|
I've been doing at least 30-40mins a week on the M62 @ 3000+RPM. Not sure if this is enough or not, but I was advised that it should be.
|
|
Looks like these are pre existing conditions. There’s obviously problems with the dpf control and regen systems where excess fuel has been dumped into the cylinders . Low oil pressure and leaks are not good news . Sorry to say I think you’ve bought a dud . Don’t spend any money on it . Dealer needs to have it back as not fit for purpose.
|
|
I think the fact that there was about 2 litres of diesel in the oil tank was pretty worrying as well tbh!
|
|
Facts is you cannot force a regen by driving at highish revs on a motorway. A regen will only take place when the ECU decides that one is necessary and that will either be by soot load or time since the last regen. All you have been doing is add more soot by driving at high revs and waste quite a bit of fuel. All the DPF diesels we have had require you to drive at between 1600 and 2000 rpm for about 20 minutes once a regen starts. We soon discovered that by driving on the motorway at 70 mph (2200 rpm in 6th) the regen took longer than by driving at 2000 rpm (or just below that). If the revs are too high the gas speed will be too high and the DPF will not reach the 600 degrees required.
But the simple fact is you have bought an old DPF equipped diesel. You have no idea why the previous owners sold it, I would guess because of the continuing DPF issues. In almost 10 years its probably done enough regens to reach the max ash loading and no amount of regens will remove that, a new DPF would be only cure.
DPF's have a finite life even when used in appropriate conditions, how was the car used before you bought it? bet you have no idea.
|
|
"DPF's have a finite life even when used in appropriate conditions, how was the car used before you bought it? bet you have no idea".
x2 previous owners and good MOT and service history, but you're right in that I have no idea how it was driven / treated before I owned it.
The issue with the current DPF full warning is that I had the DPF regen'd and cleaned by a garage about a month ago....I rang them today as they have the diagnostic results still on record and it was reporting as less than 20% full after they had finished with it. It's now reporting as full again. They think that the oil leaking into the turbo is probably a big contributing factor.
|
The issue with the current DPF full warning is that I had the DPF regen'd and cleaned by a garage about a month ago....
Cleaning DPF's is mostly a rip off. The kit needed is costly and it's very time consuming. Worthwhile on expensive plant vehicles but not on cars. Most cleaners simply jet wash the matrix which does nothing.
|
|
I've investigated the dealership a bit more....seems like a proper dodgy operation. They've existing at the same premises with the same owners / staff for years but have changed their name several times. They've been reported to Trading Standards, being sued multiple times, taken to court for selling cars in a dangerous condition, fudging the MOT etc.
Apparently their main mode of operation is they buy used cars at auction and use their own garage to get them going again and sell them on as in "good condition". When the car inevitably goes wrong they just deny it's anything to do with them, offer temporary repairs at best or just refuse to speak to you.
Looks like it'll be smalls claim court tbh...
|
|
Yes, but they will.just collapse whatever company you bought it from and start again when you win.
|
Yes, but they will.just collapse whatever company you bought it from and start again when you win.
Indeed. They will carry on and you will likely be even more out of pocket.
Might be better to sell it at auction yourself just to see the back of it.
|
|
I don't know if they'd collapse the whole company just because of one forced refund. They currently have between 60-80 cars for sale and about 12 staff...I would guess that at some point in court cases, bad press etc get too much and they wind the company down. Looking at the last 2 they ran, they lasted about 3 years. The current one has been going for about 12 to 18 months
|
|
Well I took the car back this morning, tried to have a discussion with them about it and handed them a letter explaining the issues and what I wanted. Their response was basically "it's more than 28 days so tough s***".
|
Well I took the car back this morning, tried to have a discussion with them about it and handed them a letter explaining the issues and what I wanted. Their response was basically "it's more than 28 days so tough s***".
If you have had the car between for up to 6 months you are covered by the provisions fo the Consumer Rights Act. You don't have to prove a thing, its assumed the fault was present at purchase. You should note that between 28 days and 6 months the dealer has the right to charge you for use of the vehicle if they agree to refund you.
