Used car faults - Over 30 days.

charlie2120

Please bear with me, I apologise this is long despite best efforts to keep it brief. I'd appreciate some opinions on whether to keep going down this rabbit hole or just find a way to cut my losses somehow. 

Due to an unfortunate accident last year I became disabled and had no alternative but to change from a manual car to an automatic.  It was an unexpected expense and my vehicle at the time had no significant trade in value, less than £500. I need a reliable vehicle to attend various medical appointments relating to my injury and just to make life easier in general. 

I purchased a replacement used car early June from an independent dealership. The car is an 60 plate, diesel with 85888 miles at purchase.  I split the purchase price across 2 credit cards as not a high enough limit on either to buy outright. Car was advertised with a 3 month warranty which from the salesman description, letter headed paperwork, and dealership advertising appeared to be provided by the AA. I was offered a 12 month warrantee for an additional cost of just shy of £1000 which I rejected.  Less than 2 months after purchase (46 days to be exact) and driving less than 800 miles at that point, I began experiencing problems with the car. The initial excuses for some of the faults made me suspect I could be in for a difficult time. 

This is a rough list of events in order.  Car purchased 11 June.

1) 26th July. EM light came on.  Also I was noticing a rumbling sound on acceleration.  Contacted dealership and was told to take it back next day to be scanned.

2) 27th July. Car scanned, told no fault found, EM light was cancelled and acceleration noise dismissed without test driving the car. Later that day EM light came back on.

3) 28th July.  Took car to local garage to be scanned again and fault found with glow plug system. Mechanic test drove car but could not suggest what the noise was only it 'wasn't right' and (mechanic speak) sounded expensive. Given it was a newly purchased car I was advised to book it into main dealer for independent inspection to find out what was causing the noise and also contact AA, who I believed held the warrantee, to alert them of the issues in case of any problems with the dealer. I immediately booked an inspection with main dealer and also tried to track down the warrantee however AA said it didn't exist on their system.  I also visited 3 more garages and an automatic transmission specialist over the course of a few days after to try and identify the noise. No one could say for sure what it could be. 

4) 27th July. Contacted dealership again about both issues. Was told to take car to their mechanic for inspection. They would text me where and when.

5) 2nd August took the car to their mechanic. He only sat in passenger seat while I drove up/down the road so he could hear the noise. He did not scan the car for the EM fault. Suggested noise could be driveshaft or possibly gearbox but not sure which or if either.  Also identified noise coming from front nearside wheel, likely to be droplink. No physical inspection was carried out. 

6) I contacted dealership to find out next steps, was advised they were waiting on their mechanic to give a date car could be taken in for inspection with view to repair.

7) 3rd August. Car taken to booked inspection with main dealer.  Same day had follow up call from dealership  to say mechanic was unable to consider inspecting the car until after 22nd August. (at least 4 weeks after faults were initially reported)  Dealer said only the drop link on nearside would be authorised to be repaired when the car was taken in. Dealer refused to discuss the glow plug issue or the rumbling sound. I did not disclose that car was with main dealer at that point.

8) Main dealer inspection found several faults including, glow plug system, shock absorbers, fuel injectors, wrong bulbs fitted and illegal tyres 100% worn. 

9) A check of the mot carried out in early Feb flagged up 3 tyres close to legal limits on inside. Car was driven over 2000 miles over 4 months between the mot and me purchasing.  Had to replace 3 tyres. 

10) The noise is now excessive when trying to accelerate to a speed higher than 50mph or when going up hill (I live in a very hilly area) and the floor vibrates. The car also doesn't always start first or even second time.

11) 9th August, I sent letter recorded delivery and emailed the dealership setting out the timeline of events, the issues with the car and offering a further 7 days for them to appoint a garage to investigate and give a date to repair. As an alternative I also offered to hand back the car for a refund less a reasonable adjustment for length of time, mileage and consequential losses. Had an email reply pretty quickly to say matter had been handed to their legal team. 

