All cars have their problems, which in this day and age is easier to research than ever, but people don't. They pay a fraction of the price of a new car and expect them to work perfectly and if it doesn't it's not their responsibility as they were 'mis sold' the car.

If you want a reasonable amount of protection, buy from an established reputable dealer, otherwise, if buying privately, get someone who knows about the car to check it over.

Everything these days is down to cost, people buy cheap and get problems. Expectations are too high these days, you used to get only 1 years warranty on new cars, now the norm is 3, cars used to be rotting away by 5 years old, now people are kicking up a fuss about rusty wings on 8 year old VWs.

How did you pay for the original replacement module? It seems to me that you didn't, so if you didn't actually pay them anything how could they be held liable for is failing?

Vauxhall parts warranty is 12 months for their customers who pay for the part. How can you be sure that your 11.5 year old car doesn't have some underlying issue that's causing the modules to fail?

Good luck with the SOGA route, which will be difficult without the S.

Its funny as thought the windows would be checked on MOT as well but when I looked into it I couldnt see that they were. Its obviously a dodgy MOT, Im surprised they even changed the tyres (although I havent checked these either, so maybe they havent!)

 

Thing is all my email to him said was can you let me know which window switch was replaced as if its not the one thats faulty now then I need to know, I havent even mentioned the fact he has to pay (although he does have to pay) more and more of me is wanting to reject the car and return it.

 

Is this petty all because of a window? I just dont trust the slimeball........

Assuming this is a MOT for England, Wales & Scotland, the only testable glazing on the car is the windscreen.

Modern electric window systems are complicated, rather than the good old days where the switch made the contact to the motor and reversed the polarity to change the direction, these days the switch sends a signal. This signal may pass through two or three control units, the control unit works out what you want the window to do and then controls the window motor.

You could get it plugged in to some diagnostic equipment, operate the switches and see what the control unit is seeing the signal as, it may be, up, down, inoperative or implausible. The problem could be with the switch, wiring or any of the control units, my first check would be for any broken wires where they pass from the door into the A post.

A MOT is no substitute for a vehicle inspection, the MOT standard is very low, coupled with the tester not being allowed to remove any parts things get missed, what you need is an AA, RAC inspection or similar.

Software update time, I think.

If the clutch was burnt out at the time of sale, it would have been obvious. Clutches are a wear and tear item, like brake linings and tyres. It could be possible that the clutch had been unduly worn by the previous owner, but still serviceable at the point of sale and that your use of it has just pushed it over the edge. The car is used, so there will be wear to parts of it. I've seen a clutch totally burnt out after 7 miles on a 1500 mile car.

As for them having to pay transport costs, it was your choice to buy from that distance away, so I can't see them covering consequential losses.

If the clutch is burnt out, it could be down to wear or oil contamination, if it's wear the dealer can attribute it to the driver, if it's oil contamination, it's a fault which they should have to pay for.

I appreciate what others have said before about 'I spoke to a policeman friend of mine...' etc - but I am going on the technical reports from BMW (who will be independent in terms of the court date and know what they are talking about, rather than "my mate down the pub says..." type things).

The Policeman had stopped for a chat about a vehicle that was showing as not taxed (it had been taxed an hour earlier), I'd never met him before.

Any how I think that you need to be 100% sure of these speed ratings, not knowing exactly what model you have, I've taken a look at the technical specifications on BMWs web site https://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehicles/4/grancoupe/2014/technical-data.html . To summarise they have 3 derivatives of BMW 4 Series M Sport Xdrive listed and they all have W rated tyres listed for them.

The 4 series model with the highest power output engine of the range has a top speed of 250Km/h and the W rated tyres that Kwik Fit supplied are rated to 270Km/h, Y rated tyres are rated to 300Km/h which is well in excess of the cars maximum speed.

On the MOT for class IV vehicles, tyre speed and load ratings are not part of the test.

Something doesn't add up to me - in that BMW are saying that the speed rating of the tyre is to blame. W rated tyres are rated to 168 mph and Y rated tyres are rated to 186 mph, yet the performance data that I can find on the cars, says that they are limited to 155 mph.

