Dealer Warranty Direct refusing to pay out on replacement powersteering pipe and pump

deanos

ah right i see, i had same problem in my insignia last month the power steering pipe leaked , dealer sorted it, the warranty company refused as it did not cover pipes , i had it 2 months, when i asked the dealer to prove it wasn't there at time of sale they replaced it without cost

Nodding_Donkey

Which is what they should do

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

It really bemuses me when car dealers on the internet start trying to defend other dealers (who they don't know) by presenting their word as gospel, pullign people up for saying 'potentially' but at the same time using vague terms like 'practically' and 'typically' themselves. Glasshouse much?

I'm not defending the dealer - theres nothing to defend at the moment, as the O/P hasnt yet spoke to the dealer? So whats there to defend?

I used the words "practically" and "typically" in reference to how "typically" in my experience (as opposed to what i've read on the internet) happens when a power steering pump fails. Funnily, twice its been on Vectras and once on an Audi A6 3.0i quattro.

I am giving an objective real world viewpoint and an insight on how the dealer *might* react, and how the O/P might get the best outcome - as opposed to "its THEIR problem", "theres a case to answer here" and "potentially dangerous" problems, which is what the bulk of responses have been so far.

fivetide wrote: »

You told them, quite clearly, the seller wouldn't be interested. I've said I agree that going in shouting is a bad idea but it seems the OP does have reason to approach the selelr which is all I (and a number of other people) said in the first place!

And all i said too! But some people - yourself included subsequently chose to extract specific words and phrases to give a different meaning

I said the seller may not necessarily "have" to be interested - under the SOGA. However i have said several times now - and i'm starting to think you're just someone who likes an argument on the internet - that i would be approaching the dealer but not with the "its their problem" attitude.

The dealer may well be happy to sort it out - OR make a contribution towards the repair - over and above their obligations under the SOGA. Certainly i have done so in the past in circumstances like this. However going in there with a willy waving its THEIR problem under the SOGA is not likely to yield that sort of outcome.

If the dealer declines to help, then the O/P can look at options from there.

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

Small detail : that isn't what he did.

What he DID was to point out that "dangerous" was very unlikely, because there would be warning symptoms long before any actual effect on the function of the car. And I don't think _anybody_ has made any defensive or even accusatory comment on the dealer or even warranty company in the entire thread...

But don't let that stop you ranting. You feel free.

Thanks Adrian. Much appreciated.

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

Then we've got commonsense. Clearly a puncture isn't caused by a dodgy dealer, unless the tyres were clearly old/cracked and the car had a dodgy MOT.

Are you insinuating then that the O/P bought the car from a dodgy dealer? Is that not quite a leap here? :eek:

fivetide wrote: »

Quoting a mad extreme doesn't change the fact that this is a fault with one of the cars main systems and as such, I would not be happy it was sold to me in that condition no matter how much you try to defend it.

I havent tried to defend *anything* - just pointing out it may not be a SOGA issue.

Would you be recommending at this stage the O/P takes the seller to court to find out?

Nodding_Donkey

They're not called Stealers for nothing.

motorguy

fivetide wrote: »

The fault as defined by the warranty company the dealer seems to have flogged the OP seems to be corrosion fromt he opening post.

That certainly would have been present.

Ok on a random part but this is a potentially dangerous defect and as such says a lot about the dealer's inspection of the car before departure.


I agree about attitude but there does seem to be a case to answer. Your initial post implied otherwise (although subsequent ones have softened that stance a bit)

So all nuts, bolts and parts showing signs of corrosion should be replaced on every used car?

How do you know the pipe was even visible?

This may come as a shocker to you, but dealers dont check every single nut, bolt, joint, seal, pipe on every car on their forecourt and replace them on the off chance one might random fail at some point in the future.

motorguy

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

They're not called Stealers for nothing.

The dealer in question hasnt even been made aware yet that theres a problem yet we're seeing already that hes been damned as a "dodgy dealer", a "stealer" and in some way lacking because his inspection of the car didnt pick up that a pipe might fail at some point in the future that he may not have even been able to see!

Laughable guys. Genuinely laughable.

Nodding_Donkey

The fact that he didn't see it doesn't make him any less liable for it though. This is why buying a car from a trader is more expensive, generally, than buying privately. The trader takes a risk in return for profit.

motorguy

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

The fact that he didn't see it doesn't make him any less liable for it though. This is why buying a car from a trader is more expensive, generally, than buying privately. The trader takes a risk in return for profit.

And that risk is mitigated by the Sale of Good Act, which i dont think necessarily covers the problem at hand here.

If the dealer says hes not covering it then no amount of arguing on the internet about "risk" and "liability" is going to change the fact that the O/P would have to go to court to get a definitive answer.