Car bought in Feb, Air Con not working, where do we stand?

bigjl

Flyboy152 wrote: »

How would that detract from the OP's consumer rights? If a particular model has an inherent fault, it doesn't mean that the consumer should accept the fault.

No, you have misunderstood, if it was a car with a known issue with corroding a/c pipes etc then the dealer shoudl have known about the possible fault and checked to make sure it wasn't there.

Can't remember the wording of the new act but didn't it say any fault that could have reasonably been expected to have been there at point of sale, every trader knows about the issues with the Galaxy/Sharon/Alhambra aircon system.


In other words it strengthens the OP rights.

Flyboy152

s_b wrote: »

so you are an air conditioning expert too Flyboy 152

very interesting

I have never purported to be an expert in anything.

Flyboy152

Wig wrote: »

Not at all, it is v likely a used car of a ripe old age with a high mileage. It would reasonably be expected to have a items on it which don't work or which could fail at any time. It would still be of satisfactory quality. Rejection would fail as would a demand for repair.

Now that you seem to be blessed with the rare gift of clairvoyance, perhaps you can tell us what make, model, variant, age and mileage the car is. If the car has a feature, why would you not expect it to work? Would you expect all the doors not to work, or the windows, or the steering or brakes?

Flyboy152

liam8282 wrote: »

An aircon system can easily be damaged by an unqualified person attempting to regas it, regassing it incorrectly and damaging it whilst attempting to regas.

Re-gassing cannot cause corrosion as described by the OP.

Yes it COULD. Just because you keep repeating yourself will not make you right.

Re-gassing cannot cause corrosion as described by the OP.

So does it say in the SOGA you should attempt to fix the problem yourself, and then if you mess it up or cause further damage, take it back to where you bought it from and blame them?

Of course it doesn't and that is not what I wrote, was it?

As I have already said, nobody knows what the OP has actually done to the car when they have had a DIY attempt at fixing their car, I am looking at this from the garages POV, you are obviously taking it from the OPs and taking everything they say as gospel.

And why should I assume the OP is lying? I prefer to go on the evidence presented, not supposition.

I also don't thing it would be hard for the garage to fight their corner with the evidence that the OP has attempted to fix the system.

Again, it comes down to evidence and proof. The dealer would have to proof that the fault wasn't present at the point of sale, not that the OP attempted to remedy the issue.

Yes they have, they have already told you they have regassed it themselves! That is tampering whatever way you look at it. Disconnecting pipes, pressurising the system with gas, could cause many problems if done incorrectly. Pulling or yanking at a pipe could easily cause a hole in a perfectly good pipe, none of this would be the fault of the garage.

Re-gassing cannot cause corrosion as described by the OP.

This is all what you THINK, the OP has only told us that they regassed it themselves, you nor I ACTUALLY know what they have done.

Which is why I prefer to go on the evidence presented, not supposition.

s_b

flyboy do you know what a condenser is?
please dont use google
use the knowledge already in your head
and answer me straight
be aware your answer if i could be bothered to reply is going to show you that you are on a hiding to nowhere with your fancy cut n pastes

Flyboy152

s_b wrote: »

flyboy do you know what a condenser is?
please dont use google
use the knowledge already in your head
and answer me straight
be aware your answer if i could be bothered to reply is going to show you that you are on a hiding to nowhere with your fancy cut n pastes

I think you need to take a rest, you are starting to imagine things now.

Whether I know what a condenser is, or isn't, is irrelevant. Re-gassing an air condition system cannot cause the type of corrosion as described by the OP, or do really think that it can.

bigjl

I personally think it unlikely as the act of regassing introduces the very stuff that inhibits corrosion inside the system.

But as we are talking about external corrosion on pipes there is no way that I can see it could cause corrosion.

I think the OP used one of those Aerosols that you see in Halfords, I used one to good effect on a mk2 Mondeo, it only worked for a couple of months before needing done again, but enough to get it through the summer.

Wig

It's an old car, you cannot expect everything to be working. This is just common sense and common sense is how the law works.

However there are safeguards because to be satisfactory the car has to be good enough to function to a reasonable standard. Air conditioning in and of itself does not come into the equation. A multitude of faults may add up to an unsatisfactory condition. And a lot would depend on the model and price, with top of the range models at premium prices being most likely to qualify as being unsatisfactory with a multitude of faults.

Flyboy152

Wig wrote: »

It's an old car, you cannot expect everything to be working. This is just common sense and common sense is how the law works.

However there are safeguards because to be satisfactory the car has to be good enough to function to a reasonable standard. Air conditioning in and of itself does not come into the equation. A multitude of faults may add up to an unsatisfactory condition. And a lot would depend on the model and price, with top of the range models at premium prices being most likely to qualify as being unsatisfactory with a multitude of faults.

As I have said earlier, if the car has the feature, bar being told by the seller that it doesn't work, it is expected to work.

Wig

And as I have I said, a car can have faults AND be satisfactory whether declared or not they are to be expected. You obviously have a different opinion, but unless you can bring case law to support your argument you are no more right or wrong than I am.

I have case law to support me in this thread but I admit it refers to merchantable quality not satisfactory quality. Therefore I will not push the issue. Although I'm sure it would still be a relevant authority in a court case today.

You also kept quiet pretty quickly on the gearbox thread as soon as I mentioned the exact same circumstances of a judgement in Thain v Anniesland.