IS it worth taking claim to small claimes

dexterlivi

My dad purchased a used car in December 2017 from a dealer in Yorkshire. I will not name the dealer as they already believe I am trying to tarnish their good name after posting a recent negative online review.
As to the car it was sold with a full service history with a major service recently carried out. I now have evidence that states that the advert was false or misleading in that no recent major service has been completed. I have confirmed this with the garage who stamped the service booklet. After initially telling me they had done a full service, when I asked how the car then failed the MOT on the next morning with a Tyre below the legal limit, a corroded brake pipe, stop lamp not working and loose exhaust pipe he accepted that he did not do a full service, but the lesser basic oil and filter change. Even then he tried to fob me off and say but an MOT is different to a service, but I suggested that a full/major service should have picked all the items up and he should have reported these to the dealer as faults, he finally gave up and accepted that he had not done a full service.

The reason I share this is because I did a bit of digging after the car developed a fault after less than two weeks. My dad phoned the dealer and he was told by the garage that they could not do anything about the faults as the owner was out of the country. Dad explained that he needed a decision from the garage and could not wait as he needed the car back within a few days to allow him to drive into Europe to complete his house sale in Germany. Again told told he would have to wait until the end of the week when the boss was back. Dad explained that this left him with no option but to get the repairs done by our local garage and claim back from the dealership owner on his return. Most people will probably have guessed that the owner has point blank refused to reimburse him. Its worthy to note that the faults found were an excessively worn turbo with oil leaks through associated pipes, faulty suspension arm and bush and blowing rear exhaust box. Dad has not asked to be reimbursed for the back box. Prior to purchase I explained to dealer that there were a couple of things I noticed including the radiator header/expansion tank being completely empty and the washer bottle cap missing. Now with hindsight, looking at all the faults on the MOT and the faults recently found by my local garage and by myself, every one of these faults should have been picked up at the alleged major service which I know now was not done. Anyway rather than reimburse, the dealer has dug heels in and appointed solicitor despite presenting sufficient proof of faults and false claim of major service. So the instruction to the solicitor by the dealer is that the dealer has discharged their burden under the consumer rights act because the car came with a valid MOT and PDR. I have questioned this as the form that I now know to be the PDR was filled in within the confines of a very warm office at point of sale in front of me and my dad. Having identified that the service was not completed despite being sold as such, I dont believe that a PDI check was done prior to sale, merely the dealer simply went through the list and ticked as having completed the check. Again had the PDI been done it should have picked up faults that are now starting to become apparent. Dealers solicitor also states that as we instructed another garage to do the repair to the turbo and suspension arm and bush, that the dealer will not reimburse as the CRA does not provide provision for customer to instruct another garage to carry out the repair. Dealer and solicitor initially referred to the reported faults as alleged faults as we had provided no evidence. even after offering the evidence the dealer still seems to question my integrity. I am big and ugly enough to take that but rather than try and resolve the matter, the dealer has come out on the offensive in his response to my negative review. I should state that I made no judgement of the dealer in the review, I simply presented what I believed was a negative experience for my dad. Some people reading this will ask why did my dad not simply reject. Simple answer is that at time of repair dad had already spent money on full set of tyres , insurance and tax so he faced being out of pocket so went for the repair option, plus he needed the car due to his travel arrangements. So I guess what I am asking after all the background is whether I have a claim against the garage for the repairs. I dont think the small claims court fee is excessive, about 60 quid I think as the extent of claim is just over £900 and probably worth testing at small claims?

Shaka_Zulu

Split that wall of text up a bit please.

angrycrow

Would also help to know the make, model, mileage and rough purchase price as advice given will be determined by these facts.

arcon5

Some of the things you mention take away from any potentially realistic claim you may have. I'm making the assumption it is far from new due to the nature of the faults but bushes and wearing exhaust will usually come down to wear and tear so long as they legitimately pass an MOT making it road worthy at the point of sale. Worth noting though just because a bush is wearing doesn't mean it needs replacing anytime soon.
You expectations with regards to a service may differ to others, personally when I read full service I imagined oil change and all filters including air and fuel filter.


When you say excessive turbo wear...what does this mean? What was the actual fault required a new turbo and pipes???

forgotmyname

Replacing tyres is not a service item. You may get a call to ask if you want it replaced or told it needs replacement when paying.

So 100% possible to have a service and fail an MOT.

The service only replaces certain items and everything else will be checks, its upto the owner if they get these items fixed.

He gave up and admitted it wasnt a full service because you were wrong and not the customer. I would tell you anything you wanted to make you go away and bother someone else.

They may have said the brakes are worn, but the owner said nah they will be fine and even pass the MOT.

How worn is the turbo? define excessively in a measurement? I assume you do have accurate data to show by how much its worn?

Yes take it to the small claims, your unlikely to win but go anyway.

debtdebt

I think you have to give the selling the garage the option to repair the item. Your dad didn't give them that option.

AdrianC

debtdebt wrote: »

I think you have to give the selling the garage the option to repair the item. Your dad didn't give them that option.

Within 30 days of purchase, there's an absolute right of rejection.

I'd agree that more information's needed. If we're talking a <£1k shed, then the legal situation is much less clear cut than if we're talking about a £20k 4yo car. Rotten brake pipes suggest the former.

EdGasketTheSecond

Do sheds have rotting brake pipes? Mine only has rotting planks......