Need help with getting warranty claim on car sorted!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Nope, I can ask if the dealer knows but apart from that can't think of anyway of finding out apart from trying to contact the first owner to see if he had any paintwork done, but by sounds of it am guessing it was done before the car was registered. If that is the case surely they'd have used a Mitsubishi approved bodyshop?
Will do.
So if they decline tomorrow morning I shall be asking who repaired it and if they know shall then be requesting that they request its re-done as it was clearly not done correct first time round. If they don't know then I shall request that it was surely done by a Mitsubishi approved bodyshop then and as such warranty still stands so they need to do it.
Then if they say its been done by a none approved mitsubishi bodyshop I need to tell them in that case its your problem for selling a shoddy repaired car and its down to you as the dealer to pay for the repair by a mitsubishi authorised bodyshop.
I am guessing if at this point they still decline I just say I shall be speaking to trading standards and small claims court to see if that warrants a reaction?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,066
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
This is the point I guess. Its a second hand car and the dealer no doubt took it as part exchange and to mask any problems the previous owner simply would not have included the invoice for the repair work to a grazed arch.
Its frankly silly to go after Mitsubushi with the 7 year paintwork, someone else has poorly repaired their product.
With the car actually sold and and no longer an issue I expect the previous owner will be far more candid!
Its frankly silly to go after Mitsubushi with the 7 year paintwork, someone else has poorly repaired their product.
With the car actually sold and and no longer an issue I expect the previous owner will be far more candid!
It was manufacturered April 2008, I purchased the car from Mitsubishi Stoke March 2010, so I am the 2nd owner.
Its not brand new, but well within its 3yr warranty and one would deem that paint normally last far longer than 3yrs otherwise its not fit for purpose.
But they are obviously using the previous painted excuse as a get out cause, if I have to pay I do but if I can get them to pay by been stubborn and give a good argument then I am at least going to try.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,066
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
What are the terms of the dealer warranty, the 7 year PDF means squat diffly at this point. Mechanical stuff within 12 months, or even 3 years for this... sure, and you clearly have had results. But paint? No idea. Nothing to prove you haven't knocked it, had a quick fix done and then taken it back as far as the dealer is concerned I guess.
Last edited:
Was it made clear that it had a partially invalidated warranty before purchase? If not, then I would simply argue that you cannot sell a vehicle with such a fundamental aspect of the purchase missing and not make it absolutely clear. They could never, ever get away with selling a car with it's primary engine and drivetrain warranty invalidated and not make it clear, so I don't see why they should try with paint!
This is incredibly poor service from the dealer. I would explain that you think they need to rectify as a gesture of goodwill, or you'll be suing them, reporting them to trading standards, Mitsubishi etc.
If you don't want to go the full journey, maybe offer a deal - with you paying a portion of it.
This is incredibly poor service from the dealer. I would explain that you think they need to rectify as a gesture of goodwill, or you'll be suing them, reporting them to trading standards, Mitsubishi etc.
My approach is to always try to be friendly, reasonable and understanding of their position, but to continue to request this be dealt with out of good will - after all, they might have margins, but you have a lot less money than the dealership does. Failing that, guns blazing, but not aggressive. Just state that you're being forced to sue them and report them, as they are leaving you with no other option.
If you don't want to go the full journey, maybe offer a deal - with you paying a portion of it.
Last edited:
He can't, but Gibbo only has to assert there is a flaw in the dealership's operational processes. Every company has these, Gibbo should tell them they should use this case to improve that process and ensure that vehicles are inspected and warranties validated BEFORE they are sold. They should be grateful he is being so friendly about it, and they should be considering this an opportunity. I would be telling that to the dealer principal - he runs an operation so he will understand business (hopefully - if not, find someone with authority who does).
For the dealer to say what you suggest, they have to personally call him a liar. That is a very signficant thing to do.
For someone who has spent a large chunk of cash on a car with them and who is likely to do so in the future you would expect them to be helpful.
I would pursue it as said above and expect them to solve the problem.
If all else fails and all avenues are exhausted get it signwritten in white with an explaination and a massive arrow to the damage and park it outside the dealership.......
I would pursue it as said above and expect them to solve the problem.
If all else fails and all avenues are exhausted get it signwritten in white with an explaination and a massive arrow to the damage and park it outside the dealership.......
Could be an option, shall see what they say today. Though a couple of family friends are solicitors so could just give them the link to this thread let them have a read and then drop them a call.
Shall give Mitsi until 11:30 to call me and shall then chase them up.
Do you have anything in writing from the dealer to say it was painted before they sold it to you?
The warranty is relevant because they've sold you a car on the premise it has a 7 yr paint warranty, now they're saying it doesn't because it was sprayed but we didn't tell you that.
That has to be mis-described surely? Would you have paid the same if you knew it had no paint warranty?
The warranty is relevant because they've sold you a car on the premise it has a 7 yr paint warranty, now they're saying it doesn't because it was sprayed but we didn't tell you that.
That has to be mis-described surely? Would you have paid the same if you knew it had no paint warranty?
This is actually a very valid point.
Hi there
Right they've come back to me and are still refusing.
There argument is:-
1. Car previously repaired hence voiding the warranty on that section of paint on the bodywork.
2. Car was sold as a used car and as such had 3 month warranty bumper-bumper and as this issue did not arise in that period its not covered.
3. As Mitsubishi or the dealer were not aware it had a previous repair to the paint Mitsubishi won't put it as a warranty repair and the dealer is unwilling to pay for it.
I did argue that a 3 month warranty means nothing, by law 3 month warranty does not exist, the warranty is what is deemed as a satisfactory amount of time, certainly not 3 months on a less than 3yr old car for bodywork.
They have agreed to repair it for me at their cost with no profit which they are gonna give me a price for shortly.
At this point do I still have any argument or should I just be paying up?
P.S. Just rang the MD of Brighton Mitsubishi and he has told me not to back down, they have to repair it as the car is less than 3yr old and they never informed me at purchase of a limited warranty on the paint and therefor I need to persist my point. If they decline I need to write to Holdcraft directly and dispute this and even maybe get a solicitor involved.
Right they've come back to me and are still refusing.
There argument is:-
1. Car previously repaired hence voiding the warranty on that section of paint on the bodywork.
2. Car was sold as a used car and as such had 3 month warranty bumper-bumper and as this issue did not arise in that period its not covered.
3. As Mitsubishi or the dealer were not aware it had a previous repair to the paint Mitsubishi won't put it as a warranty repair and the dealer is unwilling to pay for it.
I did argue that a 3 month warranty means nothing, by law 3 month warranty does not exist, the warranty is what is deemed as a satisfactory amount of time, certainly not 3 months on a less than 3yr old car for bodywork.
They have agreed to repair it for me at their cost with no profit which they are gonna give me a price for shortly.
At this point do I still have any argument or should I just be paying up?
P.S. Just rang the MD of Brighton Mitsubishi and he has told me not to back down, they have to repair it as the car is less than 3yr old and they never informed me at purchase of a limited warranty on the paint and therefor I need to persist my point. If they decline I need to write to Holdcraft directly and dispute this and even maybe get a solicitor involved.
Absolutely - this is your key point. Paint should not be flaking on a £xx k car in this time frame, i.e. it is of unsatisfactory quality under the sale of goods act.
The main thing is to continue to fight your corner, unfortunately customer service is such that with many companies they will not listen to what you have to say unless you eventually end up making a nuisance of yourself.