Used car not as described twice

GDB2222

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

The phrase was pads/discs. I would not want to be the dealer explaining to a judge that this meant one or the other, but not both. I read it as clearly implying both, although I agree that there is some ambiguity - but very little. 

In practice, the discs might cost the dealer a couple of hundred to fix. If the dealer leaves it to the op to get the work done, that cost might double or treble, but it is still not a fortune to attend court over. 

Aylesbury_Duck

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

The phrase was pads/discs. I would not want to be the dealer explaining to a judge that this meant one or the other, but not both. I read it as clearly implying both, although I agree that there is some ambiguity - but very little. 

But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written?  It's just as easy to type or write & as / .  I agree there's ambiguity but I'm not so sure about the legal test.  I think it quite reasonable for a mechanic to write pads/discs if he was going to take a look at the brakes and judge whether pads, discs or both required changing, which is what I suspect happened here. 

As you say, the cost of making OP happy is minimal, so a good dealer might just crack on and replace the discs.  Otherwise, OP could test the interpretation in court, but on the basis of what OP has provided here, I'm more confident with the garage's position than you are.

Grumpy_chap

GDB2222 said:

The phrase was pads/discs. I would not want to be the dealer explaining to a judge that this meant one or the other, but not both. I read it as clearly implying both, although I agree that there is some ambiguity - but very little. 

We disagree, but it all depends on what the "/" means.

• Does "/" mean "or"?
• Does "/" mean "and"?
• Does "/" mean "either or both"?

The exact meaning could depend upon the details of the context.

• Is the phrase "pads/discs" being used in a colloquial manner?
• If the garage has checked the braking system, then the garage should know whether it is the pads or the discs or both that need and will be changed.
• If the garage has not checked, then the phrase would seem to mean "we will check and replace as required" so what is required could be the pads or could be the discs or could be both.

It is certainly not something that would be a dead cert (either way) if argued in front of a Judge.

I have no doubt there are previous cases where the use of a "/" has been tested through court and many £££ of legal costs tied up in that discussion so I assume some precedent could be found.

Does this help?
https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/slash/

jakann86

Thanks everyone, appreciate all the input. It helps to have opinions on something like this. Yes, it's a Nissan Leaf 2016 model.  I'll speak to the dealership and see what they say. I certainly was of the understanding based on the emails that both the brake pads and discs would be replaced. 

jakann86

Forwandert said:

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?

The previous MOT had the advisory as "worn, pitted, or scored". Without a more detailed report I can't know what it was, but it could have just been worn. The current MOT did not include the break discs as an advisory but the report said they were fully worn. I spoke to the place and they told me they only put advisories for the discs on an MOT if there is corrosion. 

I don't think the garage are trying to push sales tbh. They've given me the report with quotes for all the advisories and haven't once asked about booking anything in. I've experienced far pushier garages. 

Sorry, not trying to be fragmented on info, I simply have zero knowledge of car mechanics or how things wear, or what level of opinion goes into adding advisories to MOTs. I'm just going off what I can see on the reports and what the garage told me. The garage have said they are confident the brake pads were not changed a year ago when the pads were, and the dealership told me they were changing the pads and discs when I bought it. 

Aylesbury_Duck

Good approach.  Lay all the correspondence out, and that you assumed from their communications that pads and discs would be changed, and see what they say.

Manxman_in_exile

Personally I don't think "pads/discs" means both and I don't think it's ambiguous.

"pads and discs" does mean both and is unambiguous

jakann86

Manxman_in_exile said:

Personally I don't think "pads/discs" means both and I don't think it's ambiguous.

"pads and discs" does mean both and is unambiguous

Sorry, gotta disagree here. Whilst, after reading these comments, I can see how the "pads/discs" phrase could be read in two different ways, i don't think it is fair to assume it *doesn't* mean both will be replaced. I also did go back to them asking for confirmation that the "pads and discs" were changed, which they said yes it's being sorted (posted the exact wording in a comment above). So even if there's some ambiguity in the first mention, the follow up email makes it clear I expect both changed and the garage said yes it was. Now, perhaps that's a mistake on the salesperson's part but I can only go off what I'm told during the purchase process. 

GDB2222

Aylesbury_Duck said:

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

The phrase was pads/discs. I would not want to be the dealer explaining to a judge that this meant one or the other, but not both. I read it as clearly implying both, although I agree that there is some ambiguity - but very little. 

But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written?  It's just as easy to type or write & as / .  I agree there's ambiguity but I'm not so sure about the legal test.  I think it quite reasonable for a mechanic to write pads/discs if he was going to take a look at the brakes and judge whether pads, discs or both required changing, which is what I suspect happened here. 

As you say, the cost of making OP happy is minimal, so a good dealer might just crack on and replace the discs.  Otherwise, OP could test the interpretation in court, but on the basis of what OP has provided here, I'm more confident with the garage's position than you are.

"But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written? "

It works both ways, doesn't it: if the garage meant pads or discs, that's what they would have written? 

Anyway, the OP has confirmed it was followed up by email, and the dealer said both would be changed. 

sheramber

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

GDB2222 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

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.

The phrase was pads/discs. I would not want to be the dealer explaining to a judge that this meant one or the other, but not both. I read it as clearly implying both, although I agree that there is some ambiguity - but very little. 

But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written?  It's just as easy to type or write & as / .  I agree there's ambiguity but I'm not so sure about the legal test.  I think it quite reasonable for a mechanic to write pads/discs if he was going to take a look at the brakes and judge whether pads, discs or both required changing, which is what I suspect happened here. 

As you say, the cost of making OP happy is minimal, so a good dealer might just crack on and replace the discs.  Otherwise, OP could test the interpretation in court, but on the basis of what OP has provided here, I'm more confident with the garage's position than you are.

"But surely if the garage meant pads and discs, that's what they would have written? "

It works both ways, doesn't it: if the garage meant pads or discs, that's what they would have written? 

Anyway, the OP has confirmed it was followed up by email, and the dealer said both would be changed. 

What they said  in the email was the same ambiguous phrase

we are also changing the front pads/disks.