After 6 months you would have to prove the fault was present when you purchased it, that would need expert witnesses and could cost more than the car is worth.
You need legal advice now, do not delay.
Or do as I said above, sell it at auction and put it down to experience.
|
|
I actually managed to speak to the manager of the dealership and told him they were given me no choice but to go down the legal route. He said he'd look into it and get back to me in 24-48 hours. Still not exactly hopeful of a good outcome but at least they acknowledged the problem this time.
I take your point about seeking legal advice ASAP, I think this is still the most likely outcome at this stage...
|
If you have had the car between for up to 6 months you are covered by the provisions fo the Consumer Rights Act. You don't have to prove a thing, its assumed the fault was present at purchase.
That's not quite how it works - up to 6 months it's up to the seller to prove the fault didn't exist at time of purchase - there's no assuptions in Consumer Rights Act.
|
If you have had the car between for up to 6 months you are covered by the provisions fo the Consumer Rights Act. You don't have to prove a thing, its assumed the fault was present at purchase.
That's not quite how it works - up to 6 months it's up to the seller to prove the fault didn't exist at time of purchase - there's no assuptions in Consumer Rights Act.
But the buyer does not have to prove a thing, that is the important part, the rest is unimportant.
|
|
For anyone who's interested, this is the letter than I personally handed to the manager today:
Re: Return of car purchased 11th November 2022 due to re-occurring major fault.
I purchased a Vauxhall Astra 2.0 Diesel (registration number xxxxxx) from yourselves on the 11th November 2022. Within two weeks of that purchase a number of issues presented themselves, including: the engine performance deteriorated; white smoke started coming out of the exhaust, and there was a strong noticeable burning smell. On 6th December 2022 the “DPF Full – Keep Driving” warning light came on whilst I was on a dual carriageway close to home. I kept driving as instructed but within a few more minutes the engine overheated and the car stalled. I called out the AA with the final outcome of this being the car needed towing back to your premises in deleted.
The car was in your garage for about a week whilst the DPF was investigated. On the car being returned to me, it drove fine for about another two weeks until again it started to suffer from the same issues as before (poor engine performance, smoke from the exhaust and a strong burning smell). In early January 2023 the DPF warning light came back on. Despite continuing to drive for a while to try and clear the fault (constant speed on a motorway / dual carriageway) the fault did not clear and still persists.
I have lost all faith with the vehicle and reasonably believe that the car has a major fault that was present at the time of purchase, and therefore the car is not fit for purpose. As such, in line with my consumer rights, I am requesting to return the car and obtain a refund. I paid £3,895 for the car and would like this amount refunded (minus some reasonable amount to account for the mileage I have done which is currently less than 1,000 miles).
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if a fault develops within the first 6 months, the dealer can attempt to fix the fault one time. If the fault appears again the buyer is entitled to a full or partial refund. As this is the second time the same fault has occurred (and the first time was within one month of purchase so arguably still within the 30 day “right to reject” period) then I am within my rights to obtain a refund on the car.
I look forward to hearing from you and to resolving this matter quickly without undue complication.
Robert Smith
Edited by Xileno on 17/01/2023 at 18:27
|
|
***I got a reply from their lawyer! I need to go through this point by point as a lot of what they told their solicitor is either half-truths or complete lies, but the original letter (via email) is below. Any thoughts / comments would be appreciated.
Dear Mr Smith
Our Client: *removed*
Re: *car reg*
We write on behalf of our client and in response to your recent communication dated
16 January 2023 regarding your purchase of the above vehicle.
We understand that on 11 November 2022 you purchased the above vehicle.
Having performed appropriate pre-sale checks, including MOT dated 20 September
2022 which passed with no noted advisories and pre-delivery inspection, our client is
confident the vehicle at the point of sale fully conformed to the contract and the
quality statutory requirements, pursuant to S19(15)(a) CRA 2015.
