Second Hand Car Problems

ChrisRandall25071977

I don't know if anyone can help.

I purchased a car 7 weeks ago for £29500.00 and it has had 2 faults, the first an issue with the e-brake the day after I got the car that was fixed. The 2nd an oil leak on the engine that is a very expensive fix £5000+. 7 Days ago I sent a letter to reject the car under the Consumer Rights Act final right to reject and the responded with the company Secretary who seems versed in writing letters.

In conclusion we have got to the point where they have acknowledged that the car has a fault and are doing some more test and that they will fix it under warranty (Not sure what warranty as I have a third party one and its not covered by that). But they will not admit that the fault was with the car when I purchased it therefore I cant reject the car!

They came back with 4 reasons why the fault was not on the car:
- It had a multi point check performed by them and they would have spotted it.
- It was serviced by they and they would have spotted it.
- It had an MOT and they would have seen it.
- When the e-brake was fixed it went back to Porsche and the did a "Routine Check" on the car.

It later transpires that when asked for the Porsche check report that it was never done. The MOT just states that there was no fluid that poses an environmental risk dripping from the car this dose not prove that the engine wasn't leaking just that it wasn't enough to drip out of the bottom of the car past the plastic under-trays. This leave the service and report performed by them to provide "Proof" that the fault was not on the car. If I take this to county court if they can get their mechanics to witness that they did not see the leak on the car would this constitute "Proof" and I would loose? So my question is really can company use it own employees in this way or would it be considered by the court bias as it they have a vested interest in the case.

Any feedback would be great

Many Thanks and Very Stressed

Chris

lee1972

You need to phone the Citizens Advice Consumer Rights Helpline about this. The number is 03454 04 05 06.

Don't take this as gospel but I believe you had 30 days where you could have rejected the car as not being fit for purpose. However, as you've had it longer than that the situation is different. I'm pretty sure that you do have some recourse but these guys are very good and will be able to advise you. They've been very helpful to me as I've been using them in a similar case to yours (although I paid substantially less for my car)

lee1972

Also, while I think of it- keep a timeline of events which details all of your contact with the company. It'll become very useful if you have to escalate your case to the District (aka Small Claims) Court.

k3lvc

So is this from a Porsche Main Dealer under their Approved Used scheme ? Are they saying they won't fix the oil leak or that it's not sufficient to need fixing ?

ChrisRandall25071977

No this is from a non main dealer garage, they have had the car 10 days and the issue case been confirmed by Porsche but they are not going to pay Porsche to fix it. I was told originally that they did not have the skill in house to fix it by one of the mechanics as it's an engine out job and now they are saying the are going to fix it. I don't trust them to do the job correctly, they did some work to fix the hand brake and messed that up and had to send it to Porsche!

I have a full log of all calls and emails I have send and revived and have spoke to Citizens Advice throughout the prcoess but we are not at a deadlock and my options are take back a car that I am not confident has been fixed correctly or take it to court and try and return the car under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If they admitted the daily was on the car when I got it they are bang to rights and have to refund me but they are claiming it wasn't and they are fixing it because they are nice.

So what I am trying to find out is if I go to court (will need to be county as over 10k)and pay the £1600 fees are the going to provide evidence signed by their own staff as proof that the fault was not on the car when I got it? And will that be accepted?

bris

The fact it was even mentioned in the MOT proves it was leaking. MOT testers don't mention what's not there to mention.


Oil drips are usually advisories, some just ignore them all together, but this one has mentioned it.

ChrisRandall25071977

Sorry poor reply with errors, we are at deadlock and should be fault and not daily!

Is it possible to edit a post?

ChrisRandall25071977

They are using the MOT against me as proof of no leaks as nothing on MOT. But in my mind that just means no leaks out of car from trays not proof no leak from engine as not checked.

neilmcl

It may or may not have leaked during the MOT but that doesn't matter, just because the fault didn't manifest itself during the MOT doesn't mean it wasn't there. At the end of the day the leak isn't really the issue, it's the cause of the leak that's the issue.

You should remind them that under the CRA they only have a single attempt at a repair after which you are entitled to exercise your final right to reject. How old is the car, how many miles has it done?

ChrisRandall25071977

2013 with 55k miles FSH, I have spoken to Citizens Advice and they have indicated that I can reject. But the only way to inforce is Country Court that could cost me a lot of money even more if I loose. I am looking for a solicitor to give me an opinion on the matter.

What I need to know is can they call their own staff to witness as proof in the case? Would seem wrong to me of they can.

BoGoF

Sorry if it's already been mentioned, but how did you pay for the car?