Faulty used car from Ford main dealer

KeyboardDriver

Hello MSE forums,


Last year I bought a year-old Fiesta from a Ford Dealership. It's my first car, which is why I went to a main dealer, thinking it'd be safer. At the time of purchase, I asked whether the car had any signs of accident damage/repair and was told that it had not been in an accident. However, a few months later, the paint is bubbling up on one of the panels and Ford have rejected fixing it under warranty given that the paint thickness indicates it has been repaired.


Now that the warranty claim has been denied by Ford, I've contacted the dealership and asked them to fix the problem, given we had been told before purchase that it'd not been damaged/repaired. I know there's the 6 month right of rejection where they can charge for my usage during that time - but given I've covered about 1000 miles per month while I've had the car, I suspect I'd lose quite a bit (as well as the loss from cancelling my insurance) - plus I do like the car.



I was just wondering if anyone had any general advice or input while I'm waiting to hear back from the garage.



---


Additionally, at the time of purchase, I was told that the dealer had an offer on with an extra year warranty (bringing total warranty to 4 years). However, when I asked for some confirmation of this after purchase, I was told (in writing) that it'd be sent to me soon, and it never arrived. I went to speak to the manager at the dealership and he said that the car only had the 3 year manufacturer warranty - so I'm a little annoyed at being missold there. I don't particularly want to raise a fuss, and am not really sure if there's a way to pursue that further either.



Thanks in advance

Ms_Chocaholic

In terms of the warranty issue of 3 or 4 years, what exactly does the letter state in terms of acknowledging that the extra year's warranty would be sent to you.

I can't offer advice on the first part of your post as I don't know the answer, but hopefully someone will be along soon who can help.

KeyboardDriver

Thanks for the reply. Regarding the second question , the the warranty adverts at the dealer just only say "1 year warranty" - in terms of the direct correspondence, I asked for "confirmation of the extra years warranty that [name of dealership] provide" and got the reply "a certificate will be over to you shortly".

AdrianC

KeyboardDriver wrote: »

At the time of purchase, I asked whether the car had any signs of accident damage/repair and was told that it had not been in an accident.

That's simply not an answer they can give with any certainty - all they can really say is "Not to the best of our knowledge". And I presume you don't have that in writing?

Even ignoring that they simply cannot know what's happened to it in that year (and remember that most ~1yo used cars are ex-rental), something like a third of brand new cars have some bodywork and paint before delivery, because of damage in transport. Often, they'll have been repaired at the dockside import facility, before going anywhere near the original dealership, because of damage on the train and ship - Fiestas are built in Cologne.

Then there's the possibility that the bodywork's been done since you got the car. No, I know you know it hasn't - they don't.

I know there's the 6 month right of rejection where they can charge for my usage during that time

Not quite that simple.
Your consumer rights mean that in the first six months, a fault is presumed present at the time of sale, unless the vendor can demonstrate otherwise. After that, it's up to the consumer to prove it was.

That only applies to faults that aren't reasonable to expect in used goods of that age/price/apparent quality.

Is it unreasonable to expect zero previous bodywork repairs in a used car? Yes.

KeyboardDriver

Thanks for the reply. I can see your points in general, so thanks for the input.

That only applies to faults that aren't reasonable to expect in used goods of that age/price/apparent quality.

Is it unreasonable to expect zero previous bodywork repairs in a used car? Yes.

In this particular case, I would say that I disagree. I have absolutely no objection to bodywork repairs, scratches/dents are an unfortunate reality of life. I do have, however, objection to a faulty bodywork repair in a relatively new car. It is not the repair that's the issue, it's the paint coming off the vehicle, which stems back to an issue (a faulty repair - the paintwork workshop said incorrect paint prep) which was present with the vehicle (whether the dealer knew or not) at the time of sale. Therefore by my interpretation, this would come under your category of "a fault present at the time of sale".

Then there's the possibility that the bodywork's been done since you got the car. No, I know you know it hasn't - they don't.

(I know you're not arguing, but just to confirm, I haven't had work done on that panel since I got the vehicle.) Just to check, as you seem quite knowledgeable, given that under the 6 month right of return, the fault is presumed (and indeed, was) present at the time of sale, is your understanding here the same as mine - this would not be an issue as long as the vehicle were returned the 6 month timeframe?

AdrianC

KeyboardDriver wrote: »

That only applies to faults that aren't reasonable to expect in used goods of that age/price/apparent quality.

Is it unreasonable to expect zero previous bodywork repairs in a used car? Yes.

In this particular case, I would say that I disagree. I have absolutely no objection to bodywork repairs, scratches/dents are an unfortunate reality of life.

Then you're agreeing with me, as far as the generality goes.

You asked them if the car had had previous bodywork repair. They could not answer "no" with any degree of certainty. None was apparent at the time of sale.

I do have, however, objection to a faulty bodywork repair in a relatively new car. It is not the repair that's the issue, it's the paint coming off the vehicle, which stems back to an issue (a faulty repair

Now that's a different question... Whether the repair was faulty or not. That's not the manufacturer's issue - hence the warranty not covering it. It's the issue for whoever repaired it.

Now prove who that was.
PROVE that it was before you purchased, and not sub-standard work you've had done since purchase.

(I know you're not arguing, but just to confirm, I haven't had work done on that panel since I got the vehicle.)

PROVE it.
They can prove the visible manifestation of the issue was not present at the time of sale.

given that under the 6 month right of return, the fault is presumed (and indeed, was) present at the time of sale, is your understanding here the same as mine - this would not be an issue as long as the vehicle were returned the 6 month timeframe?

There is no "six month right of return". Six months merely moves the balance of proof of whether the issue was present at the time of sale.

You only have an absolute right of return for 30 days. After that time, they have the right of repair.

DoaM

How does one prove that something has NOT been done? (i.e. prove a negative). How can the OP prove that they haven't had any works done to the paintwork? (If this went to court then it would be judged on the balance of probabilities - whose story the judge believed was more likely than not - I think the judge would side with the OP on this one To your point about the dealer not being able to say for certain - it doesn't matter, they're the expert so they're supposed to know - that's what the law determines).

@OP - did the Ford inspection give any indication of when the previous (poor) repair was done? (i.e. could they determine whether it was before or after you bought the vehicle)? This would be the nearest you could get to proof. It would also mean that you have the proof to insist that the seller provides a remedy (repair, replace, refund - partial to account for time of ownership).

AdrianC

DoaM wrote: »

How does one prove that something has NOT been done? (i.e. prove a negative). How can the OP prove that they haven't had any works done to the paintwork? (If this went to court then it would be judged on the balance of probabilities

Exactly my point.

If the supplying dealer doesn't agree, then getting any legal restitution is going to be a good chunk of time, effort and blood pressure.