Needless to say, the satisfactory quality of a used vehicle is to be viewed
commensurate with the vehicle age, mileage and price. It is only to be expected that
a second-hand car may develop defects sooner or later, as established by the courts.
We are advised the vehicle was recovered to our clients premises by the AA in early
December 2022. The vehicle arrived in limp mode. Due to the busy Christmas period,
the vehicle remained in our clients possession for one week.
Our client sought to clear the fault code using diagnostics equipment, no parts, and
minimal labour. Further, our client conducted a road test and travelled on the
motorway where the limp mode was cleared. It is not accepted a repair took place on
this occasion, merely, as a gesture of goodwill, the removal of a fault code.
Our client then advised you to travel on the motorway and long distances as is the
appropriate mode of travel for diesel vehicles. Yet, you stated you do not travel long
distances.
We are further advised, you stated to our client that you should have purchased a
petrol vehicle because you do not travel long distances.
The most likely cause of failure of a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) is driving style. DPF
regenerations can only occur when certain conditions are met such as speed, RPM and
engine temperature. It is likely that your use of the vehicle is not conducive to DPF
regeneration. There was no issue with the DPF at the point of purchase and an issue
has arisen likely due to your driving style which has resulted in a malfunction.
It would appear that your operation of the vehicle is in contravention of the operating
instructions as the DPF appears to have incurred issues during your ownership. In
these circumstances, our client clearly has no liability to provide you with a refund for
the vehicle.
The DPF is a serviceable item, subject to wear and tear and our client assisted you as
a matter of customer service and not out of any legal liability.
Moreover, as a matter of law, our client cannot be liable for serviceable parts subject
to ordinary wear and tear commensurate with the age, value, mileage, condition and
usage of the vehicle, in any event.
Taking all of the above into consideration, our client has no legal liability to provide a
refund and or continue to provide on-going long-term maintenance for the vehicle.
We trust the above clarifies our clients position.
Yours sincerely
Ltd
Edited by Xileno on 08/03/2023 at 07:57
|
|
This company xxxx specialise in motor trade businesses to assist dealers to try and wriggle out of their commitments. I think you have a good case for a refund as vehicle is not fit for purpose. Time to call on the small claims service . I like the comment about you should have bought a petrol van . Try and find one .
Edited by Xileno on 08/03/2023 at 07:58
|
We are advised the vehicle was recovered to our clients premises by the AA in early December 2022. The vehicle arrived in limp mode. Due to the busy Christmas period, the vehicle remained in our clients possession for one week. Our client sought to clear the fault code using diagnostics equipment, no parts, and minimal labour. Further, our client conducted a road test and travelled on the motorway where the limp mode was cleared. It is not accepted a repair took place on this occasion, merely, as a gesture of goodwill, the removal of a fault code.
Love this comment. So they cleared the fault code but don't accept a repair took place.
Suppose since the light came back they are right in one way.
Time to call on the small claims service.
Forget Consumer Advice, get a free interview with a specialist motoring solicitor to get a feel from an expert before going the small claims route.
|
|
"Love this comment. So they cleared the fault code but don't accept a repair took place"
Yes I thought this was great, it actually made me LOL for real.
So this is what ACTUALLY happened the first time it broke down. On 6th Dec the "DPF Full - Keep driving" warning light came on. (Important to note - this is about TWO WEEKS since I drove the car from Leeds to Milton Keynes and back (300 mile round trip, lots of miles on the M1) so this should have been enough to keep the DPF in good condition). So the DPF warning light comes on and I take the car onto Stanningly Bypass in Leeds, doing a steady 50-60mph and keeping the revs at about 3000rpm in order to try and clear the fault. About 20mins into this journey the engine overheats and starts to run like a bag of spanners. Now the "engine overheating - stop driving!" warning light is on.
I pulled over in a nearby garage, the AA attend the scene. At this point the car does actually start but it's knocking so badly the mechanic instantly turns the engine off out of fear of doing more damage to it. The AA tow the car back to the dealership for me.
