BMW X3, broke after 5 months. Dealer says they only give 3 months warranty

27col

I can't help but wonder what time period would have to pass before the op stopped thinking that the breakdown was in some way the responsibility of the dealer. 5months,6 months, 9 months, 2 years. How long?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

27col wrote: »

I can't help but wonder what time period would have to pass before the op stopped thinking that the breakdown was in some way the responsibility of the dealer. 5months,6 months, 9 months, 2 years. How long?

To be fair, you need to consider this in the context of modern consumer protection legislation, so when a very expensive repair comes along, the question arises of whether the vehicle, however old, was of satisfactory quality.

That is not a simple question to answer, and the older a car is and the longer time since being bought then the less likely you are to succeed in claiming.

Unfortunately, there seem to be many people on this forum who don't understand consumer protection legislation and think that everything is buyer beware. The snide comments that come up on this forum time and again are inappropriate, it is a legitimate question to query whether when an expensive repair comes up, you have any redress, perhaps with a reminder to people that they should check the terms of warranty as in every case you essentially have two methods of being covered, a warranty, which is likely to be limited, and your legal rights, which essentially weaken as time passes. Also, posters should bear in mind that the OP is not native British and will not be as aware of UK legislation.

That being said, in this case, I would say that if the fault is one that someone who bought it from new would have a case, (e.g. new gearbox at 40k due to known design fault) then you'd have a case second hand regardless of warranties. I'd tend to agree in this case that on a 7 year old car, a mechanical failure of the kind described is not warrantable. That the vehicle has worked for 5 months would tend to suggest that there was no reason for the dealer to suspect that the car was about to fail.

So unless there is a known design fault with the X3 transmission, then I would say the OP is going to have to foot the bill himself.

jaydeeuk1

Tilt wrote: »

But, like with Fiat of the early 70's, I suppose the negative reputation stays with a marque for quite a few years. I however, am one person who knows from quite a bit of experience (i'm on my 14th Fiat atm) that the negative reputation is (or should be) buried in history.

Your 14th fiat in 6 years?

FiremanDave

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Your 14th fiat in 6 years?

That's reliable. :rotfl:

Tilt

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Your 14th fiat in 6 years?

Ok, clearly I've missed something... where do you assume i've had 14 cars in 6 years? I actually bought my first Fiat in 1978 (127 1050CL).

jc808

AdinUK wrote: »

At this point, the car was still driveable, however all of the essential safety features (anti-lock braking, stability control, 4x4 etc) stopped working. I consider that without any of these systems working that the car is not fit for purpose as transport for my wife and children.

My advice is to hand your license back to DVLA as your clearly not fit to drive

Trebor16

jc808 wrote: »

My advice is to hand your license back to DVLA as your clearly not fit to drive

What a stupid comment to make. The OP comes asking for some advice and all he gets from you is total garbage.

[Deleted User]

motorguy wrote: »

If i was in the market for a newish hatch - which i was last year - i'd be looking again at the top cars in that class - the golf, focus, maybe an astra, maybe a civic. I wouldnt be looking at either a 1 series (they dont suit low specs) or an Auris (dull as dishwater).

If i was looking a newish family saloon, i'd probably go for a Passat or Mondeo - i wouldnt go for a 3 series, because again, they dont suit low spec / smallish diesel engines and i wouldnt go for an Avensis because they're quite crap.

That made me smile...


My brother recently bought an Auris to replace his old Avensis as his wife's family generally buy Toyota. Anyway, now wishes he didn't as it has poor mpg and is duller than dishwasher. Reminds me of a time when I was once given a mint Corolla... So boring, horrid interior and dreadful suspension. Sold within weeks


PS his Avensis was crap too. The only saving grace was it had a decent boot. In fact no Toyota in the family has been particularly reliable as they seem to suffer daft faults like Fiats from the olden days, before I knew better.

arcon5

The simple facts are

the dealer cannot override the law - however reasonably you deem the terms
the 6 month rule is merely who the burden of proof is on - nothing more

Comes down to why it failed and based on the age mileage and description a failure is reasonable and can be attributed to wear and tear

Bantex_2

motorguy wrote: »

Yes, i personally dont have much issue with their reliability. I found it there or there abouts with other brands BUT i know there is still this "concern" over reliability, particularly when Alfa were asking people to pay a considerable amount of money for a 159.

I'd a 156 v6 Veloce - red with black leather, then a 147 JTD TI - red with black leather, and at a point later a 156 1.8 in a lovely bright blue with black leather.

I would certainly have another one again at some point - particularly the big petrol engined ones.

My Mrs has a 10 year old 2 litre petrol 147. Bought 4 years ago and not needed a single repair over around 30k miles., Guess must be very lucky going by the reputation. (Also red with black leather).

Really is nice to drive.