|
Hello,
I recently bought a brand new Suzuki that I picked up on Friday. Upon inspection, I noticed a small area of rust on the side panel by the headlight which I pointed out to the dealer. The dealer has offered to repair it by sandpapering the rust and touching up the area with a paint repair stick. The car is booked in for tomorrow.
I'm naturally gutted that this has happened to my brand new car. I paid cash and was hoping to keep the car for a long time. Are there any tips anyone can give me on how to make sure the repair is carried out as safely and effectively as possible? Should I ask the dealer and/or Suzuki GB for any written guarantees of the work undertaken? Due to the difficulty of accessing the area to be treated, I'm presuming the headlight will have to come off. Is this something that is normally easy to do without risk of damage?
|
|
I would assume the car has been damaged elsewhere and inspect it minutely.. All over - including the underside. The dealer clearly is not competent as no dealer worth his paper is going to sell a new car like that. I would expect a full inspection by them prior to sale.
The fact they have not done it says they are not competent.
I would also inspect teh repair very carefully. And photograph it and time stamp it in case rust breaks out again. It should be indistinguishable from new. Any evidence of a repair means it has not been carried out correctly.. And I mean ANY.
You have to give them a reasonable chance to get it right. under law. If it is not, complain at once in writing to them and Suzuki UK.. who will not be happy.
|
|
We had some doubts about a VW showing signs of failing paint (second-hand from a VAG dealer) so got a paint specialist in. He found the vehicle had a fairly serious bump at some stage and the paint job was failing. Result was a respray of the off-side quarter. I'd never have known the extent, but they have thickness gauges and experience, neither of which available to me:)
|
|
Hi Madf and nortones2, thank you both for your replies. The car went in to the dealer today and they have sent it to a Suzuki approved bodyshop for repair. I've been given a courtesy car.
Apart from the rust I also discovered a couple of other issues: there were some imperfections on the door sills that looked like specs of sand underneath the paint. The dealer couldn't really account for them. We asked to be shown another car and there were no such imperfections on the sills, indeed the paint surface was perfectly smooth. I'm concerned the sills might have rusted at some point and have been resprayed. The dealer said that it is "highly unlikely" that the damage and the respray -- if that's indeed what it was -- happened in their premises, which to my mind is a strange way of putting it. They also stressed that Suzuki would never accept that a car left their factory in anything less than perfect condition.
Nortones2, how did go about finding a paint specialist, and how much did it cost to get the car checked? Also, did VW accept the specialist's report?
|
|
Hi. I used a vehicle inspection company back in the 90's, but the paperwork has been disposed of, unfortunately. Best I can think of is this link given in a Detailers website: www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=40...6, in relation to this query: www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=15...1
No knowledge personally, and although I used a vehicle inspection firm, it was all long ago. Howver, if I were to use one nowadays I might also consider DEKRA, who were linked to CSMA. Best of luck.
Edited by nortones2 on 28/03/2014 at 11:32
|
|
|
|
They are right that Suzuki wouldnt knowingly let damaged cars leave their factory.
But cars do routinely get damaged while being transported and stored through the supply chain. These are routinely put through a body shop and repaired and sold as new without the new owner ever being made aware.
All the car makers do this.
A surprisingly high percentage of new cars have been repaired before the first owner gets them.
|
|
When we collected our Ceed there was a small patch of paint missing that had obviously been knocked when the headlight was fitted. No argument from dealer, he arranged for the preperation chap to sort it the following week. Totally undetectable and 4 years later still undetectable, and its a silver car.
|
|
I'd reject it - I'd be unhappy if it was 3 years old let alone 3 minutes. Get them to loan you a car while a new one is ordered. They'll find one from another dealer quick enough.
|
|
|
|
.A surprisingly high percentage of new cars have been repaired before the first owner gets them.
Some makers stand head and shoulders above this, Toyota are absolutely fanatical about QC, any damage to their vehicles is taken very seriously indeed, they don't farm damage out to the local bodyshop, there's hell to pay over anything found at all wrong...similar with BMW and Honda, no doubt some others too.
I have actually collected cars from a factory with fairly serious damage and delivered them to the dealer for them to get repaired, the maker concerned as you might guess is still not known for the best customer service.
|
|
Most definitely reject this car as defective.Why pay all that money for a rusty new car when you have seen a similar model in perfect condition.There may be other paint and/or body defects that have not yet surfaced and may appear in a short while.By having it repaired now, may reduce the chance of any rejection in the future.
|
I'd reject it
Don't think you would have a snow flakes chance in hell of being sucessful, the defect for a rejection needs to make the car unfit for purpose. A bit of missing paint hardly does that.
