Car developed issues after 1 week, dealer wont take car back

sweetsand

Hi

Start from here as the suspension could have been good and you damaged it via pot hole/etc therefore a contencious issue.

So start here: Mot 2 months ago - what was the mileage on the car then? Compare it with mileage now and the "95% worn" though I don't know a lot about MOT's that would have been a fail or at the very, very least an advsiory.
you can easily check the mot history on line, the mileages and any fails, advisories.  Take it from there and if they have lied about that then build up your case.

Btw, the garge you took it to, how do you know they are not pulling a fast one as years ago and a couple of times we were told by a garge we had not used in the past the pads needed to be replace as well as discs and they did not even remove the tyres it was a fast fit place one we had not been to before and theri for a puncture repair. We took the car to main dealer and ther was 70% left on the brakes and discs did not need doing - so you may want a second opinion a free one from a fast fit place

Good luck

sweetsand

MinuteNoodles said:

amu2012 said:

 Also it's illegal to sell car which isnt roadworthy,  the 95% worn brake pads is this a breach?  I've said according to consumer act 2015 I want a refund but they're refusing. 

It isn't automatically unroadworthy. Suspension noises do not make it automatically unroadworthy, brake pads being worn 95% which means nothing don't make it roadworthy. What matters is the actual thickness of the brake pads in millimeters, not some mechanic's guesstimation of the percentage of wear. My local main dealers tried the "rear pads are worn X%" on me to try to make me pay them to put some in. I asked them what the actual thickness was, they replied 3mm to which my response was that's plenty and what you'd normally advise that they get replaced before the next service. Given the journeys I do that 3mm lasted TWO YEARS before they got replaced at which point they still had just under a couple of millimeters left, plenty for the rear pads that basically do very little other than when working as a handbrake. 

good post.

AdrianC

sweetsand said:

So start here: Mot 2 months ago - what was the mileage on the car then? Compare it with mileage now and the "95% worn" though I don't know a lot about MOT's that would have been a fail or at the very, very least an advsiory.
you can easily check the mot history on line, the mileages and any fails, advisories.

Nope.

Pad thickness is only testable if it can be measured without removing the wheels.

B'sides, "95% worn" is meaningless without more info. Is that 95% of the total pad material on a new pad? Or 95% to the minimum recommended thickness?

And why on earth wouldn't a potential buyer look at the test history pre-purchase, anyway? At the very least, the current certificate...?

MalMonroe

amu2012 said:

Hello, need some advice please, bought a merc2015 c class 49k miles from a dealership in london, I travelled 150miles to purchase it. It had service history and Mot 2 months ago and did a short test drive. All seemed fine, but 6days later so around 200 miles in (150mile journey to bring the car) it developed a loud squeak, dealer said to take it to local garage, cost us 100 for diagnosis, turns out suspension, steering issues and rear brake pads were 95% worn. Costs are upto £1200 I bought warranty at £300 but have requested to cancel it. They wont do repair or refund. Said I test drove it and wasn't there at the time. They advertised it as 'excellent condition ' so I feel cheated. Also it's illegal to sell car which isnt roadworthy,  the 95% worn brake pads is this a breach?  I've said according to consumer act 2015 I want a refund but they're refusing. 

How did you pay for it? If credit card, you can claim the money back from your credit card company under Section 75.

When did you buy it? It's better if you try to get a refund within 30 days but after that all is not lost.

However, I would NOT have taken it to the local garage and thrown even more money at this vehicle, I'd have insisted the dealer did something. It's the dealer's responsibility.  When you buy a car, it has to be fit for the purpose, i.e. it has to be roadworthy and you should be able to drive it. You are right, the Consumer Act 2015 applies in this case. 

A few years ago I bought a car from a mechanic who ran his own garage, so not even a dealer. It was only £1,000 but it fell apart more or less as soon as I drove it away. He did not want to take it back (that would have been so simple) or give me my money back so I reclaimed it from the credit card company (thank goodness I used my cc) under Section 75. It took a while as it was more complicated because that person wasn't a proper dealer but I'd have thought with a proper dealer, it'd be fairly straightforward.

In any case, info on this link may help : https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights

Citizens Advice can also help.
I hate being ripped off with cars!!

sweetsand

AdrianC said:

sweetsand said:

So start here: Mot 2 months ago - what was the mileage on the car then? Compare it with mileage now and the "95% worn" though I don't know a lot about MOT's that would have been a fail or at the very, very least an advsiory.
you can easily check the mot history on line, the mileages and any fails, advisories.

Nope.

Pad thickness is only testable if it can be measured without removing the wheels.

B'sides, "95% worn" is meaningless without more info. Is that 95% of the total pad material on a new pad? Or 95% to the minimum recommended thickness?

And why on earth wouldn't a potential buyer look at the test history pre-purchase, anyway? At the very least, the current certificate...?

Exactly what I said - when/if they faily a car on it's brakes, they will tell you the thickness and that is a fact and if it is an advisoriry the fact remains they will tell you. Therefore if there were not advisoris,  there must have been quiet a bit of meat left on the brakes, therefore I for one would have asked for a second opinion, ie by way of free check and they often call you to the car the good ones to show you.

shaun_from_Africa

MalMonroe said:

How did you pay for it? If credit card, you can claim the money back from your credit card company under Section 75.

Section 75 of the CCA doesn't automatically mean that a consumer is entitled to a refund.
They still have to prove a breach of contract before the credit supplier has any liability and a few squeaks and worn brakes on a 5 year old car don't make it Unroadworthy.