second hand car trouble

cool4door64

Hi I recently bought a 2nd hand car a 2001 y plate astra td estate since buying it I have had to replace the maf sensor at a cost of £70 and one of the rear doors wouldnt open for a couple of days. I have had it less than 2 months and it broke down on the motorway i got it back to the dealer I bought it from who said he would have a look sounded like an edu they couldnt find one so I was told I would have to fork out £150 for one and they would fit it free. Now it turns out it supposedly the fuel pump which they will replace but I will have to pay the labour costs at £250. The car had roughly 134,000 miles on it and some s/h and looks superb. Consumer direct told me that under the sale of goods act the dealer should be liable for the repair, but the dealer insists it out of warranty the local council run a trader scheme and they are part of it but surprise I cant actually contact the council regarding this I have to go through consumer direct which in the past has lead me to months of battle to get problems rectified I am supposed to get the car back today but expected to pay £250 for the repair. Am I being hasty in thinking the dealer should pay for it?

Weird_Nev

Some good will from the dealer would be nice, but to be honest a 130k mile 11 year old car can't be expected to be perfect - but should at least be reliable.

I'd see if you can get any assistance with the cost of parts or something, but be sure that the car is actually worth spending money on before taking the plunge.

cool4door64

he has said he will provide the part but I will have to pay for the labour costs which is £250 like I said I have only had the car less than 2 months I know I only paid a small amount of money for it and cant expect it to last forever but longer than 2 months at least!

mikey72

I would agree with trading standards, dealer should fix it, and the trader scheme is usually subscription based, so it's very hard to upset the council enough to force them to stop accepting their money.

Valvoltec

I wonder if you are actually paying labour cost or are contributing towards,the cost of a replacement timing belt and the labour costs involved fitting it.The fuel pump is driven off this belt,and it would be wise to replace the belt at the same time.If you had a new or recondition pump are you not getting betterment.
Many used cars are sold with a 3rd party warranty,these are not new for old,in a lot of cases.
The vehicle is 11 years old it would be reasonable, to expect it to go wrong,
At least the dealer is trying to put the car right,I wonder how much the pump is costing,no idea exactly how much an astra diesel is on a forecourt.But I would guess that this problem wipes out any profit.
Is the pump recon,or second hand,if a recon and a new belt,you should have a good few miles without either giving trouble again.

Destination_..._?

Check Your car history service and see if it's had any work done to it over the years , like cambelt or waterpump replaced etc . It is an old car with high mileage that's not the problem comes down to cars recommended service history over the years done to it or not .
Maybe it would be better if you could persuade the dealer just return the amount you paid for the car ?

s_b

i said these arent worth a lot when the dealer offered 200 sovs for one the other day
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3825785

unfortunately one of our comrades is finding out the hard way all the problems these old vauxhalls have

motorguy

mikey72 wrote: »

I would agree with trading standards, dealer should fix it, and the trader scheme is usually subscription based, so it's very hard to upset the council enough to force them to stop accepting their money.

Two things here.

Is it unreasonable to have to replace the fuel pump on a 134K 11 year old car? Could that be considered wear and tear? I would say its not unreasonable, and yes its wear and tear. It doesnt matter how long the O/P has had the car its the fact that this could be considered wear and tear on this age and miles of car and something you might have to expect to do.

Secondly, the dealer is offering some sort of compromise here - ie, they are making a contribution, so if it goes to court, then the dealer will be seen to be trying to help.

Oh, and thats based on me talking directly to consumer direct last week RE: a similar issue.

mikey72

pgilc1 wrote: »

Two things here.

Is it unreasonable to have to replace the fuel pump on a 134K 11 year old car? Could that be considered wear and tear? I would say its not unreasonable, and yes its wear and tear. It doesnt matter how long the O/P has had the car its the fact that this could be considered wear and tear on this age and miles of car and something you might have to expect to do.

Secondly, the dealer is offering some sort of compromise here - ie, they are making a contribution, so if it goes to court, then the dealer will be seen to be trying to help.

Oh, and thats based on me talking directly to consumer direct last week RE: a similar issue.

Contirbutions aren't enough, they should be fixing it.


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_second_hand_vehicles.htm

motorguy

Valvoltec wrote: »

The vehicle is 11 years old it would be reasonable, to expect it to go wrong,
At least the dealer is trying to put the car right,I wonder how much the pump is costing,no idea exactly how much an astra diesel is on a forecourt.But I would guess that this problem wipes out any profit.

A voice of common sense.

:T

motorguy

mikey72 wrote: »

Contirbutions aren't enough, they should be fixing it.


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_second_hand_vehicles.htm

Thanks, this backs up exactly what i am saying. This is not a FAULT, its reasonable wear and tear on a car this age.

"If a secondhand vehicle needs more extensive repairs than seemed necessary at the time it was bought, this does not necessarily mean that the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality"

Also, its fairly easy for the dealer to prove the problem wasnt there at purchase because the car drove for a full two months before it happened.

"If you take the vehicle back within six months of buying it, the dealer should accept that there was a problem when the vehicle was sold and offer to repair or replace it. If the dealer doesn't accept that there was a problem when the vehicle was sold, they will have to prove this."

With regards to contributions in this particular instance, the dealer is showing goodwill on an 11 year old car with high miles that has a wear and tear related failure.