Broken down after just 3 weeks

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

True.

Not true, you are misleading the original poster.

We do not know enough about what has gone on to state that. We don't know what was said or agreed, what might have occurred. We don't know if the driver damaged the car or not. We don't know how much they paid. We don't know what failed. We don't know how the car was driven.

Kevtron

Thank you for the comments. To clear a few things up. I am not a typical 'Clio' owner. I am a 30 year old man. During the time I had it, the oil levels were checked every week, as were the other levels. It is my first car so I was very thorough in checking these. To say I drove on when the warning lights came on is not entirely true. I came off the road at the first available opportunity as there was no hard shoulder. Before the car was bought, it was checked over by my friend who is an amateur mechanic. I'm not saying he's brilliant with cars, but I trust him enough to not let me buy something that is going to die as quick as it did.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Kevtron wrote: »

Thank you for the comments. To clear a few things up. I am not a typical 'Clio' owner. I am a 30 year old man. During the time I had it, the oil levels were checked every week, as were the other levels. It is my first car so I was very thorough in checking these. To say I drove on when the warning lights came on is not entirely true. I came off the road at the first available opportunity as there was no hard shoulder. Before the car was bought, it was checked over by my friend who is an amateur mechanic. I'm not saying he's brilliant with cars, but I trust him enough to not let me buy something that is going to die as quick as it did.

RThat's helpful clarification, but I think it doesn't help you argue your case.

Let's assume that your garage man is basically honest, thenhe has sold you a cheap car without warranty with the assurance that he's driven around enough to be happy that it is a working car.

You have then had a mate check it for you, and he didn't see anything obviously wrong.

You have been checking it on a reasonable basis and nothing struck you as obviously wrong with it until after 800 miles it failed for some reason we don't understand.

So actually, the three of you had no reason to suspect it was going to suddenly fail. So I think you've got a hard "I know my rights" argument to make. Therefore you need to fall back on "Is the garageman a decent bloke who values his reputation?" I haven't quite got the sense of the garage, is it a back street cheap and cheerful or is it a reasonable quality operation who was essentially letting you have a trade-in car which he would have otherwise sent to auction?

Any road up, your choices are to try and argue it out with a weak case (after all you can hardly blame the garage for not spotting something if you had it "independently assessed" by a mate who didn't spot anything - you could ask your mate to refund his fee - however many pints down the pub that was). Unless he said something like - ah, you'll get years out of this Clio, they are bullet proof - while standing in front of your mate, then you might have a case.

You could have a chat and see what the garage bloke will do as a favour to make up for your understandable disappointment, it might be that he has another couple of cheap cars that he will sell you at cost. It's highly unlikely that the Clio is worth an engine replacement - the labour cost will be fairly high and a really cheap unreconditioned engine without warranty to make it apparently worthwhile would leave you in the same risky position.

It may be that you think that the garageman was a con man, but given that you had the car checked and were being careful and had no prior symptoms, you'd be hard pressed to prove it, and I'm afraid that a 12 year old car (with whatever mileage?) is at risk of having some serious failure - it's why people pay thousands for newer cars!

I drive a 15 year old Merc which I've had from new, and although it is fundamentally sound, just passed its MOT with zero defects, I enjoy driving it and it still feels and sounds much as it did when I got it, just a little scruffy, it's got to the stage where things have gone wrong - bearings failing (£500 for non-Merc replacements) the fan is noisy due to vents getting blocked and the fan sitting in water, starter motor failed and took out starter relays, strange clunk from auto box after shuffling around in car parks, the complicated single wiper failed - a £500 replacement part plus labour or £75 for a similar aged one from a scrap yardnwhich I replaced myself. It has a trade-in value of less than £900 so while it works it is great, but we seriously thought about not using it to go to Gatwick in case we broke down, yet I I happily did a 400 mile round trip in it, but is it worth repairing if anything goes wrong again? Time to get a newer car that I can trust, and I couldn't sell it with a clear conscience to anyone but trade.

Norman_Castle

Let's assume that your garage man is basically honest, thenhe has sold you a cheap car without warranty with the assurance that he's driven around enough to be happy that it is a working car.

Lets assume the "garage man" wants to sell this car and is unlikely to state, its got problems, but it should make it off the forecourt.

Op, contact trading standards and the dealer you bought it from.

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/problemswithvehicles-sum6.cfm

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Lets assume the "garage man" wants to sell this car and is unlikely to state, its got problems, but it should make it off the forecourt.

Op, contact trading standards and the dealer you bought it from.

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/problemswithvehicles-sum6.cfm

Agreed, but without knowing what was said and what was written down, we do not know what the case is, there is a range from con-man dealer to the hopelessly optimistic customer who was given fair warning.