We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
2nd hand car bought. Oil leak diagnosed. No warranty given
Options
sharkmeister
Posts: 39 Forumite
Hi Guys
Not sure if this should have gone in the motoring section but it does concern consumer rights. The case is currently with solicitors but want to get a few opinions as the solicitor seems to think we can only claim for the oil leak that has been diagnosed.
Here goes the story so stick with it, we have loads of images, text messages and documentation to back this up:
[FONT="]Basically in a nutshell we purchased the car in end of April 2011. We paid £1,000 in cash deposit then a further £4,415 on debit card as the car trader knocked off £85 as there was no spare key (we later had to pay £150 to get a second at Peugeot). We also paid £200 to cover tax as the car was not taxed. The trader stated at the time there would be a warranty included (this was wrote on the receipt) which later we found he would go back on his word as he said he likes to use alternative means. I rang consumer direct around June and they said by law he had broken contract by not providing us with a warranty, which to this day we do not have as the trader said he would pay for the work to be done.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Soon after we had bought the car we noticed an oil leak around the sump and returned the car to the trader where for two days the leak was to be diagnosed by his mechanic. The diagnosis was that there was no leak and the trader provided us with a dubious receipt of £28 for two hours labour. This I think is very odd as most garages will charge between £40 - £50 per hour labour. The car was returned again to us but it was still leaking. I called the trader shortly after I had spoken to consumer direct to see if he would be willing to pay for the work by our mechanic, who is a qualified Ford Technician, who had diagnosed that the oil leak was coming from the ladder frame seals and that the engine would need to be taken out, stripped down, resealed and rebuilt. the trader was not happy for our mechanic to deal with it as he wanted to sort it himself. My agument to the trader was the fact that the same mechanic had had the car for two days previously and had not been able to diagnose where the oil leak was coming from. I told him that we would have the work done whether he agreed to it or not. I told him I didn't want him to do the work on the cheap so that we would have further problems down the line. The work was done by our mechanic and we paid him in full.[/FONT]
[FONT="]This is where we are at to this day. There are a few issues that concern me, as upon further investigation we have got hold of the MOT history of the car from the DVLA.[/FONT]
[FONT="]1) The first thing we noticed was that on one of the first MOT's on 12/5/2008 it was noticed by the test centre and noted on the MOT that there was an oil leak, so this proves the problem was there before we bought the car. This was also noted again on the MOT dated 15/5/2009.[/FONT]
[FONT="]2) On the MOT dated 20/05/2010 there was an advisory about the front tyres being close to the legal limit. However note the mileage on that MOT as being 26,316 at that time. Then looking at the test dated 24/3/2011 the car failed, again note the mileage as 26,437. Basically between the two MOT's the car had done only 121 miles and there was no advisory about the tyres. We bought two front tyres on 9/7/11 costing £180. What we think happened is that the tyres were swapped prior to the test as the trader had two other Peugeot 206cc's on his car lot at the time. Also as you can see there are four things the car failed on.[/FONT]
[FONT="]3) On the same MOT test dated 20/5/2010 it failed for the near rear tyre which the trader replaced.[/FONT]
[FONT="]4) On the purchase receipt that we were given on 29/4/11 it clearly states that there would be a 12 month warranty and I can confirm we have never received anything.[/FONT]
[FONT="]What I have asked the solicitor to pursue is money back for the engine rebuild £1,050.16, money back for the two tyres £180, money back for difference between cost of 2nd key £69 (£85 knocked of sale price minus cost of £154) and also the cost of a warranty.[/FONT]
Hope this makes sense and if anyone can advise if we are right to claim for all of the things listed and advise how strong a case we have for things like the tyres. Included in the engine rebuild were a new clutch, brakes and battery as these were things picked up on during the strip down of the engine. The problem with the battery was that we could only open the hard top roof whilst the engine was running. It clearly states in the peugeot handbook that this is not the case and the roof can be opened fine without the engine running.
Any help or guidance would be great!!
Thanks
Richard
Not sure if this should have gone in the motoring section but it does concern consumer rights. The case is currently with solicitors but want to get a few opinions as the solicitor seems to think we can only claim for the oil leak that has been diagnosed.
Here goes the story so stick with it, we have loads of images, text messages and documentation to back this up:
[FONT="]Basically in a nutshell we purchased the car in end of April 2011. We paid £1,000 in cash deposit then a further £4,415 on debit card as the car trader knocked off £85 as there was no spare key (we later had to pay £150 to get a second at Peugeot). We also paid £200 to cover tax as the car was not taxed. The trader stated at the time there would be a warranty included (this was wrote on the receipt) which later we found he would go back on his word as he said he likes to use alternative means. I rang consumer direct around June and they said by law he had broken contract by not providing us with a warranty, which to this day we do not have as the trader said he would pay for the work to be done.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Soon after we had bought the car we noticed an oil leak around the sump and returned the car to the trader where for two days the leak was to be diagnosed by his mechanic. The diagnosis was that there was no leak and the trader provided us with a dubious receipt of £28 for two hours labour. This I think is very odd as most garages will charge between £40 - £50 per hour labour. The car was returned again to us but it was still leaking. I called the trader shortly after I had spoken to consumer direct to see if he would be willing to pay for the work by our mechanic, who is a qualified Ford Technician, who had diagnosed that the oil leak was coming from the ladder frame seals and that the engine would need to be taken out, stripped down, resealed and rebuilt. the trader was not happy for our mechanic to deal with it as he wanted to sort it himself. My agument to the trader was the fact that the same mechanic had had the car for two days previously and had not been able to diagnose where the oil leak was coming from. I told him that we would have the work done whether he agreed to it or not. I told him I didn't want him to do the work on the cheap so that we would have further problems down the line. The work was done by our mechanic and we paid him in full.[/FONT]
[FONT="]This is where we are at to this day. There are a few issues that concern me, as upon further investigation we have got hold of the MOT history of the car from the DVLA.[/FONT]
[FONT="]1) The first thing we noticed was that on one of the first MOT's on 12/5/2008 it was noticed by the test centre and noted on the MOT that there was an oil leak, so this proves the problem was there before we bought the car. This was also noted again on the MOT dated 15/5/2009.[/FONT]
[FONT="]2) On the MOT dated 20/05/2010 there was an advisory about the front tyres being close to the legal limit. However note the mileage on that MOT as being 26,316 at that time. Then looking at the test dated 24/3/2011 the car failed, again note the mileage as 26,437. Basically between the two MOT's the car had done only 121 miles and there was no advisory about the tyres. We bought two front tyres on 9/7/11 costing £180. What we think happened is that the tyres were swapped prior to the test as the trader had two other Peugeot 206cc's on his car lot at the time. Also as you can see there are four things the car failed on.[/FONT]
[FONT="]3) On the same MOT test dated 20/5/2010 it failed for the near rear tyre which the trader replaced.[/FONT]
[FONT="]4) On the purchase receipt that we were given on 29/4/11 it clearly states that there would be a 12 month warranty and I can confirm we have never received anything.[/FONT]
[FONT="]What I have asked the solicitor to pursue is money back for the engine rebuild £1,050.16, money back for the two tyres £180, money back for difference between cost of 2nd key £69 (£85 knocked of sale price minus cost of £154) and also the cost of a warranty.[/FONT]
Hope this makes sense and if anyone can advise if we are right to claim for all of the things listed and advise how strong a case we have for things like the tyres. Included in the engine rebuild were a new clutch, brakes and battery as these were things picked up on during the strip down of the engine. The problem with the battery was that we could only open the hard top roof whilst the engine was running. It clearly states in the peugeot handbook that this is not the case and the roof can be opened fine without the engine running.
Any help or guidance would be great!!
Thanks
Richard
0
Comments
-
You might struggle to sue for anything tbh, the dealer said he would fix the problem and you refused to let him, he should have got the chance to fix it like he said, if that failed then you may have been able to take it into your own hands.
The dealer gave you a discount for the second key so before you accepted it you should have asked how much a new key was, you accepted the £85 so you can't now ask for the difference.
Tyres are a consumable part so you will struggle to get the money back for them, they passed the MOT so you have no proof that the tyres were swapped.
The biggest mistake you made was not giving the dealer the chance to remedy the problem, he offered too, you refused to let him, he may very well win in court as you failed to follow the correct procedure, a judge may see this as a deciding factor.0 -
You might struggle to sue for anything tbh, the dealer said he would fix the problem and you refused to let him, he should have got the chance to fix it like he said, if that failed then you may have been able to take it into your own hands.
The dealer gave you a discount for the second key so before you accepted it you should have asked how much a new key was, you accepted the £85 so you can't now ask for the difference.
Tyres are a consumable part so you will struggle to get the money back for them, they passed the MOT so you have no proof that the tyres were swapped.
The biggest mistake you made was not giving the dealer the chance to remedy the problem, he offered too, you refused to let him, he may very well win in court as you failed to follow the correct procedure, a judge may see this as a deciding factor.
Hi thanks for the reply.
We gave him the chance to remedy it when he had the car back for two days and was unable to find an oil leak. When it was returned it was still leaking. He wanted to take it back to the same mechanic who could not diagnose it in the first place so my argument was that it wasn't diagnosed before so how could it be diagnosed by the mechanic who missed it. After we had got a second opion and informed him what the problem was he said he had never heard of that fault and later said he would be able to get the oil leak sorted for £300. I was unhappy as I thought he was just going to get it done on the cheap and possibly make the problem worse.
With regards to the key, the key bought from peugeot was £150 and we had to buy the ECU tronsocder code which should have been given with the handbook. It states this in the Peugeot handbook. Hence claiming for the difference as it should have been provided by the trader.
With regards to the tyres this was one of the things listed on the MOT sheet being below tread depth. My point with that is if the tyres were replaced so that the car could pass then why would we buy a new set of tyres and waste £180 given that the car had done so few miles in the previous 12 months. It was also an advisory on the MOT before.
The solicitor says we should get the oil leak and the warranty issue on the basis of a breach of contract. Just feel a bit robbed as we paid in cash and feel like he has just took the money and ran.
Cheers0 -
Why do you think you should get the £1000+ back for the engine rebuild?sharkmeister wrote: »[FONT="]What I have asked the solicitor to pursue is money back for the engine rebuild £1,050.16, money back for the two tyres £180, money back for difference between cost of 2nd key £69 (£85 knocked of sale price minus cost of £154) and also the cost of a warranty.[/FONT]
You refused to allow the dealer to do the work.
That claim will fail in my opinion.
More effort should've been made to get the dealer to agree to pay for the third party work before it took place.
You accepted an £85 discount because the car only came with one key. Therefore you cannot now claim the extra that the second key cost you. You made a mistake here and must accept that.
Difficult to follow your tyre saga, but just to say two things on that...
1) a dealer, indeed anyone, can swap tyres from one vehicle to another for whatever reason.
2) you saw the tyres on the car at the time you bought it. If the dealer did not swap the tyres after that point then he has done nothing wrong.
You may not have a piece of paper that is headed 'warranty', but you do have a receipt that says the car comes with a twelve month warranty.
In my opinion, you do therefore have a twelve month warranty.
What you don't have is the detail about exactly what is covered by that warranty.0 -
Why do you think you should get the £1000+ back for the engine rebuild?
You refused to allow the dealer to do the work.
That claim will fail in my opinion.
More effort should've been made to get the dealer to agree to pay for the third party work before it took place.
But by giving the dealer the first inspection that is allowing the dealer to rectify the problem. After we had it diagnosed by our ford mechanic and what was involved there was no way it was going to be a simple job.You accepted an £85 discount because the car only came with one key. Therefore you cannot now claim the extra that the second key cost you. You made a mistake here and must accept that.
we accepted that as we thought that would be how much a replacement key would be as I had to buy a replacement KA key which cost me about £80. However when reading through the manual we found out about the ECU transponder code which was missing. We would have had to read through the manual prior to sale to know that.Difficult to follow your tyre saga, but just to say two things on that...
1) a dealer, indeed anyone, can swap tyres from one vehicle to another for whatever reason.
2) you saw the tyres on the car at the time you bought it. If the dealer did not swap the tyres after that point then he has done nothing wrong.
I understand it;s a tricky one this but why would we buy a brand new set of tyres if they were perfectly fine?You may not have a piece of paper that is headed 'warranty', but you do have a receipt that says the car comes with a twelve month warranty.
In my opinion, you do therefore have a twelve month warranty.
What you don't have is the detail about exactly what is covered by that warranty.
So if we don't know what is covered then surely that would not stand up in a court of law?
Thanks for your response.0 -
I'll just pick up on the tyres again, and I'm not going to try and understand your scenario...
At the time you bought the car, the tyres were ok, were they?
If not, why did you not point this out at that time and use that as a negotiating point?
Whatever happened at sale time, you bought the car with the tyres in the state they were in. If at that time the state of the tyres made the car unroadworthy, then you may have a point.
To answer your question 'Why would you buy new tyres?'
Simply to keep your car roadworthy, I imagine.
Please don't come back with 'the tyres must have been poor at the time of purchase'. It is your job to inspect the vehicle at the time of purchase.
Are you accusing the dealer of swapping the tyres after you had purchased the vehicle?0 -
On the warranty issue.
As warranty documentation tends to be just a long list of exclusions, you may be better off without it.
At least if you ask for some warranty work to be done, the dealer will not be able to point at the list to tell you that such-and-such is not covered.0 -
The only thing you might have a case with is the oil leak and since you didn't give them the opportunity to repair (letter, email detailing the problem) you probably won't get very far.
The key you accepted a disount so that is done and dusted.
The tyres; he probably did change them back but as has been pointed out you failed to notice them.
If you are going to take this further drop the padding and concentrate on the important fault, the oil leak. But think carefully.0 -
Are you accusing the dealer of swapping the tyres after you had purchased the vehicle?
Well in a nut shell yes but as I can't prove it, it's just suspect how it was an advisory was given in 2010 only 120 miles were done between MOTS then it passed on the retest??? Just doesn't stack up to me.
Anyway like you say should have been raised at the point of sale.
Cheers0 -
I also think you've shot yourself in the foot having the work done yourself, the risk of losing any legal action is (in my opinion) too great to carry this one.
Chalk it down to experience.
0 -
The only thing you might have a case with is the oil leak and since you didn't give them the opportunity to repair (letter, email detailing the problem) you probably won't get very far.
The key you accepted a disount so that is done and dusted.
The tyres; he probably did change them back but as has been pointed out you failed to notice them.
If you are going to take this further drop the padding and concentrate on the important fault, the oil leak. But think carefully.
Thats pretty much what our solicitor is pushing for. They are pushing for the key, oil leak and warranty policy. They are the best solicitor in our town so don't think they would risk it if they weren't confident of winning.
Thanks0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards