Used car turbo failure

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

We're not in the realms of recovery of a broken down car - we're in the realms of the buyer cant be bothered to drive back with it.

Almost the very first line of the SOGA relating to faults says that the seller has the right to inspect the car. It does NOT say they have to go to the item to inspect it.

In extremis, the opposite view would suggest that the supplier has to go and collect from the roadside should the vehicle break down. Then there was the poster the other week who'd immediately exported his purchase to Germany.

jamiewakeham

OK, so I'm prepared to backtrack on much of this. The key problem seems to be that I read what the OFT published - "You must also bear any costs associated with doing so such as transporting the vehicle to a garage for repairs."- as being literally true. It doesn't say anything about how far, or what associated costs such as trailering, might be involved.

<quick rant not directed at anyone in particular> - if they don't mean that to be taken as an absolute statement then why the hell don't they qualify it? If the intent of the law is 'within reason' then they need to say so. Much of my argument throughout this thread has been a direct result of reading that statement as being absolutely the case. Vaio's post shows I'm not the only one to read it thusly.</rant>

So to those aggrieved by my apparent inability to see it your way - there's the reason. I hope you can see why I was intractable.

Just to clarify one last time (and I don't want to get back into this) - I *did* think there was a catastrophic failure. Looking at Yeti boards told me that turbo failure -with exactly my codes - was not an unknown problem with this engine. I was told that the odds were low that it would be electrical and high that it would be an actual turbo failure. Not until very very late in the process did the possibility that it was an ECU update even occur to me. And I was also told it wasn't safe to drive on a motorway. The first failure happened to me when I was merging on the M25, and I ended up stranded right at the cusp of two three-lane sections meeting waiting for about 8 minutes for it to sort itself out, trying to work out how the hell I was going to rejoin traffic at 70mph when I could do 0-30 in about a minute. So, given my mis-reading of what the OFT said about dealers bearing the cost of recovery, the refusal to organise a trailer seemed utterly inappropriate to me.

re my choice of dealer: there are a lot of 1.2 Yetis out there, but if you narrow the search to manual with cruise the choice reduces dramatically. Limit it to manual with cruise and sub £12k, then you're talking three nationally. And I was in an awful rush - circumstances meant I needed to swap cars pretty fast, so I couldn't wait till the summer (as someone rather pithily noted) and I could take one day off work - I needed to be mobile again the following day. I picked the best-looking one I could and went there with a one-way train ticket. When I got there it turned out that the rather smart website lead to the worst kind of filthy-white-vested drooping-fag-in-mouth backstreet dealer. The car wasn't cleaned, had valve caps and wheel trim missing, and I got a couple of hundred knocked off for poor paintwork that wasnt mentioned in the ad. Still need to get that fixed.

So yes, I should have just walked away. But I took the chance because I simply couldn't find the time to go look for another. And I figured that, despite his slightly ropey warranty, I had SoGA to back me up.

Given the stress it's caused me I wish I'd just hired something for a month and waited. Hindsight's 20:20, isn't it?

motorguy

jamiewakeham wrote: »

OK, so I'm prepared to backtrack on much of this. The key problem seems to be that I read what the OFT published - "You must also bear any costs associated with doing so such as transporting the vehicle to a garage for repairs."- as being literally true. It doesn't say anything about how far, or what associated costs such as trailering, might be involved.

<quick rant not directed at anyone in particular> - if they don't mean that to be taken as an absolute statement then why the hell don't they qualify it? If the intent of the law is 'within reason' then they need to say so. Much of my argument throughout this thread has been a direct result of reading that statement as being absolutely the case. Vaio's post shows I'm not the only one to read it thusly.</rant>

So to those aggrieved by my apparent inability to see it your way - there's the reason. I hope you can see why I was intractable.

Fair play for your response.

Yes, therein lies the problem with the SOGA - its open to interpretation, its not clear cut and ultimately if there is dispute you have to go to court, which is no quick and easy process, nor is the outcome guaranteed.

aloiseb

I sympathise with the OP. I have also gone a long way on a one-way train ticket to buy a particular used Skoda. I wasn't spending that kind of money though, and was just hoping for something to get us through the summer holidays, after our beloved old one failed the MOT on a technicality.

I don't know anything about cars! Dealers must love me. I just wanted the sunroof for the kids in the back, as it was summer holidays in the West Country.

It did us really well, and is still going strong now. :j
Many thanks to the excellent used car garage near Exeter, who far from having fags hanging from their mouths, came to the station to pick me up:cool:. I filled in my Good Garages Guide card for them.

But I think I was quite lucky: as can be seen from this thread things can go very differently.......

PS I never looked at his vest, but I suspect it was clean.