I had a conversation with a traffic policeman the other week and we talked about the 4 wheel drive BMW that he was driving, I was told that they have encountered wind up problems in the transmission due to differing tyre tread depths and that they now have to check the tyre tread depths daily and ensure that they are all within 1mm of each other.

I suspect that the problem is down to having just the front tyres renewed and not all four.

Yes,

 

I have taken legal advice on the matter and as far as I can see the car has been misold to me.

 

Also under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 they had no right to sell me the car. The DVSA has issued a guide covering this. I can't post links but if you google "A guide to safety recalls in the used vehicle industry" you will find the guide.

Looking at the legislation that you have referenced to and the definitions that in the further legislation that is referenced:

“distributor” means a professional in

the supply chain whose activity does not affect the safety

properties of a product;

“producer” means—

(a) the manufacturer of a product, when he is estab

lished in a Member State and any other

person presenting himself as the manufacturer by

affixing to the product his name, trade

mark or other distinctive mark, or the person who reconditions the product;

I think that your basis for proposed legal action against the car dealer is flawed. The car dealer is not the producer of the car - it is Vauxhall and he is not the distributor of the car, that will be an approved Vauxhall dealer.

Why not just get the car booked in for the work and get it sorted out at no cost to you, other than a bit of time and fuel?

6 services in 3 years seems a lot. Wouldn't this have been on extended service intervals - 2 years/20,000 miles, if the car is around 40,000 moles, then the second service is about due.

It could have already have been inspected under the terms of a recall by Vauxhall. They issued a recall after investigations into there being the above average number of fires, the press picked up on this and it's been very widely reported.

They have subsequently issued another recall to inspect the already recalled vehicles again.

A franchised Vauxhall dealer will have knowledge of the identity of the vehicles affected, a non franchise car dealer won't know until the letter from Vauxhall lands on his door step.

We don't know what caused the car to break down, was it a fault with the car or driver error?, the smoke, smell and failing to proceed suggest to me that the clutch has been burnt out.

This may have a bearing on the validity on some of the advice offered.

There's no substitute for getting the ECUs read for codes. On the Skodas that I've driven from that age there's a display on the dash that tells you when you can change gear, I've a feeling that during the change (when the clutch is pressed) the display alters and when the gear is engaged the gear is shown on the display, this would confirm to me that the clutch switch is operating. What can be flakey are the brake light switches, a part which costs less than £20, if the ECU picks up an implausible signal from it, it'll disable the cruise control, even blown/faulty/incorrect bulbs can cause an implausible signal fault.

Y

You don't say what you pay for the car but I would have thought that the faults which you are describing should not have occurred through at least three or four years.

It's a 2011 car, so it's already exceeded your life expectancy thoughts, also if as described the engine speed dropped when the clutch was depressed, it would leave me to believe that the clutch switch was working. You can get an engine revving sensation when braking, if you're in a too higher gear and you let the engine revs die back and the anti stall cuts in.

Seems like the services of a mileage correction company are needed, that'll be a novelty for them, getting them to do what they advertise as doing, rather than just winding the clock back.

I think it's a valid point about checking the oil, I would certainly be checking it at least one a week in a new to me car to assess the oil consumption. Some engines are notorious for getting through oil.

If it was a failure to replenish the oil after a service, I can't see the engine lasting 2 days let alone 2 months.

I don't know what this 'oil can sometimes cover the sensor', that's the reason why there was no dashboard warning is all about. Some cars have a dual function warning light which will show amber for a low level warning and red for a low pressure warning. In all the cars that I have been in the pressure warning always comes on with the ignition as a form of self check, oil pressure switches have a constant coating of oil - yet they still work.

Is it the balance of the premium due for a years insurance? I think that some insurance companies consider that their obligations are met in the event of a claim and will need the policy paying for. The £525.23 could be what is owing from the premium for a years insurance.

VW produce engines for other companies in Europe e.g Seat, Skoda. So other makes may be involved.

You'll find that it's the other way round, Skoda make a lot of engines that are used in VWs, Audis and Seat.

I bet that you can count on one hand the number of customers who have asked about NOx emissions when buying a car, yet there will be virtually all of them who have inquired about CO2 emissions as that is how cars are taxed.

