Barclaycard won't help in dispute with car dealer

ifb-online

To summarise - bought a used car (3.5 years old ex-lease, advertised as having full service history) at the end of October last year from a small independent dealer using a Barclaycard Visa card.

Two months later the engine and radiator freezes because there is no anti-freeze in the coolant. Radiator requires replacement as it has split. Subsequently we have found that the engine has been tampered with which explains why the coolant was drained in the first place and there are other even more serious issues with the engine.

Dealer has washed his hands of it saying it's outside of the 28 day warranty.

My understanding is that even for a used car the 28 day warranty is not final and that the car must have been provided in an acceptable condition (i.e. it should have had anti-freeze in the engine and we were not told about poor quality work done on the engine that is not documented and we were not informed about). The engine we are told is in a very poor state and could cost thousands more to fix.

One reason why we paid with our Barclaycard was to have peace of mind from the protection supposedly included. Barclaycard agree that the its the 28 day warranty that counts. Are they right?

Trading Standards think we have a case and have advised us to go down the path that could mean Small Claims Court action against both Barclaycard and the dealer (the latter is not responding to any correspondence).

Frankly, I have no idea where we stand. Opinions welcome...

ifb-online

Ok, the news is a bit better - after discussing the latest state of play with Consumer Direct, they are unhappy with Barclaycard implying that the 28 day warranty stands as it limits my consumer rights. The bill of sale also mentioned something to the effect 'sold as seen' (If I had noticed that I would have crossed it) - which in itself is apparently a criminal offence and Barclaycard also apparently seem to think that this limits their liability, which again is incorrect.

So the case is being referred to my local Trading Standards and there is now a chance that the dealer will be investigated as well.

These things do have highs and lows but I think we're back onto a high again...

jonjamie1970

Good luck with this, looks like a long a winding road ahead.

ahxcjb

The answer here is really clear. You purchased a car from a dealer. You are covered 100% by the Sale of Goods Act. Barclaycard should be refunding you the monies in full, under Section 75 of the of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Phone them and ask to speak to a UK representative, who you can INSTRUCT (i use that word, because these are YOUR RIGHTS. Make sure you enforce them) to refund the payment. If I were you, i'd post this on the Consumer board, not here.

meer53

ifb-online wrote: »

To summarise - bought a used car (3.5 years old ex-lease, advertised as having full service history) at the end of October last year from a small independent dealer using a Barclaycard Visa card.

Two months later the engine and radiator freezes because there is no anti-freeze in the coolant. Radiator requires replacement as it has split. Subsequently we have found that the engine has been tampered with which explains why the coolant was drained in the first place and there are other even more serious issues with the engine.

Dealer has washed his hands of it saying it's outside of the 28 day warranty.

My understanding is that even for a used car the 28 day warranty is not final and that the car must have been provided in an acceptable condition (i.e. it should have had anti-freeze in the engine and we were not told about poor quality work done on the engine that is not documented and we were not informed about). The engine we are told is in a very poor state and could cost thousands more to fix.

One reason why we paid with our Barclaycard was to have peace of mind from the protection supposedly included. Barclaycard agree that the its the 28 day warranty that counts. Are they right?

Trading Standards think we have a case and have advised us to go down the path that could mean Small Claims Court action against both Barclaycard and the dealer (the latter is not responding to any correspondence).

Frankly, I have no idea where we stand. Opinions welcome...

I agree, this will be a difficult one to resolve. To go down the Section 75 route with Barclays you'll need independant reports showing that you were missold the car, for whatever reason. Who did the "poor quality work" on the engine ? Was it the dealership you bought it from ? Would they have known about it if they didn't do it ? If the work done wasn't documented, will you be able to prove what's wrong with the engine and that it was there when you bought it ?

There are a lot of grey areas here, you'll need really good advice, possibly legal advice. If you can prove (by documentation) then Barclays may look at it for you, but without that i feel you'll really struggle. If you have AA or RAC membership, they will usually offer free legal advice on cases like this.

ifb-online

I have letters from two different independent garages that inspected the car that state a) that the engine coolant had absolutely no anti-freeze in it, and b) that poorly fitted oil seals, one spark plug being different to the other three, and poor compression in the cylinder head, points to the engine having been disassembled and re-assembled poorly. The car was advertised (I have obtained a copy of the advert) as being a 1 owner car (actually ex-lease) with full service history and fully serviced. I have investigated the full service history and everything was routine servicing. I contacted several main dealers for the car brand in question and it's apparently standard practise to measure the strength of the anti-freeze at normal service intervals. No documentation or mention of any other work apart from an air-con recharge was provided to us by the used car dealer. I have spoken to the AA legal advice service and they agree that the car should have been supplied with anti-freeze in the engine coolant. Barclaycard have not addressed the details of the freezing damage and other engine inspection issues. Their correspondence only refers to the technicality of breach of contract with the dealer. They say they don't see evidence of a breach of contract because the bill of sale mentions 'sold as seen' and because the problem first arose a month after the 28 day dealer warranty expired. According to Consumber Direct, both these points are completely irrelevant and possibly legally incorrect. So the AA tell me we have a good case and Consumer Direct feel we're being given the run around by Barclaycard. Hopefully, Trading Standards will be able to strengthen our case further. In the end it may be the opinion of whoever overseas an eventual small claims court action by us. That action would have to be against Barclaycard even if we do go after the dealer because I doubt we would ever get a cent out of the dealer. We've written to BBC TV's Rip-Off Britain too...

