Bought a car 3 months ago, problems not covered under warranty

jimjames

motorguy wrote: »

Theres a thing these days called a phone. They'll have a big call centre full of people whose purpose it is to keep customers happy. Ring them. Hassle them. They WILL react.

Write them a letter and a month later they'll write you a letter back and tell you they're looking in to it.

While that's true, it is also true that in many industries written complaints are taken far more seriously than verbal phoned in ones.

Charliezoo wrote: »

Santander finance contacted me today and confirmed that it was their responsibility to investigate this and seek a resolution with Nissan. They have emailed a list of documentation that we need to return to them as well as a detailed questionnaire regarding the history of the car since we bought it, etc.


We still have the courtesy car but I'm expecting the dealer to be asking for it back very soon. It means we'll be without a car for an unknown amount of time, I'm unsure of what we can do about this and are obviously anxious to have our car back fixed.

Good to hear that Santander are taking responsibility for resolving it. They should also make sure that the courtesy car is covered if you are unable to use yours due to this fault they are working on - definitely worth checking with them.

jimjames

arcon5 wrote: »

And we're saying you are wrong - a checklist simply isn't good enough in this instance. Even if the clutch wasn't faulty at the time of sale then op has rights as to its durability based on what a reasonable person would expect based on xyz.
It's a 12k mile car... hardly disputable that it shouldn't have failed this early.

Op may get a smoother resolution from other tactics - doesn't change the fact op has statutory rights and your giving misleading advice about how ops protected by law

I think you're missing what motorguy is saying.

What the law says and what is deemed to be fair are not necessarily the same thing.

If you have to demonstrate you checked a car then having a verified check list showing all that was done will cover you in that case. It doesn't mean no faults are present or will develop, just that they weren't there at the time of the inspection.

For the record I totally agree that this is unreasonable to happen on such a new car. In over 25 years of driving I've never had a clutch fail - one started slipping on a 190k remapped car but that is something to be expected. To have it happen on something so new is definitely not reasonable wear and tear.

nobbysn*ts

jimjames wrote: »

I think you're missing what motorguy is saying.

What the law says and what is deemed to be fair are not necessarily the same thing.

If you have to demonstrate you checked a car then having a verified check list showing all that was done will cover you in that case. It doesn't mean no faults are present or will develop, just that they weren't there at the time of the inspection.

For the record I totally agree that this is unreasonable to happen on such a new car. In over 25 years of driving I've never had a clutch fail - one started slipping on a 190k remapped car but that is something to be expected. To have it happen on something so new is definitely not reasonable wear and tear.

But if the inspection is a tick in a box, and every car you ever sold has a tick, all it means is you ticked the box. If it is unreasonable to happen that the clutch then fails, it simply means the tick box is worth nothing. As to ' It doesn't mean no faults are present', that really means you ticked a box on a piece of paper. But the fault was still present when you ticked the box.

motorguy

Charliezoo wrote: »

Santander finance contacted me today and confirmed that it was their responsibility to investigate this and seek a resolution with Nissan. They have emailed a list of documentation that we need to return to them as well as a detailed questionnaire regarding the history of the car since we bought it, etc.

I telephoned Nissan UK today and they passed the details onto a case manager who did telephone me back but unfortunately I was in a meeting and unable to speak to him so I'll follow that up first thing. The CAB made it clear that our dealings are with Santander and not Nissan or the dealership but I reported it to them anyway in the hope it might get things moving more quickly.

We still have the courtesy car but I'm expecting the dealer to be asking for it back very soon. It means we'll be without a car for an unknown amount of time, I'm unsure of what we can do about this and are obviously anxious to have our car back fixed.

In regards to the car being badly driven, we previously owned a Nissan Juke with the same 1.5 DCi engine that was very similar to drive. This was purchased brand new from the same dealership and we owned it for 3 years before trading it in for the Qashqai with no clutch problems or any wear and tear issues at all. This of course should all be on the dealership's database and I'm hoping it will go some way to show that we haven't burnt out a clutch on a very similar car in the past and we were familiar with similar Nissan's. We also owned a Nissan Navara for the same duration and this was jointly traded in for the Qashqai. Although from another dealership we again had no clutch problems in the time we were driving it.

Glad you're making progress. Fingers crossed for a quick resolution.

Let us know how things progress

motorguy

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

But if the inspection is a tick in a box, and every car you ever sold has a tick, all it means is you ticked the box. If it is unreasonable to happen that the clutch then fails, it simply means the tick box is worth nothing. As to ' It doesn't mean no faults are present', that really means you ticked a box on a piece of paper. But the fault was still present when you ticked the box.

Nobby please don't turn this thread into the carnage you orchestrated on the last one.

The op has got some traction on this. Let's hope it results in a positive result. I'm sure we all want that

nobbysn*ts

motorguy wrote: »

Nobby please don't turn this thread into the carnage you orchestrated on the last one.

The op has got some traction on this. Let's hope it results in a positive result. I'm sure we all want that

Well, the consensus is that we do. You seem to have a personal axe to grind in these threads, so butt out, if you really want to help here. Or carry on dragging every thread down?

motorguy

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Well, the consensus is that we do. You seem to have a personal axe to grind in these threads, so butt out, if you really want to help here. Or carry on dragging every thread down?

You're the one who has just joined the thread and immediately had a go at me.

You haven't added anything to the thread other than have a go at me so who's the one with the axe to grind and should butt out?

You did yourself no favours on the last thread so I suggest you draw a line now

And to get the thread back on track let's hope the finance company get this sorted for the op and hopefully we will here good news back from him soon. Would you not agree?

nobbysn*ts

motorguy wrote: »

You're the one who has just joined the thread and immediately had a go at me.

You haven't added anything to the thread other than have a go at me so who's the one with the axe to grind and should butt out?

You did yourself no favours on the last thread so I suggest you draw a line now

More spam from an ex dealer, It's for the op to decide who is right, you, or everyone else who's posted? Caught your edit by the way!

motorguy

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

More spam from an ex dealer, It's for the op to decide who is right, you, or everyone else who's posted? Caught your edit by the way!

Whatever nobby. You clearly are goading me into an argument for whatever reason but I have no intention of giving you one.

nobbysn*ts

motorguy wrote: »

Whatever nobby. You clearly are goading me into an argument for whatever reason but I have no intention of giving you one.

Good. (Text removed by MSE Forum Team) off and give the op a break then.