So I finally got through to the manager this afternoon and he is not accepting there was a fault on it, as I said it seemed to drive fine on the way home and on the test drive (which had almost no fuel in it, I had to fill it up with some on the test drive. He's insisting on a repair. He said that I'm only entitled to a refund on a pre-existing fault and they can prove it didn't have a fault when I took it as I could drive it away fine, it passed its mot and it had a Citroen Heath check. I told him I had no paperwork to prove they had this health check carried out. He said I know and I will email you it on Monday but I will contact my warranty company and I will find an approved garage in your area to get the car in for the morning to repair it. I then stated I wasn't happy with this and I had been advised via that under the new consumer act if a fault developed in 30 days that I was within my right to request a full refund. He then went on to say that he knew their rights and that they could legally just offer to repair the vehicle, that it had to be a preexisiting fault and the fault the car was showing now wasn't preexisiting. I told him to hold off on organising anything as I didn't want him to do that, I wanted to contact citizens advice and take more information. He told me he was organising for the car to be picked up and fixed to get me back on the road. I told him again I had no confidence in the vehicle and wanted a refund as the vehicle was faulty.
He mentioned if I wanted to go through the refund avenue that I would be off the road for months, they knew their rights and they weren't just going to roll over and offer the refund. What the hell do I do now? I ended the call by saying I would speak to him tomorrow as telling him I didn't want the repair seemed to fall on deaf ears.
|
If a fault develops within 30 days of purchase, which in this case it has, then you the buyer are entitled to a refund. Here is a link to the AA website. It's highly probable that the AA know more than your second hand car dealer does.
www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-buyers-guide/cbg...l
|
Thank you.
We have legal advice/assistance through our home insurance so I'm currently pursuing it that way and following the advice that they've given me. The dealer is still refusing to listen to my request for a refund and insisting on a repair. The last phone call I had from them the person I spoke to said that AA aren't real mechanics and they don't know what they're talking about. Which is funny considering the manager told me to get the AA out to see what the problem was in the first place!
|
|
All of those statements from your car dealer are incorrect, and they knew the AA at all they'd know that they know more about vehicles, the law and motoring than most, including them.
|
|
You're not entitled to a refund just because of any fault. You are only entitled if it is something which a reasonable person would consider makes a good unsatisfactory.
Obviously on a part worn device a "reasonable" person would expect some parts to be at or near the end of their natural life.
Therefore, if it is simply a worn out exhaust, at 68k miles and 9 years old I think you'd have to argue that a worn exhaust is an uncommon and exceptional thing.
The consumer advice which refers to "faults" is misleading as the actual legislation doesn't really use those terms.
It really depends what is wrong. If it is a worn out exhaust then I'd just let them fix it, if it is something more significant find out what it is and then consider pushing for a refund.
|
|
Just to add you really should let the seller at least look at it. If you ultimately do reject it and the seller refuses and you end up trying a legal case you're going to look like you have behaved unreasonably if you haven't.
The AA has just got generic codes there - it really needs plugging into a proper reader - ideally a Citroen Lexia one and a proper diganosis done.
A blown exhaust of worn out O2 sensor could cause these symptoms but there are endless other possibilities.
|
It is assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise. In this case the fault became apparent the day after the car was purchased. Unless the seller made clear to the buyer that the car had a fault, and that the buyer accepted that it had and still decided to purchase the car then it's difficult to see how the seller can't be held responsible. And on that basis the buyer is entitled to reject the car.
In the very worst case the buyer should give the seller ONE opportunity to repair the car. If this is unsuccessful then the buyer will be entitled to a refund.
|
It is assumed in law that the fault was present at the time of purchase unless the seller can prove otherwise. In this case the fault became apparent the day after the car was purchased. Unless the seller made clear to the buyer that the car had a fault, and that the buyer accepted that it had and still decided to purchase the car then it's difficult to see how the seller can't be held responsible. And on that basis the buyer is entitled to reject the car. In the very worst case the buyer should give the seller ONE opportunity to repair the car. If this is unsuccessful then the buyer will be entitled to a refund.
True, but:
(a) It isn't a "fault" It is something which makes it unsatisfactory. In fact, the word "fault" never appears.
(b) You cannot include things which are fair wear and tear or things which a reasonable person would expect to possibly need replacing or be in a condition commesurate with the goods. You're not going to be taking a 90k mile car back with a dodgy wheel bearing for example.
