Bought a car with no cat!

only_mee

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

You bought what was supposed to be a standard car, and it turns out it's not able to pass the emissions test because it's not standard? Take it back to retailer, explain that they need to confirm the VW diagnosis, and then replace the 'cat replacement pipe' with a Cat, so that it passes the MOT at the VW dealer. It does not need to be a VW part, and it doesn't need to be a new part, but it does need doing this week bla bblah blah trading standards etc.

Have to say I had a problem with a Cat on an old astra and removed the inside of the Cat, and it almost (with a service) passed the emissions, without it, but I was forced to fork out for one. With the Cat the emissions were a factor of ten less.

Let's play spot who never read all the thread lol

Horizon81

OP, thanks for the update, it's always good to hear how these things turn out. It's not unknown for garages to invent problems but I've never heard of one (and a main dealer at that) make out such a blatant lie as to say the cat is missing.

I would have loved it if you'd pushed them at the time to explain more, ideally put it on the ramps and for them to show you what was supposedly in the cat's place. I know garages have targets but to say a part is missing when a customer can easily check for themselves sounds almost unbelieveable.

Prothet_of_Doom

holsbrown wrote: »

I feel like they just wanted to con us out of the £1450 they quoted for a new cat. Complaint letter to VW HO will be sent today!

Trust me to not read the whole thread, before replying.

I'd be contacting trading standards and starting a twitter feed (not that I'm on twitter, but I would be)

http://www.scorpionexhaust.co.uk/scorpion-exhausts-sports-cat-stainless-vw-golf-mk4-r32-2386-p.asp

£790 for a prformance Cat, so even if VW HAD not being lying, I'd have been suggesting to your retailer a cheaper alternative.

holsbrown

Gavin83 wrote: »

Yeah thats terrible. Main dealerships are generally some of the worst garages out there though. In all honesty had you paid the VW garage the 4 figure sum quoted they'd have just left the old cat on, maybe having cleaned the outside a bit.

I'd imagine you felt like a bit of a turnip as well when you took it back to the garage and they showed you there was no issue. It's good that the garage were cooperative and well done for not going in all guns blazing.

Let's just say I won't be returning to the VW garage again. We were very lucky the garage selling the car were so helpful - they were shocked at the service we've had from VW and yes we did feel like idiots when the car was up on the ramp!

Prothet_of_Doom

Actually, now I think this is a fair opportunity for a Watch Dog / Trading standards sting operation.

fivetide

Be interested to compare it with another R32 of the same age.


I had a WRX Impreza which I deleted the middle cat from. I did it properly, getting the car professionally mapped.

Not only did the car produce more power. It got better mpg and the emissions were fine.

I'm not suggesting the selling garage wouldn't mind getting out of a hefty bill for a new VW cat but it is possible, especially if the car has been properly warmed up and had a good drive for a car with the cat missing to pass the emissions test no problem.

Another vote for a 3rd party/independent inspection here.

Retrogamer

colino wrote: »

Report the failing garage to VOSA, it's one thing being so myopic the NT couldn't see the cat, but extrapolating that on to the emissions being mysteriously at failure level is too much to accept. Clearly the workshop manager isn't meeting his monthly targets.

No point reporting it to VOSA probably.
For them to do anything they need to re-mot the car which the OP would pay for.
It would turn out if it shouldn't fail, VOSA issue a pass then the garage that failed it incorrectly incurr points. Too many of them and no more MOTs

holsbrown wrote: »

Weirdly I saw a whiteboard on the wall of the VW garage about their monthly targets, and they were way off. I wondered at the time if that was relevant.

They also won't give me a print out of the failed readings. They told me they don't keep them so if I didn't ask for a copy at the time it's too late.

You might be able to tell VOSA about this.
They have to keep the emissions print off and the fail / pass sheet stored for logging purposes for quite some time. If they're not storing this information correctly, then they could be in serious trouble if VOSA did an audit.
It should be as simple as giving you a copy of the original they should have stored.

fivetide wrote: »

Be interested to compare it with another R32 of the same age.


I had a WRX Impreza which I deleted the middle cat from. I did it properly, getting the car professionally mapped.

Not only did the car produce more power. It got better mpg and the emissions were fine.

I'm not suggesting the selling garage wouldn't mind getting out of a hefty bill for a new VW cat but it is possible, especially if the car has been properly warmed up and had a good drive for a car with the cat missing to pass the emissions test no problem.

Another vote for a 3rd party/independent inspection here.

The OP said it failed for the cat being missing, not for failing the emissions test.
The old MOT rules stated if the cat was missing it would be an MOT pass if the emissions were ok but now it'll be a fail regardless if emissions are ok or not.

fivetide

Retrogamer wrote: »

The OP said it failed for the cat being missing, not for failing the emissions test.
The old MOT rules stated if the cat was missing it would be an MOT pass if the emissions were ok but now it'll be a fail regardless if emissions are ok or not.

I know the fail would still be there - hence the advice to get it checked out by a 3rd party. What if they go to another garage next year and amazingly the same thing happens...?

Like I said, I'm not suggesting the car has been mapped and could pass the emissions test and thus give a dealer a way out of buying a very expensive cat but if you re-read my post that's exactly what I'd want to be sure hasn't happened.

And the OP specifically said it did fail on emissions the first time

on the phone they told me the emissions were sky high.

Post #6

Retrogamer

fivetide wrote: »

I know the fail would still be there - hence the advice to get it checked out by a 3rd party. What if they go to another garage next year and amazingly the same thing happens...?

Like I said, I'm not suggesting the car has been mapped and could pass the emissions test and thus give a dealer a way out of buying a very expensive cat but if you re-read my post that's exactly what I'd want to be sure hasn't happened.

And the OP specifically said it did fail on emissions the first time



Post #6

holsbrown wrote: »

My husband and I bought a second hand car just before Christmas, and we just found out today (through a failed MOT) that the car has no catalytic converter.

Post#1

States it failed the MOT on a missing cat.
Later got it checked by another garage and cat wasn't missing.so the garage failed it incorrectly. There are no mitigating circumstances.

fivetide

Retrogamer wrote: »

Post#1

States it failed the MOT on a missing cat.
Later got it checked by another garage and cat wasn't missing.so the garage failed it incorrectly. There are no mitigating circumstances.

What a shame you can't just go "oops missed that" instead of trying to be patronising.

I'm sure the OP has the print out of the emissions. If not they should get it.

My advice stands - get a 3rd party to look at the car. You are not helping the OP by trying to pick fault for no reason.

As others rightly said. the car could have been mapped, have other non-standard parts etc etc. I'd want it checked and not by the garage who sold it as they have an interest in sayign it is all ok and not by VW who it seems can't be trusted as far as you could throw them.