Audi GEARBOX fault within 3 months of purchase

vaio

and have a read of

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

it's a guide for traders but covers everything you need to know.

motorguy

DB.8609 wrote: »

Thank you ever so much everyone for your advice so far.

The thing is, I have read through the entire OFT guidance for used car dealers, and this company is in breach of ALMOST EVERYTHING!!

I signed the receipt "sold as seen" because I knew full well it meant nothing, and I did not expect to have such a major fault so quickly.

The mileage was around 105k. I have added UNDER 2000 miles since I bought the car, so in JUST under 3 months. Sorry I cannot get the exact figures, the car is in a garage

The last point he made was that he would get an exact quote from his local mechanic and let me know (why I would be interested in how much HE has to pay I do not know). He then expects me to pay for the car to be transported from Fareham to Birmingham. It is a quattro and so will need a flatbed = £300.

I fully expect him to be awkward and deem it "due to abuse" then leave the car stuck with him until I get it moved back.... total = £600 now, no better off.

He has only replied to ONE of my FIVE emails so far. I am not harassing the man, I simply write to ask him to confirm things he has said over the phone in writing... these emails get ignored.

I am resigning myself to getting it all done and going to small claims court. I can tell the judge that my emails were ignored (provable) and the only offer to help left me at a great inconvenience and at a risk of losing an unreasonable amount of money, relative to simply getting the car fixed.

The dealer knows how expensive returning the car will be, and he is using this as leverage to get his own way. I have asked him to confirm via email that he has advised me to transport the car to him at a cost of £300 (to me) and I have asked him to put in writing what he intends to do about the fault. No Reply.

I think a major (dangerous) fault such as this within 3 months in a car described as "in excellent condition" on his website is ludicrous. 9 year old TTs tend to fetch 3-4k, the major selling point for him was that every single stamp in the service book from from either an Audi dealer, or "TheTTShop" (very reputable company in Berkshire).

I paid OVER the odds as the car was so well looked after, or so he claimed. I don't think he lied to me, but he is not going about this in the right way at all.

I think have the car repaired locally, then try to claim the cost back via small claims.

I'd say you have a reasonable chance at success - but be prepared for the hassle of it - and no guarantees of success.

vax2002

You have not answered the question of "did you sign anything"
you mention the terms sold as seen, did you sign a contract, thinking it was a receipt to this effect.
Hopefully not, but finding out could save you a lot of time effort and money.
And generally advice to all MSE's is anything you sign is not a receipt, it is a CONTRACT.

funkycoldribena

vax2002 wrote: »

You have not answered the question of "did you sign anything"
you mention the terms sold as seen, did you sign a contract, thinking it was a receipt to this effect.
Hopefully not, but finding out could save you a lot of time effort and money.
And generally advice to all MSE's is anything you sign is not a receipt, it is a CONTRACT.

Doesnt matter if he signed it in blood,there is no such thing as "sold as seen"!

Hammyman

So like I said, its a 9 year old car with over 100,000 on the clock. If you buy a 9 year old car with 100,000 on the clock you need to expect that things are going to break regardless of how much you've paid if its the going rate.

Personally I think you're going to have a hard time making a successful claim. 100,000 miles is pretty much what most manufacturers class as an expected lifetime of a vehicle. Yes they do go far more than that but Silks post sums up the situation pretty much spot on. Once you get to going on for 100k, you're taking a gamble. Most of the time you'll win if its been looked after but "winning" basically means none of the major components such as the engine or gearbox fail (your gearbox is OK, its just a black box), not that you have no repairs at all.

People like the OP are the wrong kind of person to be buying 9 year old cars with 100,000 miles on because they don't know the risk and think that the price they pay has some bearing on it.

I bought my 3 year old Mondeo with 90k on the clock for £500 less than the OP paid for theirs. I expected at some point that I may need to change the injectors (£600), turbo (£600) or DMF/Clutch (£800) and there was no guarantee as to whether I'd get 10,000 miles before it needed them or 100,000 miles. I paid a price I was happy to for the car taking into account that one or all of the aforementioned may need doing in the near future. As it turns out, 70,000 miles later they're fine but I expect them to go pop at any time even though the car is 2 years newer than yours.

funkycoldribena

Hammyman wrote: »

So like I said, its a 9 year old car with over 100,000 on the clock. If you buy a 9 year old car with 100,000 on the clock you need to expect that things are going to break regardless of how much you've paid if its the going rate.

Personally I think you're going to have a hard time making a successful claim. 100,000 miles is pretty much what most manufacturers class as an expected lifetime of a vehicle. Yes they do go far more than that but Silks post sums up the situation pretty much spot on. Once you get to going on for 100k, you're taking a gamble. Most of the time you'll win if its been looked after but "winning" basically means none of the major components such as the engine or gearbox fail (your gearbox is OK, its just a black box), not that you have no repairs at all.

People like the OP are the wrong kind of person to be buying 9 year old cars with 100,000 miles on because they don't know the risk and think that the price they pay has some bearing on it.

I bought my 3 year old Mondeo with 90k on the clock for £500 less than the OP paid for theirs. I expected at some point that I may need to change the injectors (£600), turbo (£600) or DMF/Clutch (£800) and there was no guarantee as to whether I'd get 10,000 miles before it needed them or 100,000 miles. I paid a price I was happy to for the car taking into account that one or all of the aforementioned may need doing in the near future. As it turns out, 70,000 miles later they're fine but I expect them to go pop at any time even though the car is 2 years newer than yours.