(c) The advice being now given our to motor traders by the various legal companies which specialise in this is that if a buyer rejects a car under the 30 day short term rejection clause test cases have shown that when a buyer uses such clause the burden of proof is on the buyer to prove the unsatisfactory element was there at the point of purchase. The contradicts advice originally given out by consumer organisations.
I suspect the seller subscribes to a legal service which specialises in these sort of things - it is a big business - and in reality know that they do not have to give a refund at this point. Usually, just a good PDI is enough.
|
|
|
|
If a fault develops within 30 days of purchase, which in this case it has, then you the buyer are entitled to a refund. Here is a link to the AA website. It's highly probable that the AA know more than your second hand car dealer does. www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-buyers-guide/cbg...l
That advice also says the seller is not liable for fair wear and tear. Therefore if it *is* a dodgy exhaust or O2 sensor on a 9 year old car then you could argue it in the other direction.
|
|
Just to add: having re-read it the OP probably, at this stage, has a better case for rejection on the service history if they can prove it was advertised as having it and it can't be produced. If a car is advertised and sold as having something and it hasn't then that is far clearer cut then getting into long arguments about what is fair wear and tear, pre-existing faults etc.
Edited by pd on 16/05/2016 at 22:47
|
Thank you for all of the replies, they are really appreciated.
I totally understand what you're saying RE letting them look at the car etc and do not have a problem with this - it's more the fact they want to take it and fix it when I've asked for the take it and refund option. My fear is that they'd take it to say they were looking at it, fix it and then tell me that there nothing wrong with it, leaving me without any standing, and weeks down the line I get a problem again. I'm not saying that they would do this but I'm just wary is all. I've not had a good experience mainly of garages so far - I know not everyone is like that but I feel I have to be extra cautious in this regard. The car had it's mot the day before I bought it with apparently no advisories - would a worn exhaust even be listed as advisory? The problem I have is that I do not know a lot about cars. I would just expect that a day after purchase and being told it runs really well and there were no problems with it (I forgot the exact wording the guy used) that I wouldn't be having to deal with any problems a day after purchase. I understand that the car is 9 years old too and don't expect it to run like something much newer but do still think there should really be no problems at this stage. It's a tricky area I agree.
The people I've been taking advice from have said it may be worth paying to have the car independently inspected to get a full picture of what's going on to go along with the AA report. I'm also happy to do this. At the moment I'm just following what I've been told to do in terms of writing a letter of rejection for the vehicle. They've told me to also dispute the payment with my bank, which I have not been able to do yet.
I have still seen nor heard anything about the service history book or the paper work for the Citroen health check since raising it with them. I did include this in my letter as they were asked for on Saturday as soon as I realised I didn't have them. I was told they'd look for them and that they did have them, that they would then send them on to me (the health check via email today) but don't have them yet. Funnily enough I took a screenshot of the autotrader advert for the vehicle as I knew they were taking the ad down for the car and wanted to show a picture of it to a relative. I hadn't got round to deleting it yet (things stay on my phone til it's full!) and it clearly says there's a full service history with the car. The health check was relayed to me verbally by the manager.
Edited by NorthernMonkey on 17/05/2016 at 00:27
|
|
Do let us know the outcome, please. It's the 'white smoke' that intrigues me. Acceptable after a cold start (condensation in the exhaust system), but a very worrying sign when everything nicely warmed up. It usually indicates a cylinder head gasket beginning to fail. If so, it sounds suspiciously like someone has overheated it, realised what's happening, and hurriedly got rid of it. But then I have a suspious mind. Does the coolant look clear and colourful, or is it mucky brown?
|
|
|
I hadn't got round to deleting it yet (things stay on my phone til it's full!) and it clearly says there's a full service history with the car. The health check was relayed to me verbally by the manager.
Personally, I'd have walked away at the point that the service history and "health check" wasn't present when you went to look at the car.
Where did they say these fabled documents were?
Where did the car previously come from - genuine P/X or auction?
Edited by Gibbo_Wirral on 17/05/2016 at 14:33
|
Ok I've checked the engine coolant (though didn't open the cap) and it looks a really dark horrid brown or black...I'm going to assume this is not good. It's also either just on or just under the minimum line.