chanz4

One route the garage may say, why didnt you check all these levels regular which you should do coming upto winter. Section 75 maybe a problem also, you need to get a report which states the damage would of been there when brought as its over 6 months.

meer53

ifb-online wrote: »

I have letters from two different independent garages that inspected the car that state a) that the engine coolant had absolutely no anti-freeze in it, and b) that poorly fitted oil seals, one spark plug being different to the other three, and poor compression in the cylinder head, points to the engine having been disassembled and re-assembled poorly. The car was advertised (I have obtained a copy of the advert) as being a 1 owner car (actually ex-lease) with full service history and fully serviced. I have investigated the full service history and everything was routine servicing. I contacted several main dealers for the car brand in question and it's apparently standard practise to measure the strength of the anti-freeze at normal service intervals. No documentation or mention of any other work apart from an air-con recharge was provided to us by the used car dealer. I have spoken to the AA legal advice service and they agree that the car should have been supplied with anti-freeze in the engine coolant. Barclaycard have not addressed the details of the freezing damage and other engine inspection issues. Their correspondence only refers to the technicality of breach of contract with the dealer. They say they don't see evidence of a breach of contract because the bill of sale mentions 'sold as seen' and because the problem first arose a month after the 28 day dealer warranty expired. According to Consumber Direct, both these points are completely irrelevant and possibly legally incorrect. So the AA tell me we have a good case and Consumer Direct feel we're being given the run around by Barclaycard. Hopefully, Trading Standards will be able to strengthen our case further. In the end it may be the opinion of whoever overseas an eventual small claims court action by us. That action would have to be against Barclaycard even if we do go after the dealer because I doubt we would ever get a cent out of the dealer. We've written to BBC TV's Rip-Off Britain too...

I can see why Barclays are saying you have to establish breach of contract in view of "sold as seen", it's the same decision we would make if we were asked to take this case on. It is down to you as the buyer to establish that there has been a breach of contract, if you can prove that then Barclays will have to help you in a Section 75 claim as theyre jointly liable along with the seller but you can claim against them only. Without proof of breach of contract they'll just tell you they can't help.

ifb-online

chanz4 wrote: »

One route the garage may say, why didnt you check all these levels regular which you should do coming upto winter. Section 75 maybe a problem also, you need to get a report which states the damage would of been there when brought as its over 6 months.

The car was bought at the end of October (beginning of winter) - and advertised as 'Fully Serviced'. The big freeze happened just 8 weeks later. On this particular make and model of car there is only one annual scheduled service.

ifb-online

meer53 wrote: »

I can see why Barclays are saying you have to establish breach of contract in view of "sold as seen", it's the same decision we would make if we were asked to take this case on. It is down to you as the buyer to establish that there has been a breach of contract, if you can prove that then Barclays will have to help you in a Section 75 claim as theyre jointly liable along with the seller but you can claim against them only. Without proof of breach of contract they'll just tell you they can't help.

According to Consumer Direct, it's against the law to sell anything 'as seen'. If the seller won't communicate us, then we will have to deal with Barclaycard. They would surely have to deal with their associate, the car dealer. The breach of contract is what seems to be the crux of the matter. All the legal advisers we have spoken to indicate that our case is good. Barclaycard are the only ones that seem to disagree. Therefore someone with some authority needs to persuade the odd one out (Barclaycard) to tow the line.

ifb-online

See this:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question528016.html

This is exactly what Consumer Direct have told me; it's a criminal offence for a car dealer to sell on the basis of 'as seen'. The car has to be 'fit for purpose' - there was no anti-freeze in the engine coolant, so my case is that it was not fit for purpose. Barclaycard's reliance on reference to the note 'sold as seen' on the bill of sale is completely bogus. They have all the information in fine detail and I have repeated my case to them three times now. The next stage is to warn them of legal action (and Consumer Direct has referred the case back to Trading Standards because of the reference to 'sold as seen'.

On top of that I believe that the dealer has contravened the trades description act by advertising the car with Full Service History and being 'Fully Serviced'. The evidince is clear that the car had been tampered with (additional work done without my knowledge) and if the car was Fully Serviced then why was there no anti-freeze and why was one spark plug different to the others and why was there a leaking seal, etc.?