This is typical dealer garbage in much the same vein as retailers trying to fob off faulty goods which the customer has brought back onto the manufacturer.
The fact that its got 100k or 9 years old is virtually immaterial,a car costing 6.5k should last more than 3 months full stop,if it had cost 250 quid or it was a faulty electric mirror switch then maybe it would be a different matter.
Like I said before,no judge in the land would rule that a 6.5k car should last less than 3 months and any dealer willing to risk against that would be barmy.If the car had been bought brand new and this problem had come up now at 100k and 9 years old that would be fair enough but the dealer who sold it 3 months ago has taken on a duty under the sale of goods act to repair it.
I'd put it in writing in a letter that you want it fixed within 14 days, if that doesnt work then a LBA.(and keep copies of the emails etc).

boyse7en

A request to the OP. If you do take the dealer to court, could you come back and give the result with a few details about the judgement?

Personally, I don't think you've got a leg to stand on, but I'd love to see you win the case.

I see quite a few of these sort of threads on here, but I can't ever remember seeing one that had got any details of the final outcome, so I'd be really interested to know.

vax2002

There is such a thing as trade transfer where the car is sold as seen as a trade sale.
The receipt the buyer has "signed" was not a receipt, it was a contract, you do not sign receipts, you sign contracts .
The Contract that the buyer has signed will need to be read by a legal expert as to its validity, the clauses it contains and if it indeed does state trade sale, sold as seen.
This would effectivly be a transfer between 2 traders, even if one does not regard themselves as a trader.
Contracts are tricky things, but on the whole they are legal and binding upon parties that sign.
If any document is ever placed before you in any purchase you are best to hold off, take away a copy of said document and have it read and explained in simple terms the implications of signing it.
My advice, dont go throwing your weight around until you have had that contract read.

Wh05apk

Whether the car is £6500 or £650 is immaterial, whether the OP got what initially seems a bargain or was ripped off, makes no difference to their rights, or lack of them, are you implying if someone pays £6500 for a car worth £3000 they have more rights than if they paid £3000?

Also my local garage has a "banger" for £500 are you saying I could buy it for work, and if it breaks down (which it almost certainly will do) then I can expect them to repair it? a car or any purchase has to be of merchantable quality, they suffer from wear and tear, which is why old cars are worth less, in this case, it seemed "of merchantable quality" at the time of purchase and 2 + months afterwards, I would say that is fair enough?

Also the OP bought the car 150 miles from home, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the trader to state they will inspect the car, and if they deem it to be due to abuse the OP has to pay?

Ultimately a 9 year old TT with 100k+ miles on it is an old complicated car, things will break, that is why it is £20k less than a new one, which comes with a warranty.

DB.8609_2

I don't think this dealer has been around for long - he isn't even VAT registered and made a comment that this was due to it being his "startup" year. Can I name the dealership here?

Here's my take so far. Bear in mind I have read the entire OFT guidance for second hand car dealers and I have a friend who is has ~20 years experience in the industry who has advised me further. His advice correlates completely with the OFT stance.

"Sold as seen": means nothing, signed or otherwise (which is why I signed it, knowing it meant nothing). In fact the OFT states that this in itself is "an attempt to limit liability" which is ILLEGAL. The term which SHOULD be used is "sold for spares and parts". That is the ONLY way the dealer can limit liability legally. This dealer can be prosecuted on this strength alone.

Something which is signed is not necessarily a contract. There was no third party, and further it was hand-written and therefore could be edited by either party.

Even if "sold as seen" WAS legal, and even if signing the receipt rendered it a contract, this "contract" would NOT supersede the law. I have learned this one the hard way dealing with private landlords, so I know this area from experience.

The dealer does not have a written complaints procedure, which again is not in compliance with the OFT guidance.

My first email was sent on the 12th, and I have a reply on the 17th. I do not have any further replies to any other emails, and it is now the 26th. He has been made aware that I have rental and storage charges mounting by the day. I am not asking him any complicated questions, but every time we speak on the phone, I simply write an email to confirm his comments in writing, which he seems very hesitant to do. I am aware that he has 14 days to respond, but he is also bound to deal with the matter "promptly" and without inconvenience to the consumer. I would argue that daily car rental and storage fees are extremely inconvenient and should be taken into account.

Again, the dealer promised (unconfirmed by email, what a surprise) to call today by 5pm with a quote from his local garage. No such call has been made. No emails answered.

Further, I spoke to the garage who initially inspected the car, and they are willing to provide a report that the fault was IN NO WAY caused by abuse. I'm not the most mechanically savvy, but they said the fault was INSIDE the gearbox, and so had been waiting to happen for "some time". No amount of reckless gear-changing etc could have caused this.

They also said that to have any hope of proving abuse, they would need to strip the entire gearbox and examine all of the parts, something which would be just as expensive as a rebuild anyway. They doubt the dealer's honesty and have suggested that he probably wouldn't have bothered to do this, as financially it just makes no sense.

Bearing that in mind, seeing as within 6months of purchase the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove that the fault was not pre-existing, I don't see how he stands a chance.

This is the tip of the iceberg, there are plenty of other points they are not complying with, which I can post if anyone wishes.

Anyway... I have had the car towed to a local (reputable) garage and am having the work done there. I will inform him of this (via email as soon as I am done here) and I will instruct him that he will be receiving a report from TWO separate garages to confirm the fault was not due to abuse, and I will be sending him a bill. If he does not pay OR AT THE VERY LEAST CONTRIBUTE I will see him in small claims court, and if necessary I will go even further. I will not let him get away with this without a fight.

It is not the faulty gearbox which has irritated me so much, but his complete disregard for the whole complaint, which started off amicably.