As far as I can remember the car is a p/x. They supposedly currently have all the documents. I was in the midst of sorting stuff out and asked him where they were on Friday and he said everything was in the car. I was rushing to get back to pick the kids up and forgot to check when I got in the car, only when I got home. I've been kicking myself ever since.
|
|
I'm not sure where you're based, I'm guessing somewhere in the North. But if you want a more professional eye cast over it for free, I might be able to sort something out for you.
|
|
I would have thought that if the white smoke was condensation caused by water getting into the cylinders due to a head gasket problem it would eat through the coolant pretty quickly if it is that noticable.
It is more likely to be un or partially burnt fuel coming out which would tally with the misfire error codes.
A faulty O2 sensor or even a dodgy coil pack will cause these things and is a far more common issue than a headgasket. The fact that there is a code in there for the O2 sensor would suggest that is the place to start looking.
The engines in these are pretty OK as they go.
Edited by pd on 18/05/2016 at 16:36
|
A faulty O2 sensor or even a dodgy coil pack will cause these things and is a far more common issue than a headgasket. The fact that there is a code in there for the O2 sensor would suggest that is the place to start looking.
Why would a faulty O2 sensor cause a misfire, or fuel to remain unburned? Please explain.
|
A faulty O2 sensor or even a dodgy coil pack will cause these things and is a far more common issue than a headgasket. The fact that there is a code in there for the O2 sensor would suggest that is the place to start looking.
Why would a faulty O2 sensor cause a misfire, or fuel to remain unburned? Please explain.
Because with an incorrect reading the ECU will make the engine run too rich and then it will get all confused and try and run lean and then switch back again.
This is consistent with the codes stored.
|
Not very likely. More likely the ECU fuel trim maximum limit would be reached and a fault code relating to that would be set. The ECU would then default to a fixed value, and the O2 sensor reading would be ignored. Just because an O2 sensor fault code is set does not necessarily mean the sensor itself is at fault.
A cylinder misfiring due to an ignition coil or similar fault may very well set an O2 sensor related fault code as the oxygen content inside the exhaust would be very erratic.
|
Not very likely. More likely the ECU fuel trim maximum limit would be reached and a fault code relating to that would be set. The ECU would then default to a fixed value, and the O2 sensor reading would be ignored. Just because an O2 sensor fault code is set does not necessarily mean the sensor itself is at fault. A cylinder misfiring due to an ignition coil or similar fault may very well set an O2 sensor related fault code as the oxygen content inside the exhaust would be very erratic.
I'd certainly agree that it can be a chicken and egg situation in that a faulty O2 sensor could trigger a fuel trim error or an incorrect fuel trim caused by something else (coil pack being a good candidate) could then trigger the O2 sensor error as limits are reached.
|
|
But the electronics having a nervous breakdown won't make the coolant go black will it?
Dirty brown/black coloured coolant = exhaust products getting into the coolant.
Either head gasket or EGR cooler leaking if it has one.
|
Thank you for all the replies, really appreciate it.
Gibbo, I'm in West Yorkshire. That would be awesome if you could sort something - I'd be very grateful.
Heard from the legal side of our home insurance today and they don't cover motor issues (go figure) so if it does go to small claims court then we'll only be able to get legal advice off them. Still no word from the dealer and no sign of any paper work. I've been told to send an email to confirm my rejection of the vehicle etc etc and let them know that it is available for collection. I'd arrange to have it sent back and just leave it with them but I don't want to yet because they won't accept anything the AA guy wrote down, so the last thing I want is for them to have the car and fix it then say nothing is wrong with it.
|
Thank you for all the replies, really appreciate it. Gibbo, I'm in West Yorkshire. That would be awesome if you could sort something - I'd be very grateful. Heard from the legal side of our home insurance today and they don't cover motor issues (go figure) so if it does go to small claims court then we'll only be able to get legal advice off them. Still no word from the dealer and no sign of any paper work. I've been told to send an email to confirm my rejection of the vehicle etc etc and let them know that it is available for collection. I'd arrange to have it sent back and just leave it with them but I don't want to yet because they won't accept anything the AA guy wrote down, so the last thing I want is for them to have the car and fix it then say nothing is wrong with it.
Well, in fariness, the AA guy hasn't diagnosed the car. He has simply pulled off some codes which are the sort of codes you'd expect from what you have described.
