Had car for 2 hours and it broke

[Danch198]

Hi. This is my first post on these forums, but I don't know what I can do in this situation.

 

I bought a car from a garage for 4,250. Test driving the car went very well and there appeared to be nothing wrong with the car. Before we handed over the money we asked the dealer if the car came with a warrenty and if the oil had been checked recently and he said yes to both.

 

Now, after driving the same home which took about an hour and a half, I left the car outside and about an hour later decided to go to the shop. After 2 minutes of driving a loud tapping started and I turned around and parked it back up for the rest of the weekend having Only covered 89 miles from the dealers garage.

 

Before work yesterday (Monday) I took it to a mechanic and i have been told that the noise is the big end bearing which will cost a lot to fix, and the reason is that it ha no oil. Having been told that the car had oil when we bought it would it be beat to return the car to the garage I purchased it from or should I just claim on the warrenty?

 

If any more details are needed then I can answer, I'd just like to know if I am entitled to get my money back.

 

Thanks and sorry for any word errors, I've had to do this on my phone and it changes most things I write!

[postggj]

Warranty is not the issue

Did you purchases and extra warranty at time of sale

 

Sale of Goods Act applies here

 

DEALER HAS TO FIX THE CAR

[Danch198]

No I didn't purchase the warrenty it came with the car. And they have sent me out the paperwork through the post just I've been told to watch out because if that has gone on the car then anything could follow. Only thing is I don't know a lot about cars so I wouldn't have a clue.

[sailor sam]

As above.

 

Do not arrange or let anyone touch the car without contacting the seller first. Warranty is irrelevant here. It does not remove or replace your statutory rights under the SOGA.

 

Please let us know what happens.

[Danch198]

Yeah I contacted them but the problem is I can't drive the car to them as its tapping very loud! Hence them sending me the warranty. Cheers for all your help so far I will let you know exactly what happens when it does!

 

Thanks

[BankFodder]

I suggest that you reject the car in writing - straightaway and ask for your money back. They are obliged to give you your money back and they should make their own arrangements for the removal of the car.

It sounds like trouble to me.

[postggj]

It is important you send the dealer a follow up letter in writing by recorded delivery listing the problems

 

The dealer has to collect the vehicle

 

Do not drive the vehicle or mention that anyone else has looked at the vehicle

 

Are they coming to pick up the vehicle???

[Danch198]

They haven't said that try we're going to pic up the vehicle they told me to get it fixed at a garage around my area and the warranty will cover the costs, but in leaning more towards just getting my mine back right now.

 

I am going to write a letter tonight and send that via recorded delivery as postgg said.

 

Thanks again

[postggj]

NO

 

The warranty is not the issue

 

Sale of Goods Act

 

Phone the dealer, get him to pick up the vehicle or you will be rejecting the vehicle under the sale of goods act

 

They have to repair or arrange repair, not you

 

Get that letter sent

 

The warranty means nothing in this case

Phone them up now and see what they say

[postggj]

The reason why they are saying claim off this so called warranty is that you only have a very short window of opportunity to reject the vehicle

 

The dealer is trying to time you out on using this option under the Sale of Goods Act

 

This Dealer warranty is Micky mouse and ignore it

 

And an insured warranty cannot cover pre-existent faults, as that is fraud.

Edited July 2, 2013 by postggj

[sailor sam]

It is for the seller to arrange the repairs, not the warranty co. If the seller wants to use the warranty than that is up to them. What if you agree to get it repaired and then the warranty won't pay out?

[postggj]

FORMAL COMPLAINT AS TO YOUR COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

 

02/07/2013

 

DEAR SIR/MADAM

 

It is regrettable that the vehicle I purchased from your company on xx/xx/xx has suffered a serious mechanical breakdown.

 

Registration number xxxxxxx

 

I am now formally requesting your company address this issue and place me back in the same position as to when the vehicle was purchased.

 

As to my recent telephone conversation with your company over this issue, I was advised to wait for a warranty document to arrive and “let them fix the problem”

 

I must inform you that I reject that option as any warranty offered is in addition to my consumer rights. This issue is governed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

 

When I purchased the vehicle from you I entered into a legally binding contract that the goods supplied were of “satisfactory quality”

 

I require your company to collect the vehicle at your expense and remove it to a place of your choosing to rectify the engine failure. I further require you either rectify the problem as stated to bring the vehicle back to satisfactory quality, or supply a different vehicle of the same age and quality within the same price range.

 

If any of the above measures are unacceptable then i will be rejecting the contract of purchase under the Sale of Goods Act 1974 and demand a full refund with any out of pocket expenses.

 

Any secondary warranty offered is secondary to my statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

 

Any secondary insured extra warranty cannot cover pre – existent fault, as that will be fraud.

 

Please respond within three days either by letter or email within three days as my preliminary rejection of this vehicle is of today’s date for breach of contract (pending redress) under the Sale of Goods Act 1979

 

 

The above is just a rough draft of a letter to send to the dealer by recorded delivery, it gives you an idea of your rights to begin with being reasonable to address the problem

Edited July 2, 2013 by postggj

[Myfamily]

Danch,

 

Listen to the people here, they know what they're talking about!

 

Reject the Car NOW! They are trying to stall you by going on about warranty, if you don't do it now you will be stuck with it and won't be able to get your money back!