You need to be realistic. A good repair will be undetectable and have no detrimental effect on the car.
|
|
Evend if the paint became chipped, surely it should not be rusting in this day and age, as they are all galvenised, cathodic hot dipped etc... You see even 15 year old Fiats with severe damage and the bare metal not rusting after months/years. It's only really Fords and Mercedes of the <15 years old era that rust because they didn't pre-treat the metal.
Edited by Hamsafar on 29/03/2014 at 21:36
|
|
I think the answer is, The OP should never have took the car from the dealership (if they have) or paid / signed for it.
Once you have taken delivery of a car, You'll have a hard time trying to get them to take it back for a refund.
|
|
I'm presuming the rust is on the inner wing near the headlight, not a blaring great rust patch forming on the outside like an 8 year old Passat front wing.
You can't expect the typical buyer to minutely inspect every inch of the car, slip on his overalls and slide underneath.
|
|
Hi all. Unfortunately, my worst fears have come true. The car came back from the bodyshop on Friday and we picked it up yesterday. The bodyshop apparently sanded away the rust and applied new primer and paint but the repair is almost impossible to inspect properly as they had to take out the headlight and bumper to gain access, so part of it is hidden from view. Also, there's an area of about 10cm x 1cm along the top edge of the wing, extending backwards from the repair, which looks like it has been passed over with fine steel wool and left like that. In addition, there were micro scratches on the bonnet and horrible scuff marks on the driver's door sill, as well as gouges inside the engine bay where a screwdriver missed a bolt and scraped away the paint. When I queried the state of the car, I was told that the car is a Suzuki and not a Rolls Royce and that as I'd got a good deal on the car I wasn't entitled to complain. I was also told that if I wasn't happy with the standard of service provided I should write to Suzuki and have them inspect the vehicle as it's their car and the dealer is only acting as an agent. Needless to say, I'm extremely unhappy and will be writing to both the bodyshop and Suzuki GB about this.
There are other potential problems too: the day I first collected the car and took it home from the dealer, I noticed that there were paint imperfections which looked like grains of sand trapped underneath the lacquer on the door sills. On asking the dealer whether the car had been repaired at any time, they replied that there was no way of knowing. I also noticed that water is pooling on door sills after heavy rain and/or a hosepipe wash, on the passenger's side only. The dealer is saying that that's normal and as long as there's no water in the cabin the door sills are considered by Suzuki as an exterior part of the vehicle.
|
|
Good luck, but with SUZUKI in such dire straights and having filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the USA, it might be best to pursue the rejection route in case they end up like Rover or SAAB..
Edited by Hamsafar on 30/03/2014 at 11:24
|
|
I think the OP should have rejected earlier too.
But I think that since the repair he still has an argument that the car is "not of satisfactory quality" given age, mileage and price paid. The Sale of Goods Act allows for this and it's not just being "fit for purpose" as Skidpan says.
He should write to the dealer principal at the supplying dealer, copy to Suzuki GB, and formally reject the vehicle. They have attempted a repair, this repair is not satisfactory to the customer and indeed raises new concerns and new faults have been found.
|
|
any more info about the potential for suzuki to go bust?
|
I think the OP should have rejected earlier too.
But I think that since the repair he still has an argument that the car is "not of satisfactory quality" given age, mileage and price paid. The Sale of Goods Act allows for this and it's not just being "fit for purpose" as Skidpan says.
The OP has a few reasons under the sale of goods act for a refund now.
A new unused car should be cosmetically perfect. Then should it not be and you have taken delivery of it, The dealer has to be allowed to repair it. However, They have to undertake the work to a good standard.
The golden rule is, He should never have took the car from the dealership in the first place.
He should write to the dealer principal at the supplying dealer, copy to Suzuki GB, and formally reject the vehicle. They have attempted a repair, this repair is not satisfactory to the customer and indeed raises new concerns and new faults have been found.
This is the correct course of action but, They'll have a difficult time in getting a full refund on it now.
|
Good luck, but with SUZUKI in such dire straights and having filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the USA, it might be best to pursue the rejection route in case they end up like Rover or SAAB..
It's only in the US they have problems - it doesn't affect the rest of the company.
|
|
Whilst Suzuki aren't in brilliant shape, I'd be a whole lot more worried about Mitsubishi.
|
|
|
|
