Mis-selling of diesel cars

jimjames

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Which adds to the argument for mis-selling...

More of an argument for misbuying than mis-selling I'd think.

If you go into Tescos you can't complain that they don't sell Sainsburys products. You can only get the products that the dealer can offer even if they aren't suitable for you - that's down to you to check as you are the one buying.

Ultrasonic

jimjames wrote: »

More of an argument for misbuying than mis-selling I'd think.

If you go into Tescos you can't complain that they don't sell Sainsburys products. You can only get the products that the dealer can offer even if they aren't suitable for you - that's down to you to check as you are the one buying.

Tesco don't give advice on what to buy, car dealerships do. Also, pretty much all car dealerships sell both petrol and diesel cars.

I managed to say no to PPI when offered it, and yet many people who didn't because they didn't understand what they were being sold are now getting refunds. I'm in no way saying it is obvious that mis-selling refunds should be given for customers incorrectly advised to buy diesel cars, but I also don't think it is obvious that there are no grounds for such claims.

The_Biff

I studied law in the 60's - yes a long time ago. What I remember is the Seller is liable for faults if you rely on him/her for advice.

eg - I go in the chemists & ask for Macleans toothpaste, I have no comeback. I go in & ask for a toothpaste that cleans & prevents gum disease, & I eventually get gum disease, I have a comeback against the chemist.

Hopefully there is a more recent student who might confirm this.

Ultrasonic

Which is why the description in post #19 by the OP sounds like mis-selling not mis-buying:

I didnt ask for a diesel I asked for a good car for the mrs to do the school run with room for the kids and the guy advised me a Mazda 5 diesel as it had good MPG and would be cheaper to run.

It is also why the excuse earlier of salesmen knowing nothing about cars adds to the argument for mis-selling in my book, since they regularly do offer advice.

Trebor16

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Which is why the description in post #19 by the OP sounds like mis-selling not mis-buying:



It is also why the excuse earlier of salesmen knowing nothing about cars adds to the argument for mis-selling in my book, since they regularly do offer advice.

The main point here is the OP was given advice, he wasn't told what to do. You can take or leave advice, but ultimately it is incumbent on an individual to do the research and then come to a decision.

force_ten

many people are getting caught out with the DPF thing and i do feel dealers should be telling people the style of driving that is required to clean the DPF filter

if it is a town car buy a hybrid or a petrol dont buy a diesel

surely it is in the dealers interest to get this right because when you drive around town and block your filter you are going to be straight back to the dealers to sort it out

so if they sell the right car to the right people then they will have less unhappy customers

gilbert_and_sullivan

force_ten wrote: »

so if they sell the right car to the right people then they will have less unhappy customers

Then the disgruntled customer, having heard the truth he didn't want to hear, goes next door to the competition, he tells the customer what he wants to hear (just like politicians), customer buys there.

No one wants to hear the truth, they want to be told what pleases them...politicians are experts in this.

stardoman

I have a Mazda 5 and my DPF filter failed too. But I do high miles and long distances. In fact, the day it failed I had been driving for 2 hours down a motorway. I stopped at a service station and when I restarted the car the DPF light came on.

I suspect my DPF box is empty. As I was far from home and it was going to be 5 days before they could get the part, they did a temporary fix, to get me home. That was 25000 miles ago.

My car is just 5 years old and I have approx 123000 miles on the clock, so I definitely do the miles to warrant a diesel!

However, every single time I've taken my car in to be serviced I have been told that the oil level is too high. I take it that this is due to failed regens?

Ultrasonic

Trebor16 wrote: »

The main point here is the OP was given advice, he wasn't told what to do. You can take or leave advice, but ultimately it is incumbent on an individual to do the research and then come to a decision.

I see your point. I think there does though come a point where a certain minimum standard of the quality of advice must reasonably be expected on behalf of a customer. Sales staff can't simply offer terrible advice and then claim it doesn't make any difference what they say as it was only advice.

It's like a mechanic advising what part they think needs replacing to fix a fault. They don't have to be right, but their suggestion has to be reasonable. If a 'mechanic' suggested changing a tyre to help solve a problem with a car not starting I suspect we'd all agree that this was not acceptable and that the customer should be compensated for the lousy advice. Even if ultimately the customer made the decision to buy a new tyre, rather than them being forced to do so.

I suspect the majority of the general public expect that people working in car dealerships know more about cars than they do, and so take their advice seriously.

Johnmcl7

mardiemare2008 wrote: »

When I bought my car from Arnold Clark, they made a point of telling me and re-telling me about the DPF and even made me sign a declaration to say they had advised me of the impact of doing small journeys. I drive on the motorway 20 miles to work and 20 miles back each day - so a diesel is fine for me.

I'm generally not a fan of Arnold Clark as they wrecked the local Skoda dealer but I was impressed to notice at the main desk they had a display with leaflets to take away which explained what a DPF was and what to be aware of with it with warnings about situations where the DPF could be problematic.

I generally find car sales people know very little about the cars they're selling, not just DPF's so I wouldn't take any of their advice before buying a car and doubt they'd be legally liable unless they were particularly specific and there was evidence of that. I do think reviewers should mention it more often though, I find diesels are frequently recommended over petrol versions with no reference to DPF's. You could say it's just the same for every diesel and no point printing it every time but then they always mention the poor fuel economy of petrols.

I currently have an Octavia estate with the two litre 170bhp PD TDI engine and don't do many miles these days, now it's been clarified a missing DPF is an MOT fail (if it was fitted originally) I've been giving serious consideration to going for a petrol. I've never needed to actively regenerate the DPF but I'm paranoid about not using the car for any short journeys and the car's behaviour is annoyingly inconsistent which I assume is due to the DPF passively regenerating, sometimes it drives really well other times it's hesitant. So I've been considering Mazda 6 with the 2.5 petrol engine, similar power/performance but with no DPF, turbo or EGR valves, reading reviews though they generally recommend against even considering the petrol engines.

I miss the good old 1.9 TDI PD150 engine

John