Used car is not fit for purpose

millerc

Hello everyone. I have been in touch with Citizens Advice Consumer Service. They advised me to write to quoting:

“Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, this car should be of a satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. My rights have been breached because the car you sold me is faulty. I would like you to put this right by repairing the car at your cost.”

This is the response I have received from COMPANY A:

"Firstly I am sorry to find out that it is the Turbo on your car, the only way we can help out is if you allow us to collect the vehicle are get the work done at my garage, this is in line with trading standards as Dealers have the right to carry the work out themselves as we benefit from trade discounts. Therefore you will benefit from our trade discount, the price you acquired is a huge amount. We only pay £30/Hour and get much cheaper parts than yourself.

Wear & Tear items are not covered by Trading Standard Laws on used vehicles, if the Peugeot was a new vehicle then wear & tear items would be covered for a certain amount of time/miles. For older vehicles only items beyond normal wear & tear are covered by Trading Standards. This is what I was told from a Devon & Cornwall Trading Standards Officer. It this particular case for a 8-year-old vehicle with over 100,000 miles on the clock it is not unusual for a wear & tear item such as Turbo to need replacing.

I am not saying we are not willing to help you, I go back to my original statement that we will collect & deliver the vehicle back to you however it still stands that you will have to pay the 20% VAT & a total of £50 Parts Contribution (Turbo+EGR Valve)

I have spoken to my mechanic, he was the one who reminded me that we actually replaced the EGR Value before you bought the vehicle, so it is impossible for it to need one again however I have included the price just incase. At most it will need cleaning, it would have been clogged up by the injectors/turbo failure.

I have got a quote from my local garage and these are the figures -

Turbo Replacement £ 523 + VAT £104.60

Rebedding all 4 Injectors £120-140 + VAT £24-£28

EGR Valve £216 + VAT £43.20

So the total cost excluding the EGR Valve would be £663 +VAT of £132.60

So the cost to you is, £132.60 +£50 Parts contribution = £182.60

Also, to be totally clear. The vehicle was not sold by myself (COMPANY A) or my Brother (COMPANY , and this can be proved by the fact my father purchased this car for my sister on his personal Debit Card direct from the vendor. We are more than willing to supply proof of this if you require.

Please let me know if & when you would like our assistance in getting your car to - (OUR GARAGE)."


Just to confirm, before I got the car independently assessed, I did give them the chance to repair it but they refused at first. Any thoughts or advice?

Many thanks.

millerc

I did give them the chance to repair it but they refused so I had no choice but to get the car to a garage to be assessed. They have since made an offer as updated below. Thank you.

dannyrst

Sounds dodgy.

You need a written confirmation from the garage you had take a look at the car to confirm that in their opinion, it is highly likely that the damage was done prior to you buying the car. This will make any claim from them that it is wear and tear irrelevant.

I'd also be discussing the fact that they claim this is a private sale? Did you pay cash or card? Why do you have receipts from a company if it is a private sale?

mb101_2

Clearly, this does sound like a dodgy dealer pretending to be a private seller, particularly since they are offering to help and appear to have a close working relationship with a garage.

However, if they will actually fix the car for £182.60 (I am assuming you could afford that, if not the high figure quoted by the other garage), then I think it's very much worth considering that offer rather than all the time and cost of trying to enforce your rights.

This is particularly the case because I cannot see any guarantee that a SOGA claim will succeed, because I am not sure that it will be easy/possible to demonstrate that this failure 4 months after the sale was likely to have been present at the time of sale.

However, do consider the risk that the dodgy guys are likely to do the repair cheaply; their mechanic may not be very good and they may supply a reconditioned turbo rather than a new one etc.

Mistral001

What about the warranty company? How long was the warranty for? Company A seems to be admitting that they are responsible for the repair, but at the same time charging you for it. I would seek legal advice.

FreddieFrugal

Sounds very dodgy. Hope it gets sorted.

But looking at the car you bought, are you likely to be doing lots of short journeys? Or isnyour mileage mainly long open road trips?

If its the former then I would seriously consider getting rid of that car as soon as you can. Unsuitable for that sort of driving.

The 1.6 of that age is a notoriously bad engine with turbo exploding. Unless the garage performs the repair in the proper way, which is an incredibly time consuming process with multiple oil flushes and several parts needing thorough cleaning, then it is highly likely that the turbo will blow again.

Multiple reports of repeated turbo failure after replacement, if the job hasn't been done properly and often seemingly even if the job has been done to the letter. I was speaking to a mechanic about it who had just recently had to go through the whole process repairing a Focus 1.6 tdci and how he wasn't in a hurry to do it again!

If it's been allowed to get to a state where its blown then it needs a lot of work to get it back into a useable condition. I personally would not trust this dodgy dealer to do a proper job on it.

You need to find a way of getting as much of your money back out of it as possible, whether that's a repair followed by a quick sale or whatever. Don't keep the thing as you're likely to end up having to pay for another turbo in a couple months.

AdrianC

Freddie - you're thinking of the peugeot-citroen-ford lump. I don't see mention of what car we're talking about.

FreddieFrugal

millerc wrote: »

The car is a Peugeout 207 1.6 hdi 2007.

AdrianC wrote: »

Freddie - you're thinking of the peugeot-citroen-ford lump. I don't see mention of what car we're talking about.

he mentioned it a few posts up

It is a peugeot lump

AdrianC

You're right - I read it as a new poster piggybacking.

macman

Why didn't you run a mile when the 'dealer' failed to show up and sent someone else in his place?