You either need to get the car properly diagsosed as to what is wrong yourself so you have some proper grounds to reject on or let the seller have a look at it and diagnose.
At the moment you're just rejecting it on the basis that something is wrong with it. On a new car that would probably be enough but on a 9 year old one it isn't. If it is a coil pack you haven't really got any grounds to reject, if it is a headgasket you have.
If you did go to court you would need a proper engineer's report as to what is wrong.
You seem to have made up your mind to reject it come what may which you don't actually have the right to do as yet.
Edited by pd on 19/05/2016 at 00:04
|
I've spoken with the dealer again today to ask about the evidence of the service history and health check. It was the sales manager I spoke to. He asked why I wanted it if I was wanting to give the car back and I said that I needed to to see it as it had been advertised with it and I'd verbally been told the health check existed and that they had the paperwork for it. He said it did exist but I didn't need it because I'd decided to go down the legal route
I asked him if he could scan evidence of it over to me via email as I wanted to see it. He asked whether they could get the car booked in somewhere and then offered to get it booked in to Citroen because it made no difference to him because the garage would be paying the bill. I said at the moment I just wanted to see the documents relating to the car. He said he would scan them but couldn't give me a time as he was very busy.
I've spoken to someone who provides independent engineers reports and he has advised to get the car diagnosed at a main Citroen dealer at the expense of the place I bought it from and then go from there.
|
. I've spoken to someone who provides independent engineers reports and he has advised to get the car diagnosed at a main Citroen dealer at the expense of the place I bought it from and then go from there.
That's probably the way to go at this stage. At least if you get it diagnosed you'll know what you are dealing with and can address the issue in posession of all the facts.
They may well come back and diagnose something relatively minor and fixable in which case, if the car is OK otherwise, it may be a keeper. If they tell you the engine is gone then you know where you stand and can reject it from a position of strength.
|
Thank you, I think I will go ahead with that. I've called my local Citroen dealer and they've told me how much it is and what it includes, which is also a written report within the diagnostic which would be useful.
I've managed to dig up some history on the car, as the trader I bought it from hasn't passed any documentation over yet. I called the Citroen dealer in the trader's area and just explained the problem. He asked for some details and said that they had had the car in earlier this year to replace the thermostat housing as there was a problem with it. It's also had a new clutch, not one from them though I don't think but most likely the garage the trader is attached to, and it did go to the Citroen dealer to be programmed as it had a judder. I wasn't made aware about the new clutch part from the trader. They've never serviced the vehicle though.
|
|
How's the MOT history looking? You can check that in great detail online.
|
I've had a look online at the MOT history. It has had a couple of fails in the past. One for play in the suspension arm and then it's been tyres or brake disk/pads. There is one where it says the ESP light is on, which was about two years ago.
The past few days (pretty much all week) I've noticed the car seemed a little low at the back, like the back half of the car is closer to the floor. So I went out to it yesterday afternoon and turned it on. The original fault bleep (depollution) and engine management light came on, but then the car bleeped again and showed a 5mph warning. I hadn't even moved the car (it's been sat there for a week). I've come back in and googled it and the pneumatic suspension is the suspect for that warning it brought up. Apparently it can be intermittent and if you stop and start the car again it can go away. Likewise if you reset the faults on the car. It doesn't always come back straight away. Looking out the window this morning and the arch of the rear wheel is damn near touching the wheel itself. The car is booked in for a Citroen diagnostic on Thursday but I will be paying for it myself. The dealer I bought it from will just want to fix it straight away and I'm worried that if I ask him to arrange the diagnostic with Citroen they will just get it all fixed and say it's something I've agreed to. Still no word from the dealer/evidence of the paperwork. Clearly they're not going to bother sending whatever they do have to me.
|
|
The technology on modern cars is rapidly getting beyond the capability of most small independent garages, mainly due to the lack of proper training, equipment and factory technical information that is not available to them. I'd be very wary of buying a modern car from a second hand car dealer now, since many will not be suitably equipped to deal with problems such as this as they occur. A reputable main dealer may now be the only way to buy a car. Personally I think lease hiring is the best way to have a car. Depending on the deal you have fixed monthly costs and no maintenance issues to worry about.
|
|
You're spot on. I do Peugeot only diagnostics and am employed freelance by a few garages to do diagnostics on cars they get in (either for repair if its a mechanical garage, or P/X if its a sales garage), simply because their equipment doesn't query the car as good as marque-specific diagnotic equipment does, or they don't have the experience of a particular fault and time to Google it or browse the various forums.