I ring them the next morning to explain what happened and get a lift to the dealer with my dad. Their mechanic tries to start the car - it won't even start at this point. I leave the keys with them and hand them a copy of the AA report. It takes them about a week to "fix" the car and return it to me, at which point it runs okay again for about another two weeks before having the same DPF issues AGAIN.
So what they are claiming at this point is that, despite the AA breakdown report and despite the fact the car wouldn't start the next day, some "miracle" occurred over night and the car was fixed! It just need the fault light clearing, no work was done, no repair was done.
If only we all knew that fixing a mechanical fault was simply a case of clearing the fault light, we could all save ourselves a fortune!!!! :D :D :D
|
|
""Love this comment. So they cleared the fault code but don't accept a repair took place"
Just been chatting to a friend of mine who works in commercial law...his advice is to say that if I'd known they'd not actually done any work on the car (not actually fixed it) and just switched the fault light off, I would have asked for a full refund under the "30 day return no questions asked" clause of the CRA. So by NOT telling me that they'd not actually done any repair work, I have been misled and given a false impression about the condition of the car.
|
|
"Forget Consumer Advice, get a free interview with a specialist motoring solicitor to get a feel from an expert before going the small claims route."
Do you know of any that you can recommend? Thanks :)
|
|
Hello again, I'm writing my reply to the solicitors letter and could do with some advice on this section. I'm replying to this paragraph:
1) Having performed appropriate pre-sale checks, including MOT dated 20 September 2022 which passed with no noted advisories and pre-delivery inspection, our client is confident the vehicle at the point of sale fully conformed to the contract and the quality statutory requirements, pursuant to S19(15)(a) CRA 2015.
My reply so far:
This is a moot point as all vehicles have to have a valid MOT at the point of sale. Although numerous checks are carried out during an MOT, they are not comprehensive and much of a cars mechanical / electrical systems are not tested or diagnosed. For a specific vehicle, faults may exist that are not found during an MOT and the car can still pass. Indeed, faults may be found and the vehicle may still pass regardless, depending on the criteria of the MOT. It is entirely possible the Diesel Particle Filter (DPF) fault was present at the time of the MOT and was not detected or did not prevent the car from passing the MOT test.
Unfortunately I don't know what tests are done during the MOT that would be able to detect a faulty DPF, or if it's even tested for. I know there are emissions tests but would these indicate a faulty DPF? I don't think it's much of an argument, that the car passed the MOT so therefore it cannot have developed a fault two months later, but they seem to be relying on it (they don't have much else tbh).
|
|
Firstly, you need to stop fannying around writing letters and either get a a solicitor involved or put a claim into the courts.
Secondly, don't focus on the DPF. Ask your garage to provide a written statement of what they found, most notably two litres or diesel in the sump. That cannot be argued.to be a service item or linked to driving style.
|
|
Okay so here's my rebuttal of their points. It's quite long but some of you might find it interesting. Comments / thoughts welcome.
Dr. Robert Smith
07402 xx xxxx
my_email@gmail.com
22th January 2023
To: Ltd
Your Ref: JO/ym/xx-xxxx
To whomever it may concern,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter (via email) regarding my purchase of a 2013 Vauxhall Astra (reg xxx xxx) from Scam Motors in, on 11th November 2023. As stated in my initial letter, a copy of which I personally handed to the acting managing of Scam Motors on 16th January 2023, I am seeking a refund on the car due to the development of a serious fault within 26 days of purchase. I believe the fault was there at the time of purchase and Scam Motors have attempted one fix, however the car developed the same fault again in early January 2023 and is essentially undrivable in its current state.
In reply to your letter dated 20th January 2023, I have taken each point / paragraph and numbered them for reference, and then replied to each one in turn stating my counterarguments and evidence.
1) Having performed appropriate pre-sale checks, including MOT dated 20 September 2022 which passed with no noted advisories and pre-delivery inspection, our client is confident the vehicle at the point of sale fully conformed to the contract and the quality statutory requirements, pursuant to S19(15)(a) CRA 2015.
