Car inspection with finance company

fred246

The car was either sold with no oil in it or with a massive leak. The judge won't have checked their oil in the last 2 months. I bet 90% of drivers haven't checked their oil in the last 2 months. Hopefully a judge would use some common sense. The sticky bit is when the judge asks when you checked it but I actually think it's irrelevant. They sold a car that isn't fit for purpose.

AdrianC

...and if Fred thinks you have a case, you KNOW it's not going to work...

Car_54

fred246 wrote: »

The car was either sold with no oil in it or with a massive leak.

With a "massive" leak, the car would have failed within a few days.


Three litres over two months is only a couple of spoonfuls (spoonsful?) a day.

waamo

fred246 wrote: »

The car was either sold with no oil in it or with a massive leak.

No possibility it developed an oil leak then?

facade

waamo wrote: »

No possibility it developed an oil leak then?

C1s Aygos 107s etc are known for burning oil like a BMW mini (or a VW):D


Around 1000 miles per litre is considered "normal".


Pity the sump capacity is only 3 litres....... :eek:


How many miles is it since the service??

fred246

Under the consumer rights acts a car should be of satisfactory quality which it isn't, it should be fit for purpose which it isn't and it should be as described. I assume it wasn't advertised as having problems. The car has failed after 30 days so the dealer should be given a chance to fix it. If they fix it, it will be bodged so I would then reject it and ask for a refund minus a tiny amount for use. If you have paid good money for a vehicle it should last more than 2 months.

Car_54

fred246 wrote: »

Under the consumer rights acts a car should be of satisfactory quality which it isn't, it should be fit for purpose which it isn't and it should be as described. I assume it wasn't advertised as having problems. The car has failed after 30 days so the dealer should be given a chance to fix it. If they fix it, it will be bodged so I would then reject it and ask for a refund minus a tiny amount for use. If you have paid good money for a vehicle it should last more than 2 months.

The CRA actually defines satisfactory quality thus: "The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory .."
A reasonable person would expect a 10-year-old car with 100k miles on the clock to use oil, and would certainly expect the buyer to carry out regular checks.

waamo

fred246 wrote: »

Under the consumer rights acts a car should be of satisfactory quality which it isn't, it should be fit for purpose which it isn't and it should be as described. I assume it wasn't advertised as having problems. The car has failed after 30 days so the dealer should be given a chance to fix it. If they fix it, it will be bodged so I would then reject it and ask for a refund minus a tiny amount for use. If you have paid good money for a vehicle it should last more than 2 months.

If the figures mentioned by facade are correct (and I see no reason why they shouldn't be) then 3k miles will see it pretty much empty of oil. That's not a huge amount in 3 months.

It may indeed have an inherent fault but lack of maintenance cannot be discounted as the cause.

angrycrow

Facade has made a good point about oil use and oil capacity. My Peugeot 207 would burn a litre of oil per 1000 miles, I did 1000 miles a month. With a sump capacity of 4.5 litres if I had not checked and topped up the oil for 4 months the engine would have gone bang. Smaller sump on the c1 could spell real issues if oil use is high.

fred246

There aren't many episodes of "can't pay we'll take it away" that don't feature them visiting a second hand car dealer who has lost in court. If I was a judge and I saw case of someone buying car that packs up in 2 months Vs dodgy second hand car dealer I would have made up my mind before I even met those involved. Even if you don't check the oil a car should last 2 months.