Used car not as described twice

Aylesbury_Duck

I think the  /  in pads/discs is relevant here.  Seems to me that they changed the pads and not the discs, which doesn't contravene what they said they'd do.  I take 'pads/discs' to mean either or both, not both.  If they meant both, surely they'd have written "pads & discs".

jakann86

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I think the  /  in pads/discs is relevant here.  Seems to me that they changed the pads and not the discs, which doesn't contravene what they said they'd do.  I take 'pads/discs' to mean either or both, not both.  If they meant both, surely they'd have written "pads & discs".

The MOT they did at the dealership gave the following advisory (as well as the front tyres advisory): Front Brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened inner face (1.1.14 (a) (ii)). They changed the parts following the MOT so they were aware the discs needed changing. 

jakann86

I asked this

Can I check both front tyres have been replaced as that's not listed on the internal invoice you sent? I assume the front brake pads and discs (as you previously mentioned), and the wiper blades are replaced too as they're listed on that internal invoice?

And got the response of this

The invoice I sent was just to show that the car had been serviced in 2020 as it wasn't on the other print out so the wiper blades will have been replaced and the tyres/brakes are on a current invoice and they have been started and will be finished off in the morning so all good.

tightauldgit

So in theory at least if the car is not as described then you should be able to at least return it for a repair and get the discs replaced. I don't think you'd be entitled to a refund unless they can't replace the discs. Whether its worth the hassle of the fight I don't know.

You could have rejected it for the charging difference at the time but since you accepted a partial refund that issue is closed.  

Forwandert

jakann86 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

How can a car pass an MOT if its disks are shot? EVs can suffer from rusty disks because they make use extensive regen breaking and this seems a particular issue on low mileage EV that are driven gently.

No idea honestly. All I know is they weren't an MOT advisory because they had no corrosion but they also did some checks on the car and a report which states the brake discs are below manufacturer minimum requirements and marks them as 0% (needs replacing). 

Can you just clarify

It's a little fragmented on the information.

The previous MOT when you went to purchase the car had the discs down as pitted and scored as an advisory?

The current MOT (You just did) doesn't have the discs as an advisory at all, no mention of pitting etc? just a separate check describing them as need replacing?


Pitting and scoring doesn't go away unless discs are replaced, No ones polishing them to get rid of the damage as you mentioned previously, discs aren't a huge task or even that expensive.

Are you certain the garage who MOT'd aren't trying to push additional sales?

Aylesbury_Duck

jakann86 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I think the  /  in pads/discs is relevant here.  Seems to me that they changed the pads and not the discs, which doesn't contravene what they said they'd do.  I take 'pads/discs' to mean either or both, not both.  If they meant both, surely they'd have written "pads & discs".

The MOT they did at the dealership gave the following advisory (as well as the front tyres advisory): Front Brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened inner face (1.1.14 (a) (ii)). They changed the parts following the MOT so they were aware the discs needed changing. 

Their argument will perhaps be that it's one disc that was not yet an MOT problem, which is why they didn't change the discs.  

All you can do is go back to them, present the correspondence and ask why they didn't change the discs as you'd assumed they would.

GDB2222

Grumpy_chap said:

jakann86 said:

Simply that they will be changing the front brake pads/discs. They did the pads but not the discs. Potentially it looks like they polished them to remove corrosion but didn't replace. Can't prove that though. 

jakann86 said:

I have in writing that they will be changing the brake pads/discs before I receive it. 

What exactly did you have in writing in this regard?

Did they write, as you have, "we will replace the brake pads / discs"?
That could be interpreted in expanded form as "we will check the braking system and replace the brake pads and / or discs as required to ensure that the car is roadworthy at the point of sale".  The Dealer could then consider they did the inspection and only the pads required changing so that is what they did.

OR, did the Dealer write something that more specifically said they will replace the brake pads AND the discs? 

I disagree. The dealer agreed to change both the pads and the discs. If they were only going to inspect the discs, they should have said so. 

I would be asking them to rectify that. If they refuse, I would get the repair done ASAP as it’s a safety issue, and then think about suing them for the cost. 

Aylesbury_Duck

GDB2222 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

jakann86 said:

Simply that they will be changing the front brake pads/discs. They did the pads but not the discs. Potentially it looks like they polished them to remove corrosion but didn't replace. Can't prove that though. 

jakann86 said:

I have in writing that they will be changing the brake pads/discs before I receive it. 

What exactly did you have in writing in this regard?

Did they write, as you have, "we will replace the brake pads / discs"?
That could be interpreted in expanded form as "we will check the braking system and replace the brake pads and / or discs as required to ensure that the car is roadworthy at the point of sale".  The Dealer could then consider they did the inspection and only the pads required changing so that is what they did.

OR, did the Dealer write something that more specifically said they will replace the brake pads AND the discs? 

I disagree. The dealer agreed to change both the pads and the discs. If they were only going to inspect the discs, they should have said so. 

I would be asking them to rectify that. If they refuse, I would get the repair done ASAP as it’s a safety issue, and then think about suing them for the cost. 

I'm not convinced they did because we've seen nothing so far that says so.  I agree that they may have implied they would, and that OP certainly inferred they would, but from what OP has provided, technically they were going to replace pads and/or discs, not necessarily both.

born_again

jakann86 said: that the advertised 6kwh charging speed was incorrect and it was only 3kwh. I complained to the dealer who was adamant the price paid matched the 3kwh version and it was just mistaken communication and offered me a small partial refund (£350ish) 

Curious to just which electric car this is, given mention of only 3kW A/C charging.

powerful_Rogue

born_again said:

jakann86 said: that the advertised 6kwh charging speed was incorrect and it was only 3kwh. I complained to the dealer who was adamant the price paid matched the 3kwh version and it was just mistaken communication and offered me a small partial refund (£350ish) 

Curious to just which electric car this is, given mention of only 3kW A/C charging.

I'm guessing a Nissan Leaf. The pre 2018 models were default 3.3kW. Some had a different inverter allowing 6.6kW.