This is a moot point as all vehicles have a valid MOT at the point of sale. Although numerous checks are carried out during an MOT, they are not comprehensive and much of a cars mechanical / electrical systems are not tested or diagnosed. With regards to the DPF and current requirements, the MOT inspection manual: cars and passenger vehicles manual (www.gov.uk) states in section 8.2.2.1 Exhaust emission control equipment that:
“You only need to check components that are visible and identifiable, such as diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, exhaust gas recirculation valves and selective catalytic reduction valves”.
This is therefore a visual inspection only in order to check that the DPF is present and unmodified, there is no requirement to check if the DPF is functioning correctly.
2) Needless to say, the satisfactory quality of a used vehicle is to be viewed commensurate with the vehicle age, mileage and price. It is only to be expected that a second-hand car may develop defects sooner or later, as established by the courts.
Clearly I was not expected a used car to be in the same condition as a brand new car – the purchase was made with the knowledge that there would be some allowance for vehicle age, mileage and price. However, is it reasonable for a used car that costs approx. £4000 to develop a serious fault within 26 days of purchase? I have been in contact with a Vauxhall dealer (Evans Halshaw in Leeds) to enquire about the cost of replacing the DPF. I was given a figure of £900 to run the relevant diagnostics, and a further £1800-2000 to purchase and fit a new part. No reasonable person would accept buying a car that breaks down within 26 days of purchase due to a serious fault with an estimated repair cost nearly equal in value to the actual car.
The car is covered under the Consumer Rights Act (2015). Quoting from the Motor Ombudsman website (themotorombudsman.org):
“when you buy the vehicle, it has to be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described”.
“Within the first 30 days, if there’s a problem that means your car doesn’t meet these standards, it develops a serious fault or you find that it isn’t what was advertised to you, you can raise this with the seller and ask for your money back. In this instance, you will be entitled to a full refund.
If you report the problem outside of the first 30 days, you have to give the selling dealership or garage one opportunity to repair or replace your car, with repair normally being the best option.”
The initial fault occurred on 6th December 2023 which is 26 days after the purchase date. As the fault was reported during the first 30 day period, and is still present despite your clients attempt to fix it, I am within my rights to a full refund on the car.
Further to this, your clients stated policy is to take responsibility for issues that occur within 28 days of purchase or 1000 miles of travel. At the time the fault occurred, neither of these criteria had been passed (the car had done 500 miles, as per the AA breakdown report). Therefore, by not taking responsibility for the car, your client is also in breach of their own policy obligations.
3) We are advised the vehicle was recovered to our clients premises by the AA in early December 2022. The vehicle arrived in limp mode. Due to the busy Christmas period, the vehicle remained in our clients possession for one week.
Elements of this statement are factually untrue. On 6th Dec 2023 I was driving the car when the “DPF full – keep driving” warning light came on. I immediately took the car onto Stanningley Bypass in Leeds and started to drive the car at a consistent 50-60mph between 2500-3000 RPM, as per the recommended procedure and with the intention of driving the car until the fault light cleared.
About 20 minutes into the drive, the warning “Engine overheating – stop driving!” appeared on the dashboard. The engine temperature gauge jumped from 90 degrees C to the maximum value and the engine stalled. I was close enough to a local garage to use the cars momentum to coast to a stop in the garage forecourt. I immediately called the AA who attended site within approx. 2 hours. The engineer was able to start the engine but it was subject to a large amount of knocking and so the engineer immediately turned the engine off for fear of causing damage.
The car was towed by the AA back the your clients dealership in and dropped off immediately outside of their premises. We arrived approx. 10pm so the dealership was closed. Early next morning I rang the dealership, explained what happened and was driven back to the dealership by my father, whereupon we were met by one of your clients employees who attempted to start the car but the engine would not turn over. At this point we were told verbally by your clients employee that the fault was DPF related and that they would need to run a “regen” (regeneration) on it.