Most people couldn't care less about what comes out of the exhaust if it isn't costing them money.

We only measure smoke on diesels during the MOT, all the fuss is about Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions, so there won't be a MOT problem.

Heat generated when a pad is stuck in the carrier doesn't make the disc go blue or cause it to warp, it will be noticeable by the rust on the disc edges having more of a red tinge to it.

So Kwik Fit were correct in informing you that the pads were nearly worn out as they were on the metal the following day. It doesn't take long to wear out to the metal nearly worn out pads when the caliper is seized.

For the MOT the friction material on the pads needs to be over 1.5mm, it's up to the tester at what threshold they take for advising them. If the tester can't readily see the pads, he can't pass any comment on them. Are the pads easily seen on your car without having to remove anything to get a better view?

A binding brake may not show up when the brakes are cold either on the wheel bearing check or on the brake tester.

A MOT is a test on the testable parts of the car at the time of test, it is not there to state the such and such a component is getting towards the end of it's life and may need replacing in the future.

When was the last time that the car was serviced? and when were the brakes last serviced, they do benefit from having the pads removed, the carriers cleaned and the sliding parts lubricated periodically.

How can you fail to disclose a fact about the car of which you were unaware. Can you do a HPI check on it now that discloses the HPI check history?, this would show that you did not do a check on it and go some way to prove that you were unaware that it was a Cat D.

You could also point out to the buyer that these checks are usually done before purchase so that they don't end up in this situation.

Thank-you all for your advice.

 

I will look up my local unipart store.

You may want to try a different motor factors such as Euro Car Parts, Unipart went out of business last year.

It does say after all, if in doubt, then fail it.

Please give me an official DVSA source for this, then I can use it for any appeal tests that come my way.

The mantra has always been if in doubt - pass and advise, I can't fail rusty brake discs, I can't fail brake pads unless I can see them, I can't fail excessively tinted front side windows, I can't fail stretched tyres, I can't fail tyres with 1.6mm of tread, I can't fail headlamps that flash once when the indicators are used and the list goes on.

Professionalism comes into carrying out the test using the correct methods and standards, don't get it confused with discretion - that's not in the DVSA vocabulary.

The rejection text is all pre written, I can't use the one for a damaged ball joint boot and apply it to the boot on pin joint, they're two different designs of joint, if one gets dirt in it, it'll wear out and could come apart, the other will wear but won't come apart.

The MOT isn't a comprehensive vehicle safety check, it's a check to ensure that a list of testable items meet a minimum standard and that standard is quite low.

That's why they get the notification in a neatly laser printed document and have it explained to them when they collect the vehicle.

The dangerous/potentially dangerous has everything to with context. In the context of having a stationary vehicle in front of you on a ramp, that bald tyre - no problem - that's not going to hurt anyone (unless the steel cords are hanging out of it), use the car on the road in the wet - then it becomes dangerous. That SRS system, you could drive around for years with a defective one, when it's given it's opportunity to do what it was invented for and it fails - that's dangerous.

The question that most MOT testers ask themselves is 'would you feel safe driving that car with your family aboard?'

The reasons for rejection are quite rigid and you can't manipulate them to fit something that you think should fail, but isn't listed as a reason for rejection. The only other option is to advise and if you feel strongly that it must be fixed, catergorise the fault as dangerous so at least the vehicle presenter can make an informed decision on what action to take.

If I've advised something, marked it as dangerous and informed the vehicle presenter, provided that I've used the correct test procedures and standards, there's nothing more that I can do. A non functioning SRS system can be potentially dangerous, if the warning light is on I can fail it, if the warning light doesn't work I can only advise it.

I can't stop anyone from driving a vehicle away from test, I've seen a failure for a burst brake pipe driven away from test.

I'm not liable for what state people drive their cars in, it's up to them if knowingly want to drive a car with dangerous defects, I don't have the power to serve a prohibition notice and seize the vehicle.

There are some non testable items that can prove dangerous, an insecure prop shaft on a rear wheel drive car, that could be catastrophic if it let go at 70mph - it's not a testable item.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions and maybe consider other road users ahead of their convenience and bank balance.