BMW - Used car - Peeling Paint!

GSDog

I purchased an 'Approved Used Car' from my local BMW dealership in October last year (almost exactly 4 months ago). Shortly after purchasing the car I noticed areas of paint that were flaking and peeling off in a couple of areas on both the front and rear bumpers. I was not made aware of these defects at the point of sale.

Since then they have got progressively worse and in short, both the front and rear bumpers will need to be fully re-sprayed as the lacquer has peeled significantly.

I wrote a letter to the dealership manager who is coming up with all sorts of excuses - so far has he tried blaming the age of the car, stone chips and 'recent flooding' as the cause of this. I met with the bodyshop manager earlier at BMW and he had a look at the affected areas of paint work, asked me when I bought the car, and then said 'Ok, we will re-spray both bumpers - I will be in contact shortly to arrange for it to be booked in'.

Since then I have received a phone call from the dealership manager who has basically disputed what the bodyshop manager said and in short has refused accept the fact that I am covered under the Sale of Goods Act. He said it is up to me (the seller) to prove that the fault was present at the point of sale. I don't believe this is true as I purchased the car only a few months ago?

He has told me that it will cost around £700 to re-spray the bumpers and has offered to cover 50% of this.

I am obviously not happy with this as I believe that they should fully cover the bill.

Any advice would be appreciated!

visidigi

You should be covered by the approved used car warranty - have you asked to claim via this?

Which dealer is it? (just give the city if you don't want to reveal the specific name) - have you asked to see the dealer principle?

Geodark

What age car is this? For the paint to be failing so quick is it possible that they have had a bad respray at some point? I would be checking the accident history on this to see if the car has been repaired at some point.

GSDog

I haven't asked about the AUC warranty as I didn't think it covered paintwork? I will ask this, thanks.

I guess it is possible it's had a bad re spray but it seems to be on both the front and rear bumpers.

I think I have been dealing with the dealer principal but he doesn't seem to be clued up on my rights - he keeps saying it's up to me to prove that it was inherent!

wealdroam

GSDog wrote: »

- he keeps saying it's up to me to prove that it was inherent!

Well he's wrong on that point.

In the first six months after the sale, any fault that is found can be assumed to have been present at the point of sale, and it is for the seller to prove otherwise.

After six months the onus shifts and it is for the buyer to prove that that the fault is inherent.

As it is around four months since the sale, clearly the seller needs to prove that the fault is not inherent.

The age of the car makes no difference... it is the date of the sale to you that counts.

Subsection (3) of Section 48A of the Sale of Goods Act says:

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

Edited to add:
All that assumes you made the purchase as a consumer, not as a business.

visidigi

GSDog wrote: »

I think I have been dealing with the dealer principal but he doesn't seem to be clued up on my rights - he keeps saying it's up to me to prove that it was inherent!

Ask him for his business card to prove who he says he is.

The fact he's offered you 50% off makes me think he isn't and he's fronting.

Failing that, each dealer has an area director - I went through mine and he sorted out a price match that the DP was 'adamant' couldn't be done.

bris

GSDog wrote: »

he keeps saying it's up to me to prove that it was inherent!

wealdroam wrote: »

Well he's wrong on that point.

In the first six months after the sale, any fault that is found can be assumed to have been present at the point of sale, and it is for the seller to prove otherwise.



The age of the car makes no difference... it is the date of the sale to you that counts.

No hes not wrong, the age of the car makes all the difference. The normal 6 month rule does not apply to second hand goods depending on the age and mileage of the car in this case.

Wear and tear is not covered, in a cars case stone chips, scratches etc after sale can all lead to failing paintwork , the salesman can easily say this is down to normal use after just 4 months and put the onus back on the buyer.

In reality, again depending on the age of the car which as yet we don't know, it is most likely a bad paint job after a repair, but we don't know how many winters worth of salty roads this car has been through, it's all very relevent.

But to know for sure a report will be needed to determine the real reason for the failing paint.

neilmcl

bris wrote: »

No hes not wrong, the age of the car makes all the difference. The normal 6 month rule does not apply to second hand goods depending on the age and mileage of the car in this case.

Blissful in your ignorance again I see. The six month rule of who proves that an item didn't conform to contract at time of sale applies equally to used goods as it does to new. Unless you'd like to provide documented evidence to the contrary.

OlliesDad

neilmcl wrote: »

Blissful in your ignorance again I see. The six month rule of who proves that an item didn't conform to contract at time of sale applies equally to used goods as it does to new. Unless you'd like to provide documented evidence to the contrary.

I agree, the 6 months is still applicable.

That said, even if it has failed in the first 6 months this could still be fair wear based on the age of the car. It would be for the dealer to prove that it was fair though.

wealdroam

bris wrote: »

No hes not wrong, the age of the car makes all the difference. The normal 6 month rule does not apply to second hand goods depending on the age and mileage of the car in this case.

Bris, have you read MSE's Consumer Rights article?

Especially the bit that says:

Second-hand or 'on sale' doesn't mean second-rate

Even if the item's second-hand or reduced, it doesn't mean you get second-rate consumer rights, except where the seller pointed out the specific problems before you bought.

The same consumer rights rules apply to second-hand and sale goods from shops. They must be of satisfactory quality and, if they're faulty, you can return them.

If you buy a used motor from a trader or grab a £700 'sale' telly with 30% off, and it goes kaput once you get home, then take it back and complain.

It's worth stressing that the second-hand price will be taken into account, so if you buy a car for a fiver, you wouldn't expect it to run normally.

If you think there is anything wrong with that, then perhaps you should report it by clicking on the link towards the bottom of that webpage.

shaun_from_Africa

neilmcl wrote: »

Blissful in your ignorance again I see. The six month rule of who proves that an item didn't conform to contract at time of sale applies equally to used goods as it does to new. Unless you'd like to provide documented evidence to the contrary.

You might be waiting a long time for that evidence neil.
bris recently accused me of posting "nonsence", and when I pointed out that he was in fact, incorrect, he went very silent and two weeks later and I'm still waiting for either an apology, an admission that he got his facts wrong of something to show that he was actually correct.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64740877&postcount=30