Your clients version of events where “the vehicle arrived in limp mode” is factually incorrect as the car was towed back by the AA and was non-functional the next morning, which is the first time your client was able to try and start the car. My father was present at the time and is prepared to provide a witness statement to this effect. As a side note, my father is a retired mechanic with 40+ years experience in the trade and still regularly repairs cars as a serious hobby, so he is well positioned to understand whether or not the car was able to be started.
4) Our client sought to clear the fault code using diagnostics equipment, no parts, and minimal labour. Further, our client conducted a road test and travelled on the motorway where the limp mode was cleared. It is not accepted a repair took place on this occasion, merely, as a gesture of goodwill, the removal of a fault code.
There are several issues with this statement:
I) The car had clearly developed a serious fault, having overheated on the road, stalled, then suffered severe engine knocking and then not starting at all the next day. To claim that all these of issues were remedied by simply “clearing the fault code” and that no repair was undertaken is highly unlikely.
II) Your client claims that the car was taken on the motorway and the limp mode was cleared. As explained earlier, the car was towed to the dealership and could not be started, it was not in limp mode. Even if this were true, simply clearing the fault code would not resolve the issue as the underlying fault would still be there and the engine management system would not allow the car to be taken out of limp mode. (NEED TO CHECK THIS)
III) Finally, if your clients version of events were true and they carried out no repairs on the car, they did not inform me of this and therefore misled me with regards to the level of work they had (or had not) carried out and the subsequent condition of the car. Given the seriousness of the fault (as per the AA breakdown report, as per the car not starting the next day), if I had known that no repair had been attempted, I would have immediately asked for a full refund as is my right within 30 days of purchasing the vehicle. The fact that I was not informed of what work was done (or not done) means that critical information was deliberately withheld from me and I was unable to make an informed decision within the 30 day time frame.
5) Our client then advised you to travel on the motorway and long distances as is the appropriate mode of travel for diesel vehicles. Yet, you stated you do not travel long distances. We are further advised, you stated to our client that you should have purchased a petrol vehicle because you do not travel long distances.
The above is in relation to a telephone conversation I had with your client early January 2023 and has been taken out of context. Specific points that need addressing are:
I) I have driven diesel cars before and am well aware of the need to drive them in such as way as to maintain the health of the DPF. To this end, I have been driving the car in a manner commensurate with maintaining good DPF health, providing that the DPF and car in general are in good working order to start with (more details will be provided later in this document).
II) It is not true that I stated I do not travel long distances, what was actually stated is that I do not frequently travel long distances (as in, not daily). One of the primary reasons for buying the car is that my partner lives near Milton Keynes and she cannot travel to see me due to the recent death of her father (she is currently providing much needed emotional support to her mother). Therefore I bought the car with the intention of travelling to see her at least once every two weeks, staying a few days to one week and then travelling back again. The distance from Leeds to Milton Keynes is approximately 150 miles, a large part of which is on the M1. A round trip of approx. 300 miles every two weeks, largely on the motorway, is sufficient to maintain the health of a DPF unit, providing that the car is in good general condition to begin with. I have spoken with my partner and her family and they are willing provide written statements to the fact of her fathers recent death and my intention to use the car to visit her regularly.
III) The reason I stated that with hindsight I should have bought a petrol car was not because of my “driving style”, it was in relation to my frustration with this particular car which, given the problems that have occurred, should be understandable.
6) The most likely cause of failure of a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) is driving style. DPF regenerations can only occur when certain conditions are met such as speed, RPM and engine temperature. It is likely that your use of the vehicle is not conducive to DPF regeneration. There was no issue with the DPF at the point of purchase and an issue has arisen likely due to your driving style which has resulted in a malfunction. It would appear that your operation of the vehicle is in contravention of the operating instructions as the DPF appears to have incurred issues during your ownership. In these circumstances, our client clearly has no liability to provide you with a refund for the vehicle. It would appear that your operation of the vehicle is in contravention of the operating instructions as the DPF appears to have incurred issues during your ownership. In these circumstances, our client clearly has no liability to provide you with a refund for the vehicle.
