Section 75.

cuddly

Some help and advice if you please.
I purchased a 2005 renault grand scenic 1.9td back in april 2013 on cc from a garage. (i use the term loosely?) The turbo on the vehicle blew after 4 weeks. i replaced it as the garage refused, it blew again withing 5 weeks. A local garage believes the engine is possibly kaput.
i started a claim with the bank, chargeback first and now section 75.
The bank after dragging its heels,has just offered me a payment which is no where near my total loses.
They state that they have no direct knowledge of the facts, and say that they are unable to admit or deny any of the points i have raised with the garage.
but as a sign of goodwill they have offered a payment.
Am i right in assuming that seems the garage is no more, they have become liable for the breech of contract carried out by the garage.

yangptangkipperbang

cuddly wrote: »

They state that they have no direct knowledge of the facts, and say that they are unable to admit or deny any of the points i have raised with the garage.
but as a sign of goodwill they have offered a payment.

Sounds like usual bank stalling tactics designed to make you give up and go away.
As the garage is no more, apparently, the bank is now solely responsible. Saying that they can neither "admit or deny" is rubbish.

BUT - you must prove that there was a breach of contract - if they can't deny it................you are home and dry They don't have to admit anything - the Court will decide.

bris

Its a 9 year old car, you will be hard pushed to get them to admit to anything.

You have to remember age and mileage are a huge factor when it comes to liability for a second hand car, fair wear and tear is excluded and they would want to see a full service history etc.

The onus is on you to prove they have liability here, not the other way round.

jonesMUFCforever

How much did you pay?
You replaced a part which lasted how long?
Have you got FSH of the car?


How much are you asking for?

magpiecottage

You are better off taking them to FOS rather than the court.

Ideally you need to provide copies of the receipt for the work, receipts for the repairs and a written opinion about the state of the engine.

Section 75 is definitely preferable.

Make clear to the bank that you are complaining that their offer is unsatisfactory and you want the matter dealt with under its complaints procedure unless you have already received a letter saying you have six months to go to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

cuddly

Thanks for the replies.

I purchased the car for £2300 with a 6 month warranty. The car came with 12months MOT.

The turbo unit failed after only 4 weeks.

I believe I am covered under the sales of goods act. Which states any fault occurringwithin 6 months of purchase is deemed to pre-exist the sale, making it thegarages responsibility to fix, any thing after 6 months is your responsibilityto prove.

They refused, and sent a legal letter stating that in their option the turboblew under fair wear & tear, and I should claim under the warranty theysold me.

The warranty does not cover fair wear & tear.

I paid to repair the turbo with a view of small claims court to recovercosts, but the second turbo blew within 5 weeks. The garage believes that theengine is kaput, but the only way to tell is place another turbo on the vehicleat a cost of £800. a lot of money to prove something I already know.

This in my opinion is a clear breech of contract and misrepresentation, i.e.:the car was sold to me for social and domestic pleasure; it was not fit forpurpose.

The total cost I am claiming for £3000. This includes the cost of the car,warranty and out of pocket expenses incurred by the vehicles default.

jonesMUFCforever

Sorry but you are making a lot of assumptions - the legal stuff sounds like you have copied and pasted from a legal textbook.


I suggest you take legal advice - good luck.

lisyloo

Which states any fault occurringwithin 6 months of purchase is deemed to pre-exist the sale

This is not black and white as you seem to appear to believe.
If for example a tyre was worn within 6 months then this is not a "fault" - it's a wear & tear issue.
Dealers are not liable for normal wear & tear.

You don't say what mileage the engine has done but there isn't enough evidence in this thread to say whether it is either a wear & tear issue or a fault.

You have several options
1) Ombusdman (this could take a while)
2) small claims court yourself which involves some cost and risk
3) Do you have legal cover on your home insurance? have you checked.

Whichever route you take I think you may well need to pay for an engineers report. It might be impossible to conclusively prove the engine is kaput without expensive tests, but experienced engineers/surveyors provide their opinion all the time for a fee.

I don't know the facts (like engine mileafe) like you do but the first I'd be doing is checking my household insurance to see if I had free legal advice (and possibly cover).
If there is a phone number you can call for legal advice then call them.
If you do that then come back and let us know how you got on.

The bank have the issue that they don't know whether the car was "faulty" or whethr it's just normal wear & tear, which is why I suggest you need an engineer's report to get anywhere. Your word or the word of the garage is not going to cut it here. Some evidence in the form of a professional report is required which I think you will need to pay for.