Audi GEARBOX fault within 3 months of purchase

Wh05apk

vaio wrote: »

Not that it’s really relevant but when I looked on autotrader up to 10 year old TT’s from traders started at about £1.7k and I think I had to go to about page 40 before I got to cars that cost £6.5 so I think your agreement that the OP paid the going rate is a bit thin.

At the very least the OP paid well towards the top end (& probably over) the going rate and so can expect an above average car.

..........................Or the OP has poor negotiating skills? but again this is not about price, it is about rights, if price came into it would you have more rights paying £10 for something from Harrods, or the same thing from poundland for.............a pound? no your rights are the same.

vaio

Wh05apk wrote: »

..........................Or the OP has poor negotiating skills? but again this is not about price, it is about rights, if price came into it would you have more rights paying £10 for something from Harrods, or the same thing from poundland for.............a pound? no your rights are the same.

Nah, I think price does come into it as it affects what is reasonable in terms of durability.

You’d expect a £10 Harrods widget to be better quality than a £1 Poundland widget. Your rights are the same in that both should work out of the box but when you look at down the line quality & durability the price paid starts to come into it. The £10 one should last longer than the £1 example and if it doesn’t then the retailer should do something about it.

Similarly, a gearbox failure after 3 months on a £300 car isn’t unreasonable in terms of “reasonable durability” part of SOG

A gearbox failure after the same time on an average £6.5k car is unreasonable and even more so as the appears the OP paid above the going rate with the reasonable expectation of getting a better than average example.

Wh05apk

vaio wrote: »

Nah, I think price does come into it as it affects what is reasonable in terms of durability.

You’d expect a £10 Harrods widget to be better quality than a £1 Poundland widget. Your rights are the same in that both should work out of the box but when you look at down the line quality & durability the price paid starts to come into it. The £10 one should last longer than the £1 example and if it doesn’t then the retailer should do something about it.

Similarly, a gearbox failure after 3 months on a £300 car isn’t unreasonable in terms of “reasonable durability” part of SOG

A gearbox failure after the same time on an average £6.5k car is unreasonable and even more so as the appears the OP paid above the going rate with the reasonable expectation of getting a better than average example.

The widget and the rights are the same, the perception is different.

Paying over the going rate does not buy you additional rights.

vaio

Paying for a better quality one does

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

Durability

Durability can be a difficult concept, but, as indicated in the “Fair Wear and Tear” example above, it is something that can be considered when evaluating whether goods conform to contract. For example, if a product which should have a long life develops a major fault and cannot be repaired after a comparatively short period then it may well fail the durability test. Everything has a finite life and this needs to be borne in mind when considering durability. Factors that could be taken into consideration in assessing durability might include:

The price (a £200 tyre might be expected to last longer than a £50 one)………

DB.8609_2

Thank you again for joining the discussion everyone.

A quick update.

On Friday I spoke with the dealer on the telephone. He said he would contact me on Monday to relay the quote from his local mechanic (again, why this is any business of mine I do not know).

I received no such call on Monday, but he called the next day saying that he had been unable to get a quote because he had a funeral to attend to. I gave my condolences of course but queried why he promised to contact me if he knew he would be unable to.

He said he had finally been able to confirm that the quote would be £500 on the nose including VAT. Which is the exact figure he gave as an estimate before he had even tried to get a proper quote from his local mechanic... fishy if you ask me.

I told him that I have two separate reports; both stating that in the mechanics' experience, they would say that the fault was VERY unlikely to be due to abuse, however the gearbox would need to be removed and dismantled to 100% prove anything either way.

I know that legally he needs the opportunity to inspect the vehicle, so originally I asked him to put in writing his specific intentions in either eventuality (abuse vs non-abuse). He refused to do so, which left me in a situation where it became unreasonable to fork out to have the car transported. If he could simply state "If the fault is NOT due to abuse, I will pay xxx amount" then I would be more than happy to pay for the transport of my vehicle to his premises.

Anyway... after I informed him that I am due to have the car repaired and take him to small claims court, he began to shout at me down the phone. I was on the train and my phone cut out, so I'm sure he thought I hung up on him.

Funnily enough, after the mention of small claims, after almost 2 weeks of ignoring every single email, I received THREE in one day!!! I think I have him a little worried perhaps?

The emails appear to have been written by a 5 year old, huge walls of text full of accusations and "you said this you said that" etc. In my very first email I asked him to either respond via post or email only, as then would have everything documented properly. As he has refused to do as requested "you said this you said that" has very little bearing on anything.

He accused me of calling his solicitor (or the guy pretending to be a solicitor, who did not know his own registration number) and THREATENING HIM by telling him that HE WILL LOSE!!!

What a daft thing to say.

The OFT states that these matters should be dealt with promptly, professionally, and without inconvenience to the consumer. None of these criteria have been fulfilled.

This matter is now very little to do with the gearbox, I'd say, and more to do with his handling of complaints.

My plan, in summary is;

Get repairs done, and send bill to trader along with 2 separate inspection reports stating that the fault was not due to abuse (with photographic evidence of the dismantled gearbox)

If he pays, or contributes say 50%, then I will be happy.

If not, small claims.

If not, then no-win-no-fee solicitors, if they will take it on.

I will of course report back as a thank you for the advice.

NCISROCKS

Ignore sp(h)ammyman...sp?...he is frequently wrong.

iolanthe07

NCISROCKS wrote: »

Ignore sp(h)ammyman...sp?...he is frequently wrong.

No he isn't. He may be wrong in this case (time will tell), but he does know a lot about the motor trade and his posts are frequently accurate and helpful.

Hammyman

DB.8609 wrote: »

He said he had finally been able to confirm that the quote would be £500 on the nose including VAT. Which is the exact figure he gave as an estimate before he had even tried to get a proper quote from his local mechanic... fishy if you ask me.

Not really. I can give you a long list of exact costs for replacing a whole slew of things simply from experience.

I told him that I have two separate reports; both stating that in the mechanics' experience, they would say that the fault was VERY unlikely to be due to abuse, however the gearbox would need to be removed and dismantled to 100% prove anything either way.

I agree. Its down to wear and tear from 105,000 miles of motoring.

My plan, in summary is;

Get repairs done, and send bill to trader along with 2 separate inspection reports stating that the fault was not due to abuse (with photographic evidence of the dismantled gearbox)

If he pays, or contributes say 50%, then I will be happy.

If not, small claims.

If not, then no-win-no-fee solicitors, if they will take it on.

I will of course report back as a thank you for the advice.

Expect the defence to be....

105,000 miles. Normal wear and tear. I'd be very suprised if you find a no win no fee solicitor who will touch this.

funkycoldribena

Hammyman wrote: »

I agree. Its down to wear and tear from 105,000 miles of motoring.




.

So let me get this straight....I go and buy a car for 6k,its got 100k and its 10 years old,I get 5 miles down the road, the gearbox packs up,its tough luck and its down to wear and tear,and Ive got to suck up the repairs? Is that what you're saying?

Wh05apk

funkycoldribena wrote: »

So let me get this straight....I go and buy a car for 6k,its got 100k and its 10 years old,I get 5 miles down the road, the gearbox packs up,its tough luck and its down to wear and tear,and Ive got to suck up the repairs? Is that what you're saying?

No because clearly it would have been faulty at the time of purchase, we are talking here about a car that has done 2000 miles perfectly ok over 2 months then broke.