The claim that my “driving style” is the root cause of the DPF fault requires investigation. In regards to the initial failure of the car (6th December 2022), the car had travelled 87100 miles (see AA breakdown report) whilst at the time or purchase it had done 86600 miles, meaning that the initial fault occurred after only 500 miles of driving. The day after purchasing the vehicle (Saturday 12th November 2022) was the first time I travelled to Milton Keynes to visit my partner. I travelled back to Leeds the following week. This is a round trip of approx. 300 miles with long distances of motorway travel, during good weather and no traffic issues to speak of. The car was therefore doing motorway speeds for the majority of the time (60-70mph).
I have spoken to my housemates, my partner and my partners family and they have all stated they are willing to provide statements to the fact I was in Milton Keynes during the stated period. Further, I can show via bank statements that I was in Milton Keynes and the surrounding area during the stated period (by use of my debit card at restaurants, cafes and so forth).
In between returning from Milton Keynes and the initial fault developing I also travelled between Leeds and Halifax and back, mostly on the M62 / M621. This is a round trip of approximately 40 miles that takes about an hour. Therefore of the 500 miles the car had travelled whilst in my possession to the time of the initial breakdown, 350 of these had been on long journeys predominately on the motorway, and only 150 miles for other journeys which were a mix of urban and motorway travel.
My “driving style” therefore has nothing to do with the issues the car is having as I have demonstrably driven the car in such as fashion that it cannot be the cause of the fault.
7) The DPF is a serviceable item, subject to wear and tear and our client assisted you as a matter of customer service and not out of any legal liability. Moreover, as a matter of law, our client cannot be liable for serviceable parts subject to ordinary wear and tear commensurate with the age, value, mileage, condition and usage of the vehicle, in any event.
With regards to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, quoting from themotorombudsman.org website:
“If you bought your car after 01 October 2015, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies. This means that, when you buy the vehicle, it has to be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described”.
Even though the DPF is a serviceable item, it is still required to be in good working order at the point of sale. Brakes are also a serviceable item - would it be acceptable to sell a car with defective brakes because they are a serviceable item? Given the issues the car has suffered in short time I have owned it, it is clear that when sold to me it was not fit for purpose. As for the argument that your client cannot be liable for serviceable parts due to ordinary wear and tear, as previously explained the car broke down within 26 days of purchase and after travelling only 500 miles. No reasonable person would consider this an adequate amount of time & usage for the fault to be classed as “ordinary wear and tear”.
In summary, and with reference to points made in my letter of 16th January:
1) I purchased a car from Scam Motors Ltd on 11th November for £3985.
2) On 12th November I drove the car from Leeds to Milton Keynes to see my partner (a trip of approx. 150 miles much of which was on the M1).
3) One week later I drove the car back from Milton Keynes to Leeds.
4) Shortly after this, the car started to have problems (as explained in the letter dated 16th January). These include poor engine performance, a strong burning smell from the exhaust, and a large amount of white smoke coming from the exhaust.
5) On 6th December (26 days after purchasing the car) the “DPF full – keep driving” warning light came on. Despite continuing to drive the car in a way commensurate with clearing the fault, the engine overheated and the car stalled. The AA attended the scene and determined that a DPF fault had occurred. The car was towed back to Scam Motors Ltd in .
6) Despite what your client claims, it is reasonable to assume that some form of repair was undertaken on the car.
7) The car was returned to me mid-December 2023. Initially the performance of the car was satisfactory but after approximately one week the same initial issues began to occur. That is, poor engine performance, a strong burning smell and excessive white smoke from the exhaust.
8) Despite continuing to drive the car correctly, the “DPF full – keep driving” warning light came back on in early January 2023. I immediately drove the car on the M62 between Leeds and Halifax and back to try and clear the fault but to no avail.
9) I contacted you client by phone shortly after to discuss returning the car. I explained the issues and offered to let them buy it back at a reduced price. You client said he would talk to his mechanic and get back to me but this never happened.
