I think I've been sold a lemon

mrs2fat

I bought a 2007 Mini Cooper s on aug 1st last year. On the day I picked up my car the auto gearbox failed.
On nov 20th I took my car into the dealers as the eml had come on and the car went into limp mode.
Since then I have had my car back for a total of 10 days. They have tried fixing it by.....
Replacing head gasket
Replacing throttle pedal
Doing the timing belt and an
engine decoke.
They even had the front to blame me for using the wrong type of fuel!!


In the 6 months since I bought my car, they have had it for 2.5 months


At the time of writing my car is no nearer being fixed.
I've been pretty patient with them as the car is my dream car with every possible upgrade, but I just feel I'm being told lie after lie now and I want out.


Where do I stand on this? Bearing in mind the car is 5 years old.
I just want out really as the whole thing has left me so peeved and disullusioned.
Oops, forgot to mention, I traded my car as deposit and the car is on finance


Hope someone can help

polo32

Have you asked what the engine management light came on for? surely a main dealer has a diagnostics tool that reads the EML fault code and can work out the problem from there?

Tilt

Well at least they have been fixing it for you (at no expense to you I assume). It has clearly been just as much of a headache to the dealer as it has to you.

SOGA says that the seller should have 'reasonable opportunity' to rectify. Your choice if they fail would be to reject the car and get a refund. BUT I think that you MAY of relinquished that option by accepting the attempts to rectify. I think after the third attempt, you should of rejected at that point and would of had a good case to demand a refund.

HOWEVER, as the car is still not fixed, I would be putting in writing a final opportunity to rectify the problem(s) within the next 7 days or you will indeed formally reject the car and either A) require a like for like replacement or require a refund. But as per the above, a refund would be subject to taking into consideration any satisfactory 'enjoyment' you have had from the car (i.e. the amount of mileage/time of trouble free usage).

In other words, you may have to get a judge to decide what refund is due by taking the dealer to court.

mrs2fat

Yes it's under warranty, but so what, do you not think 2.5 months is reasonable opportunity for it to be fixed?They are on there 4th attempt at fixing it now.
The car was bought from a ford dealers and the first time it went in they took it to BMW/mini for a quote. They decided to try and fix it themselves on the cheap as the quote was too high for them.


And honestly, my heart bleeds for them, the headache it must of caused them, while I'm paying the payments each month and not having my car.


I have been perfectly reasonable the whole time, but now I've had enough

mrs2fat

polo32 wrote: »

Have you asked what the engine management light came on for? surely a main dealer has a diagnostics tool that reads the EML fault code and can work out the problem from there?

The message that came on screen was "Increased emissions"
I told them this at the time, it wasn't until the 3rd time it went back that there service manager said to me - where exactly is the message on the screen?
Yes they were apparantly reading the fault codes and working from there, but I don't really know what to believe anymore

steve-L

In other words, you may have to get a judge to decide what refund is due by taking the dealer to court.

Its a 07,
There seems little chance this is worth more than Small Claims Track therefore she will not see a judge but a magistrate.
Although this might seem a trivial difference my legal counsel (who is my cousin) assures me it is not.
Having been through a situation very similar to the OP I now see the differences....
For me the dealer lied on their DEFENCE, they did so expecting the court would not check what was easily checkable.
One major aspect of their defence was that they had contacted me on a regular basis (thus making the reasonable time for repair longer) despite me asking them in a letter only to correspond in writing they claimed to have called me.

I can't prove they didn't ... only the court can get their phone records by court order... they also made up the content of conversations in the non existent phone calls. However, the way CC SMT works means that the magistrate doesn't see the case until the day... they gambled he would just accept their assertion they had called.... or at least enough to muddy the waters....

This is just one example but its why a magistrate in small claims track is very much not a judge.

I accepted 2/3 of the price back on the day BEFORE the hearing.
Retrospectively I believe I may have got more but a guaranteed 2/3 was better than a speculative 3/3 at the time.

SOGA says that the seller should have 'reasonable opportunity' to rectify. Your choice if they fail would be to reject the car and get a refund. BUT I think that you MAY of relinquished that option by accepting the attempts to rectify.

OFT Guidance for used car dealers states specifically that
9.20
Within the reasonable period after the sale, consumers do not lose their right to reject the vehicle and require their money back simply because they ask for or agree to let you try to repair the vehicle. Where a consumer agrees to allow you to repair the faulty vehicle (within the reasonable period after the sale) he is still entitled to a refund if the repair turns out to be unsatisfactory or was not done promptly enough.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

you will indeed formally reject the car and either

REJECT is a different option to REPAIR/REFUND/REPLACE.
REJECT = Customer has to prove fault present at time of purchase
REFUND = Dealer decides cannot economically repair.

Again, semantics but the Claim form needs to be correctly worded.

In theory I think the OP has an excellent chance, the garage have accepted the fault by trying to repair it.... the first fault occurred on the way home... and they have had the car multiple (the OP does not state how many times unless each try was a separate time)
In practice, it's small claims if it goes to court and a magistrate and this brings in a random element.

That all said, the dealer might simply accept the REJECTION.

mrs2fat

This the currently the 4th attempt at fixing.The service manager said he will talk to the sales manager today and get back to me.
I don't want a full refund as bought on hp, I don't want the money back I've paid each month. All I want is the contract torn up and the deposit money back

Tilt

Steve, why do you keep mentioning 'magistrate'? Magistrates DO NOT deal in civil/county court cases. It would either be heard in the county court (if the claim is over £5k) or small claims if under £5k.

Tilt

mrs2fat wrote: »

This the currently the 4th attempt at fixing.The service manager said he will talk to the sales manager today and get back to me.
I don't want a full refund as bought on hp, I don't want the money back I've paid each month. All I want is the contract torn up and the deposit money back

Ahh! Well the good news is that the HP co is jointly responsible as it is their car. Have you informed them?

mrs2fat

I did mention to them a few weeks back I was starting to get a bit peeved at the situation, they told me not there problem, even tho its with ford credit, it's the dealers problem

Tilt

If it's on HP it is their problem as it's their car technically. If you decide to reject it, you would need to formally inform them as well. It may be the case that they would have to refund you some of your payments as well as any deposit you may of paid. I suggest you speak to CAB/Trading Standards to clarify.