Even the AA isn't immune to misdiagnosing. A common one they do is to blame the high pressure pump on diesels, when more often than not its a blockage of the in-built filter in the fuel tank pump, because the pump has gone beyond its estimated life (usually 15 years / 150,000 miles).
|
Right, it's been in to Citroen today.
They took it for a test drive and it had a gearbox/clutch fault on it. Basically they said that they hadn't been programmed, so that's why it was jolty/sluggish etc. They've reprogrammed the gears and clutch and said on the second test drive it was ok. When I drove it back up there was a little bit of difference but not much. The dealer said that the clutch had been readjusted but Citroen seemed to think that it hadn't at all. Silly question but can it just unprogramme itself?
They also found that the front exhaust is blowing between both sensors which they think is the cause of the engine maintenance light. It will require a new exhaust to (hopefully) fix the problem. The visual inspection also found oil leaks and a coolant leak on the bottom radiator hose on union. There's also an advisory on the rear pads/shoes which are at 4mm - should that have been an advisory on the mot?
Does anyone have any opinion on whether this is good enough now to reject the car?
|
|
Neighbour had a 06 model - twice in a 6 month period the car suffered rear suspension faults - low down at back and then more on one side than the other - cost a lot to fix on the 2 occasions.
It was then swapped for a Honda FRV which was almost bullet proof - apart from an alternator which failed - £400 I believe for a 3rd party unit.
|
|
If this is an EGS model they are an odd drive. Even when new, there is quite a delay in changing which can lead to some worrying moments if you've pulled out a bit sharpish on a roundabout!
On the face of it the faults do not warrant rejection if they are minor but without seeing them it is difficult to comment. A slight oil weep is acceptable, it pouring out evidently isn't. Main dealers can be a bit dramatic about such things to drum up business.
4mm on the brakes isn't that low - they need to be a lot lower to fail a MOT.
|
|
Limit for brake pad wear for mot is1.6 mm.
|
|
I'd agree. On a 9 year old car the problems listed are pretty minor and soon remedied.
The problem is you've probably lost confidence in the car because of the issues and the lack of care by the dealer and it will probably always feel bad.
|
I'd agree. On a 9 year old car the problems listed are pretty minor and soon remedied.
Really? 'white smoke from exhaust' and 'dark horrid brown/black coolant' ?
Doesn't sound minor to me.
These days, coolant in even 10+yr old cars should look as appetising as raspberry/orange/lime cordial.
|
Limit for brake pad wear for mot is1.6 mm.
It's actually 1.5mm. Not that 0.1mm will make a blind bit of difference of course though. Lol.
|
That's fair enough I suppose but yes, I will never trust the car now which is probably the crux of the problem. I do think that due to the very short time that the faults showed up they were probably already there when it was sold to me which I'm hoping means I can legally ask for a refund. I have informed the place I bought it from exactly what's wrong with it but have so far had no reply. I did try to ring but both times it was engaged and to be honest I feel a bit intimidated on the phone because they just don't listen to what I'm trying to say. I think all the parts come to just under £500 but obviously that's at Citroen prices.
I spoke to the legal advice line again and was told that I can now give the dealer a letter before action, which gives them another 14 days before I could serve any legal papers. It is a long and drawn out process and the car is just sat outside my house doing nothing. I can't drive it back (not that I'd particularly want to) because I'm refusing it and to be honest I wouldn't feel comfortable going back there. Still no paperwork relating to the car either.
|
|
You need to be very clear in your mind exactly what you are rejecting it for. £500 worth of parts at a Citroen dealer is £300 anywhere else.
To play devils advocate:
(a) An independent 3rd party expert (a Citroen dealer) has said the gearbox is OK.
(b) That leaves you with an exhaust leak and a radiator union.
The points in (b) really isn't enough to reject a 9 year old car. These are just used car sort of things and I suspect it would be you who looks unreasonable, not the dealer, if it went to court.
We're really talking wear and tear here which is fair.
I'd be more inclined to ask the seller for £500, accept £300 and just get a new exhaust part and radiator union.
