obviously expect the car to be roadworthy and not dangerous (unless it is specifically sold on that basis) but do check the guidance on the Sale of Goods Act, somewhere like Which gives a potted guide. You can find some conflicting advice out there and some of it will only be tested if you're willing to take it all the way to court.

I don't know much about DPFs but although you can argue the fault was present at time of sale is it something that the garage would be likely to pick up on in a normal check before sale? i.e. if they do what a normal and reasonable garage should do to inspect a car would it be possible (or even easy) to miss the fact that the DPF was about to go? I'm assuming for the moment that they didn't just reset the warning light in the full knowledge that it was failing.
 
The theory is all well and good, but let's be honest. The OP's brother will likely have to endure a long stressful & potentially fruitless battle in getting the trader to play ball.

My advice, Have the DPF deleted & engine software tweaked so there are no error codes or running issues (Shouldn't cost more than £300-£400?), take it as a lesson not to buy old cheap diesels again without a thorough inspection/robust dealer backup & move on with life.
 
Headline price.
I don't think it is a good route to go down either (we've only bought private and main dealer), but that is the reason.... sometimes within a given region an independent dealer will happen to have the cheapest variant of a particular spec car and thus people who are using headline price as their primary differentiator end up going there
 
Tom_ed1987 said:
The theory is all well and good, but let's be honest. The OP's brother will likely have to endure a long stressful & potentially fruitless battle in getting the trader to play ball.
Click to expand...

It's possible, but then again the trader may play ball with a couple of well worded letters.

Tom_ed1987 said:
My advice, Have the DPF deleted & engine software tweaked so there are no error codes or running issues (Shouldn't cost more than £300-£400?), take it as a lesson not to buy old cheap diesels again without a thorough inspection/robust dealer backup & move on with life.
Click to expand...

Running a car with a DPF removed is now illegal and shouldn't be a consideration. Especially when a garage has quoted him £500 to replace it (which is a bit pricey still)
 
pepsilol said:
That's great until you take him to court and he merely utters the phrase, it is perfectly reasonable to have to expect to replace the dpf on the given mileage.

What you're saying is that if you buy a 250 quid Mondeo with 200k from a trader and it drops a piston the next few days, the trader will have to replace the engine. This is incorrect.

It's not so cut and dry when there is high mileage involved.
Click to expand...

You would expect a refund, not a new engine.

It is perfectly reasonable as you would argue it is a pre-existing fault. The trader would have to prove otherwise due to the time frame.

After 6 months the buyer would have to prove it was a pre-existing fault.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom