2nd hand car bought. Oil leak diagnosed. No warranty given

sharkmeister

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

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.

Thanks. As stated we gave him opportunity to sort it and were not happy so got 2nd and third opinions.

wealdroam

sharkmeister wrote: »

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.

You need to deduct from any claim:

1. the cost of the clutch and a small amount of labour.
2. 'brakes', whatever that means. You have not mentioned anything wrong with the brakes anywhere else.
3. battery. How old is this car? can we assume that as you mention an MOT test in 2008 that this car is 2005 or earlier? So that's seven years... a reasonable life for a battery.
4. Sun roof not opening sometimes. Are you expecting a perfect seven year old car?

Every car has faults, but after seven years? I think you are being unreasonable.

arcon5

sharkmeister wrote: »

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.

Thanks

And how much are you paying this solicitor

Ask him/her if they will take on the case on a no win, no fee basis - i'm betting he/she's saying no

arcon5

Op, remember there is a difference between a fault and wear and tear of a component

arcon5

sharkmeister wrote: »

Thanks. As stated we gave him opportunity to sort it and were not happy so got 2nd and third opinions.

I'm not sure this is going to carry much water tbh.

You had the vehicle inspected yourself and the problem diagnosed, at this point the dealer offer to remedy the situation under the warranty or sale of goods act - you declined. The dealer by offering to do this within reasonable time is fulfilling his/her legal obligations.

arcon5

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.

What exactly was picked up on? I'm thinking they was worn & the dealer recommended changing them and you agreed. For a car this age you'd expect wear on many components of the vehicle - especially things like breaks and tyres.

Sounds like you didn't inspect the vehicle very well

sharkmeister

arcon5 wrote: »

What exactly was picked up on? I'm thinking they was worn & the dealer recommended changing them and you agreed. For a car this age you'd expect wear on many components of the vehicle - especially things like breaks and tyres.

Sounds like you didn't inspect the vehicle very well

Yes the car is a 55 reg but only has 26k on the clock. it has only done less than 3.5k a year so wear and tear should not even come into it.

The oil leak was not diagnosed by a dealer. It is a friend of the family who is a fully qualified technician.

sharkmeister

arcon5 wrote: »

I'm not sure this is going to carry much water tbh.

You had the vehicle inspected yourself and the problem diagnosed, at this point the dealer offer to remedy the situation under the warranty or sale of goods act - you declined. The dealer by offering to do this within reasonable time is fulfilling his/her legal obligations.

We took the car back to the trader first and this was where he claimed the engine was running for two hours with no leaks and provided a dodgy receipt for £28. Anyone knows that labour for a garage will cost around £50 per hour minimum.

arcon5

sharkmeister wrote: »

Yes the car is a 55 reg but only has 26k on the clock. it has only done less than 3.5k a year so wear and tear should not even come into it.

The oil leak was not diagnosed by a dealer. It is a friend of the family who is a fully qualified technician.

:shocked:

was it owned by new by an elderly couple of something

Alot of components don't just need replacing at certain mileage though, also at certain intervals. For example at 3000 miles or 6 months, whichever is sooner. I imagine because they are always exposed to the elements (whether being driven or not) this can have adverse affects.

We took the car back to the trader first and this was where he claimed the engine was running for two hours with no leaks and provided a dodgy receipt for £28. Anyone knows that labour for a garage will cost around £50 per hour minimum.

Depends where you take it. Alot of local garages around this end charge about £20-£30 p/h +vat. (excluding main deals that is)

sharkmeister

wealdroam wrote: »

You need to deduct from any claim:

1. the cost of the clutch and a small amount of labour.
2. 'brakes', whatever that means. You have not mentioned anything wrong with the brakes anywhere else.
3. battery. How old is this car? can we assume that as you mention an MOT test in 2008 that this car is 2005 or earlier? So that's seven years... a reasonable life for a battery.
4. Sun roof not opening sometimes. Are you expecting a perfect seven year old car?

Every car has faults, but after seven years? I think you are being unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable when he claimed the engine had to be running to put the roof up and down. Also with 26k on the clock there would be no wear and tear. No I'm not expecting a perfect car but the fact the leak was put as an advisory in the first mot in 2008 leads me to believe this car has just been shipped around and has been bought by the trader for next to nothing and sold on for a high profit. Like I said have lots of documentation, pictures and a rather long text iphone text trail of about 70 messages of exchanges and comments from the trader. It is rather contradictory to say the least. Put it this way would you feel the same way if you parted with £5,500 only to have to fork out another £1,000 to put things right?