Used Toyota LandCruiser help

150940

Horizon81 wrote: »

Of course he doesn't! Does anyone?!

The buyer was seduced by the 'full Toyota service history' but the fact that this wasn't a Toyota approved used car means Toyota will obviously wash their hands of it. Had it been an approved used car from a Toyota dealer I would have expected them to rectify.
The dealer you bought it from must be a bunch of chancers if they're saying take it to Toyota and claim under the anti corrosion warranty. Why buy such an expensive car off a bunch of cowboys.

You do realise that some service books have a place to stamp the anti-corrosion inspection, don't you?

Horizon81

150940 wrote: »

You do realise that some service books have a place to stamp the anti-corrosion inspection, don't you?

Sure do. And how many people ensure they get stamped when they have their annual service. I'd hazard a guess at none.

dannyrst

If the problem was there from the initial sale, clearly it was then when sold to the OP.

This is the type of risk garages take when they accept part exchange or buy from auction without fully inspecting the vehicles. If they are so confident that Toyota should fix it, let them contact Toyota directly to discuss it.

150940

Horizon81 wrote: »

Sure do. And how many people ensure they get stamped when they have their annual service. I'd hazard a guess at none.

If your cars in warranty and you're paying for a main dealer service you'd be a fool not to.

AdrianC

150940 wrote: »

You do realise that some service books have a place to stamp the anti-corrosion inspection, don't you?

Go back to the original post. Toyota have said that the car IS up to date on the anti-corrosion warranty, but that it doesn't cover the sunroof.

As far as SOGA's concerned - yes, the fault was present at sale, clearly. But is it to be expected on an 8yo car? Probably not. But if the dealer refuses to play ball, you're down to enforcement of your legal rights in court. How much time/cost/hassle - if one dealer is "guesstimating" £500, then you should be able to get it fixed with used parts from a specialist breaker much cheaper than that.

150940

AdrianC wrote: »

Go back to the original post. Toyota have said that the car IS up to date on the anti-corrosion warranty, but that it doesn't cover the sunroof.

As far as SOGA's concerned - yes, the fault was present at sale, clearly. But is it to be expected on an 8yo car? Probably not. But if the dealer refuses to play ball, you're down to enforcement of your legal rights in court. How much time/cost/hassle - if one dealer is "guesstimating" £500, then you should be able to get it fixed with used parts from a specialist breaker much cheaper than that.

Go back to #11.

AdrianC

Post 11 is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether the car is covered by the anti-corrosion warranty or not. The only thing that can void that is whether any inspections have been carried out or not - and Toyota have said they have been, but the sunroof is not within the scope of that warranty.

reeac

I don't understand the situation (I.e.) condition of the rusty bodywork but maybe a quick and easy solution would be to brush and vacuum out all the loose rust and then slap on waxoyl to stop further rusting and possibly act as a lubricant for sliding surfaces. It sounds as if the rusty surfaces are not visible when the sunroof is closed so not too unsightly. Also, of course, check drain holes.

arcon5

dannyrst wrote: »

If the problem was there from the initial sale, clearly it was then when sold to the OP.

This is the type of risk garages take when they accept part exchange or buy from auction without fully inspecting the vehicles. If they are so confident that Toyota should fix it, let them contact Toyota directly to discuss it.

To flip that statement around.

If the problem was there when it was sold then op surely cannot argue the dealer should fix it because that was the condition it was in when inspected by op. Like buying a car with a dent on the bumper then turning around expecting it to be fixed after you've bought it