8 months of a car sitting on your driveway, upfront court costs, independent reports, days off work, before ending up in court where the court tells the seller to pay you £200 doesn't seem worth it to me.
|
Ok I can understand exactly where you're coming from. But surely they were there when the car was sold to me which would mean it was faulty at the point of purchase? And what happens if the clutch/gearbox keep needing to be readjusted? It was supposedly readjusted before I bought it but the local Citroen dealer said that they had to do it again and I've read that if it keeps happening then the only real fix is a new clutch.
I also still have no service history for the car even after they agreed to send it over to me (I asked firstly for scanned copies via email so I had some proof it existed). I wanted a car with a full service history and I get that I should have checked in the car when I got in it for the paperwork as that's where he said it was, but I was in such a rush to get back I only remembered when I got home. Surely if they did have it they would have just sent it over to me? I have asked for it again and they've just ignored my request.
I'm honestly not trying to be awkward, I'm just trying to consider all of the variables here as well. Gibbo was right, I have completely lost faith in the car and most likely would never be happy with it. I considered just getting it fixed and then just trying to sell it on but with no service history in my possession I would lose out massively. It's all well and good the dealer saying that they do have the device history but they seem to be unwilling to prove it by providing it to me.
|
|
I'm inclined to think your best route of rejection would be that it was described as having service history and hasn't.
The problem with "faulty at point of purchase" is that a car does not, in fact, have to be fault free at point of purchase - in particular when it is a used one. It has to be of a standard a "reasonable person would consider satisfactory" so it is accepted that a used car will potentially have minor faults and worn or part worn out parts. How you define this is totally open to question but, generally, the older, cheaper and higher mileage the less good the car has to be.
This is why I think on something like and exhaust you may be onto a loser.
Clutch replacement isn't uncommon on EGS models I'm afraid. That isn't really the seller's responsiblity but, ultimately, part and parcel of that model.
Tell them that unless they can provide the service history you are returning the car to them and expect a full refund.
|
Does anyone have any opinion on whether this is good enough now to reject the car?
Jeez, have you still got this heap of trouble? See my two posts of over 2 weeks ago! (I see my suspicion of coolant contamination has been confirmed).
|
I am also rejecting it on the 'not as described' grounds.
Yes I do sadly still have it. They're refusing to give me my money back still so I have to follow the processes which I've been following since starting the thread, just feeling a bit antsy about the whole thing. I can't necessarily give it back because I've rejected it so I'm not meant to drive it anywhere. Considering they're a bit of a drive away via a motorway I'm not comfortable doing that so the car is here waiting to be picked up. I'm currently on the waiting period for letter before action, so I will be starting the legal process next week if I don't hear anything from them. They're not part of an ADR so I want to get the process started and will then go through the mediation if advised by the court, as I believe they may offer this before any hearing through the small claims track. It's a horribly long and drawn out process!
|
|
Sorry to hear that. Hope you manage to reject it without penalty. Good luck!
|
So I thought I'd do a bit of an update given we're over 3 months from my last post.
I submitted my court papers and while I was waiting for confirmation that they'd been served, I found another lady who had recently taken the dealer to court and won seeing as they didn't bother to turn up. Through the conversation we realised it was the same car.
Basically she'd been sold it in November 2015, problems started almost immediately. Much back and forth and plenty of evidence later she started court proceedings in January this year. The garage had the car in their possession from their last attempt to 'fix' the car. Dealer put a defence in so it went to court, they didn't turn up and she won. Dealer was ordered to pay her back but didn't so she's now going through the process to get the order enforced. The dealer completely ignored my court papers so I'm waiting for the court to award judgement. I'm also waiting for my bank to investigate and hopefully do a chargeback. I remain without a car as I need the money back from the dealer in order to buy another, which is very frustrating.
I don't know if we're allowed to name and shame here so I won't name the garage here but it's annoying that they're just getting away with all this so far. They didn't even have permission to sell the car to me as the other lady still owned it and was told it was apparently all fixed and ready to pick up in the defence papers. It's all going through trading standards as well so I hope that they're heavily fined for all of this, but will just have to wait and see.
Any recommendations on what car I should go for next when I can eventually buy one? I will never buy a French car again! Needs to be an auto which is quite roomy as there's five of us - any suggestions would be appreciated.
|
|
Petrol Toyota Avensis estate _valvematic.. HUGE
|
|
Any update? Hope all has been favourably sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