[Danch198]

Sorry didn't realise I'd had so many replies! Thanks ever so much I will definitely be using that letter as a template it gets the point across very well! What would happen if I sent the letter and they still refused to give the money back?

 

Would I have to take it to a small claims court or so on?

 

Thanks

[postggj]

Small claims yes, but that letter will support any application to the court showing you are being reasonable in this

 

THE POINT BEING YOU SENT THE LETTER, AND BY RECORDED DELIVERY

 

Please keep your thread updated as i feel this dealer will try every trick in the book to avoid redress

[Danch198]

Ok I will post what happens as soon as it does. Unfortunately I'm at work right now so can't do much about it but as soon as 5 comes ill get it all done!

 

Thanks for all your help though its been a real help as I didn't know where to start before!

[postggj]

[sailor sam]

Add the wording ("as amended") in brackets after "sales of goods act 1979".

[postggj]

Add the wording ("as amended") in brackets after "sales of goods act 1979".

 

[BankFodder]

10 days is too long. In the circumstances, 3 days is more than adequate for a written reply letting you know whether they agree or they don't.

 

Frankly, I wouldjust send a letter saying that you formally reject the car and that you want the retun of your money and that you want the car collected and that if it is not collected by the end of the weekend, you will be adding a daily storage charge of £50.If you don't hear from them then on Monday I would send them another letter giving them only 7 days and then start a small claim. Follow this link to see about small claims

[postggj]

I believe you have to give the merchant an opportunity to address the issue first before rejecting the goods

 

If it was a camera, a replacement will be adequate, a car is different as case law supports the dealer having three attempts at fixing the problem first to the satisfaction of the purchaser as this is not a new product, but used

 

(Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987)

 

Has held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so

I will welcome any links though if the above has changed and that i am not aware of

Edited July 2, 2013 by postggj

[Last Of The Time Lords]

This might be useful regarding the above:

 

Bernstein v Pamson Motors (1987) 2 All ER 220

• Bernstein bought a new Nissan motor car, which about three weeks after delivery broke down on the motorway; it had done 140 miles.

• B advised PM that he rejected the car as not being of merchantable quality.

• PM repaired the car, so that it was as good as new, but B refused to have it back.

• B claimed rescission and damages.

• Held, that B was not entitled to rescind, but could claim damages limited to his cost in getting home after the breakdown, the loss of a full tank of petrol, compensation for his ruined day out, and for his loss of use while the car was being repaired (five days).

 

This seems to be the latest authority:

Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320

 

With regard to the deemed acceptance provision in s.35(4), the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 had altered the law with regard to the correct approach to the lapse of reasonable time. Consequently, the time taken to effect modification or repair was to be taken into account in resolving questions of fact arising under s.35(4), Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All E.R. 220 disapproved.

 

 

In Clegg v Andersson T/A Nordic Marine, speaking of Bernstein, Sir Andrew Morritt VC said: "As the judge acknowledged that decision has been criticised (104 LQR 18). Further it was based on the terms of s.35 before amendment by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. It is unnecessary to express a view as to whether the decision of Rougier J was correct before the amendment to s.35 effected by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. In my view it does not represent the law now. As originally enacted s.35(1) provided that a buyer was deemed to have accepted goods, inter alia, “when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them”. S.59 provided then, as it does now, that what is a reasonable time is a question of fact. The material difference arises from the removal of that part of subsection (1) to subsection (4) and the addition of subsections (5) and (6). Thus subsection (5) provides that whether or not the buyer has had a reasonable time to inspect the goods is only one of the questions to be answered in ascertaining whether there has been acceptance in accordance with subsection (4). Subsection (6)(a) shows that time taken merely in requesting or agreeing to repairs, and, I would hold, for carrying them out, is not to be counted."

[postggj]

Nice piece of case law there

 

The key to this is that you can still reject the goods, even after repairs have been made if you are not satisfied.

 

But you will have to get an independent main dealer vehicle diagnostic to substantiate that reasoning at your cost (which can be claimed back through civil redress) if it is proved the dealer has not fully rectified the faults after three atempts

[Last Of The Time Lords]

Also, if you were to begin small claims proceedings, consider this: You pay a small sum depending on the price of the goods in question (e.g £100) to file the claim and if you lost you pay no costs. If they settle out of court or you win, they pay your claim fees and they would have to shell out for barrister fees to fight the case whereas you can represent yourself. This is why with a good case, the majority will crumble before court.

 

This post (although not a SOGA argument) makes interesting reading and they crumbled before court: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...acing-my-i-pad

[Danch198]

ok, well as noone was home to sign for the letter yesterday, i went and picked it up this morning.

 

the letter read;"Further to your letter dated the 2nd july 2013 i can now confirm the following.

 

The letter you sent has no evidence of any issues wuth the vehicle or reports attached by any mechanic or qualified technician.

 

The vehicle had a full mot test prior to leaving our garage together with a full mechanical report.

 

I stress on your behalf that any issues caused by misuse or not checking fluids ir ither vital departments will be your issue.

 

I request full and detailed reports prior to any refund or such with.

 

Other to this please forward all correspondance to my solicitor"

 

Now the thing is i can understand it having an mot, but is it really my fault that my fluid levels were empty when there was 4 of us there to witness him saying that he had only just filled it up. And car dont just drink 5 litres of oil going down the motorway.