I received a response today from the dealers legal team. No repairs are being considered as they consider all the issues fair wear and tear. The response claimed the vehicle is old, is of high mileage and only needs to be fault free at the time of sale/delivery. By signing pre delivery checklist I accepted and agreed the vehicle was in satisfactory condition. The main dealer inspection report was irrelevant as I didn't purchase the car from a main dealer and I cannot expect main dealer standard of repair from an independent dealer. And finally, if I was looking for short term, maintenence free motoring then I should have purchased a new car at a new car price.  

Just to clarify a few things. I was advised to seek an inspection ASAP from a main dealer as independent evidence in case of dispute, which I did.  The inspection was to identify issues with the car, not to suggest or insist that repairs had to be carried out to main dealer standards/prices as suggested in the legal team response. I do not accept the pre delivery checklist is or should be evidence I agreed the car is in satisfactory condition as it contains items such as transaxle operation, oil filter, engine mounts, exhaust system as well as many other items your average motorist would know nothing about. Also the pre delivery checklist says that I confirm there are no 'apparent' faults, it doesn't say anything about me agreeing it was in satisfactory condition. In respect of the tyres, I accept that I could have checked the mot online but I accepted the dealerships word that the mot had no advisories. On checking, the mot said the tyres were worn on the inside where the wear was not readily visible. My disability prevents me from bending low down to have been able to check. The dealership did not give me a paper version of the mot and, stupidly as it turns out, I relied on their word there was no advisories. There was a witness present who heard them say this. 

I would appreciate opinions should I keep following the process, which now looks to be a section 75 claim with the credit card company. Is there something else I should be doing or am I best finding a way to cut my losses and getting a new vehicle.  What are my chances of success with a sect 75 that won't cause problems later ie the credit card company request the funds back. 

If I decide to go down the sect 75 route, what do I do with the car if the dealer refuses to take it back. At this point I will need to take out a loan to buy another vehicle. 

I would still accept repair on the vehicle if its done sooner rather than later and all repairs necessary were carried out not just the ones cheapest for the dealer. I think the chances of repairs being carried out are slim though. 

 If you have managed to stay awake this far I thank you, and would appreciate any advice on what my next steps should be.

Ectophile

On the tyres, as a motorist, you are responsible for checking that they are legal.  If the police catch you driving on bald tyres, you will get a fine and points on your licence.

It's definitely worth talking to the credit card companies.  Section 75 is a legal right when you buy something on credit.  If your claim is successful, then it's the credit companies that decide what to do with the vehicle.

macman

S75 will be difficult. It's easy to invoke if you order something and it doesn't arrive. But to prove the item is deficient in some respects is much more tricky.
Your best way forward is to reject it as not fit for purpose under CRA 2015. and, as the sale was less than 6m ago, the faults are presumed to be pre-existing. The dealer then has one chance to repair or replace, which he appears to have declined. After that you can ask for a refund, less wear and tear.
He can't refuse a return. You take it to the dealer, park it on the forecourt and hand them then keys and documentation, along with your letter of rejection.
However, some context needs to be added here. You bought an 11 year old end of life car with 86K on the clock, and a vehicle of that age and mileage cannot be expected to be in perfect condition, and will need ongoing work to keep it on the road.
The tyres are irrelevant to your claim, as they were legal at the point of sale.
You also failed to check the service history and MOT record (the latte rof which you could have easily checked online in the absence of a paper copy). Nor I suspect did you ask if the vehicle had any known defects?
Forget about the warranty, these insurance based ones are near worthless, as so much is excluded. They're simply a marketing device, and to add dealer profit.
For context again, what was the purchase price?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

macman said:

S75 will be difficult. It's easy to invoke if you order something and it doesn't arrive. But to prove the item is deficient in some respects is much more tricky.
Your best way forward is to reject it as not fit for purpose under CRA 2015.
For context again, what was the purchase price?