10) On Monday 16th January 2023, I drove the car from Leeds to and returned it to your client. By the time I left the M62 at Clifton Interchange, engine performance had further deteriorated and large volumes of acrid white smoke were emanating from the exhaust.
11) The car is currently outside Scam Motors Ltd premises in , although I still hold the keys. I consider the car to be currently in an undrivable condition.
In relation to the recurring issues with the car:
1) I have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the car had a serious underlying fault at the point of purchase
2) I have driven the car in appropriate manner and the cause of the issues is not due to my“driving style”.
3) The fault became apparent within the first 30 days and your client has used their one chance to fix it, in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
4) At the time of initial failure, the car had only been driven 500 miles, with approx. 350 of these on the motorway, driven at speed and in good conditions.
5) The fault has reoccurred and resulted in the car becoming essentially undrivable.
6) Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 I am entitled to a full refund on the vehicle.
In relation to (6), as a gesture of good faith I am willing at this point in time to consider a refund less than the purchase price of the vehicle. This is to account for the the limited usage of the vehicle.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours Sincerely
Dr. Robert Smith
Edited by Xileno on 08/03/2023 at 07:58
|
|
Don't bother. They have made their position clear and any letter you send is not going to change that.
|
|
If you have faith in the Motor Ombudsman, start making serious promises in that direction. After wasting some time arguing with conflicting insurers some years ago, I found the mention of an ombudsman may have had some effect. May take time, tho perhaps no longer than the courts.
|
|
You also have to remember that it doesn't matter if you win the court case as the company you bought the car from either doesn't have any assets or won't as soon as you take them to court.
|
You also have to remember that it doesn't matter if you win the court case as the company you bought the car from either doesn't have any assets or won't as soon as you take them to court.
That is the biggest risk.
The law and the facts are on your side. Winning at court, or even by default, is highly probable. The letters you've posted above won't move the earth now, but they're useful as a summary of what's gone on. Unless the correspondence was without predjudice they may have evidential value.
The big issue though is how to enforce your win. You can send the Bailiffs round but there are no assets in the company's name; vehicle stock is in hock and desks/computers won't scratch the surface.
An order on their bank account, it used to be called a Garnishee but it's got a new name in the last 40 years, might be successful if you hit at the right time but there are no guarantees.
Have you searched Registry Trust Limited to see whether there are already outstanding judgments against them.
|
“ You also have to remember that it doesn't matter if you win the court case as the company you bought the car from either doesn't have any assets or won't as soon as you take them to court.”
Whilst this is possible I’m not sure it’s worth their while over a single case. They currently have 60-80 cars for sale and are clearly advertising them under their own company name (most are on Auto Trader). There might be some shenanigans going on that I’m not aware of though whereby they cars aren’t actually registered in their own name. I don’t think the High Court bailiffs will see it that way though
|
|
"There might be some shenanigans going on that I’m not aware of though whereby they cars aren’t actually registered in their own name"
It is perfectly possible, legal and normal that they don't own any stock at all if there's a stock financing arrangement in place.
|
|
Yeh I'm fully expecting them to have some established way of wriggling out of it. This probably isn't their first rodeo...
|
There might be some shenanigans going on that I’m not aware of though whereby they cars aren’t actually registered in their own name.
When cars are in "trade" they are not registered in the dealers name. Avoids adding owners to the V5C.
|
Yeh I'm fully expecting them to have some established way of wriggling out of it. This probably isn't their first rodeo...
I suspect NOT owning the stock on the forecourt is pretty much universal amongst dealers other than those buying at auction and selling from the modern equivalent of Arthur Daley's place.
Before launching into court action you really should make sure you've got a handle on the risk of getting a judgment that cannot be satisfied.
The bailiffs in the County Court are employees of His Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service. At one time they were almost universally male and ex-Coppers topping up their pensions. They're paid a salary irrespective of results and, so the story went when I worked in the field 40+ years ago, only needed a feather duster waved at them to endorse a warrant 'Peaceful Entry Refused'.
Transferring to the High Court will get you better motivated agents but they still cannot get blood from a stone.
|
|