@macman

I asked this on another thread, if S75 places the same liability upon the credit provider as it does the trader then shouldn't the CRA effectively apply to a S75 claim?

MSE's guide quotes the legislation itself which says:

75. — (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

The requirements of the CRA that goods conform to certain aspects are terms that are taken to be included (i.e they form part of the contract whether stated or not) and where the goods do not meet these terms the trader is in breach of contract.

Any consumer may face challenges in demonstrating their position but it is generally easier to get very large companies to acknowledge their legal obligations than say second hand car dealers.  

If there is something I'm missing it's always great to learn but I don't see ay reason to dissuade the OP from S75? 

macman

I noted your response on another thread, and the short answer is: I don't know. But there is no reason in principle why the OP cannot commence both a claim under CRA2015 and an S75 claim in tandem?

born_again

Op can speak to both CC providers on S75, but I would not be surprised to see it rejected on the grounds of age & faults being something to expect in a car of that age & mileage. ie wear & tear.
Add in dealer has said to bring car in to fix the drop link, when mechanic can do this. 

OP be aware S75 will not be a quick solution. They can take months to be sorted out.

TBH. I'm surprised OP managed to get a main dealer to check a car at short notice. Most round here are working on bookings at least a month in advance.

charlie2120

Thanks for the replies.  I will try and answer a couple of questions.  Sorry I cant do multiple quotes, im not that techy,

In respect of the tyres, yes I was stupid to take the word of the sales person.  But 2000 miles and 4 months after the mot and before my purchase, those tyres could not possibly have been in a satisfactory or saleable condition, Given the car had had a pre delivery inspection and the tyres noted to be satisfactory im not sure how they could have gone from that to illegal in lessthan 800 miles.  The tyres were replaced immediately i became aware as I said in my OP.

I certainly didnt expect a new car quality.  I appreciate the car is 11 years old but the mileage is not high for a diesel engine of that age.  I didnt expect a number of potentially expensive repairs to surface 45 days after purchase. I didnt ask if the car had any defects, I doubt they would have been honest with me even if they knew it did. Sad to say some dealers/garages see a woman and think easy to con. the warrantee seems to have been misrepresented. The main dealer quoted the repairs at only a few hundred less than the purcahse price of the car, not unexpected for main dealer.  Smaller garages though suggested around 2k based on purely the essential work listed in the main dealer report assuming they felt it was correct in its findings.  My uderstanding is that within the first 6 months it was up to the dealer to prove the car had no defects, not me.  These issues started appearing in a month and a half after purchase. Its not like I have happily driven it around for months before noticing.  I reported faults as soon as I became aware. 

The car was actually the youngest and lowest mileage of any car I had looked at in over 4 months.  Automatic cars are always difficult to find, higher priced and currently all used cars are attracting higher prices anyway. This car was purchased for £4640.  

Initially I didnt get a quick inspection date with the main dealer, it was well over a month wait originally.  I can only assume that him (very politely) listening to me having a right whinge stuck in his mind and when a cancellation popped up he remembered me and rang to offer the slot.

I spoke to CC company today, correct me if Im wrong,  I have 2(ish) options.

Inform the dealer I wish to return the car and if no response then drive the car there and hand everything back and then either wait for sect 75 or begin small claims court.  

Or do what the CC company says which is write to them asking them to collect the car, even if they refuse or ignore. Then make the sect 75 claim.

Either way im out both car and money till its resolved.  And what happens if I return the car and the garage does something to damage it or have it towed/ticketed/speeding fines or the sect 75 fails and I dont have the car?

Could someone please clarify this section of the consumer rights act.   Section 19(15)(a) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The legal advisors for the dealership seem to be claiming that this section supports their argument that the vehicle only has to be fault free at the time of delivery.  As mention above, I thought it was 6 months.   

I appreciate any help in helping me decide what to do next and thank you to those who have taken the time to reply,