Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Verso owner

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Verso owner

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for the info. It would be worthwhile proceeding to recover consequential losses because there is a matter of principle at stake. I can imagine that the dealer is probably feeling quite smug having made a profit from the sale of a dodgy car with absolutely no come-back other than a less than glowing review on Trustpilot. Also we are not talking about a small amount here, we are talking many hundreds of pounds.
  2. It was settled by Barclaycard because I bought the car using my VISA credit card. Do you know if there is a time limit for taking the company to court to claim the consequential expenses incurred?
  3. Apologies for the prolonged radio silence! To cut a very long story short, I went back to Barclaycard (because I bought the car with my VISA card) and they offered to repair the car at a cost of £2500. We accepted the offer because we were advised that even if we went to court and won the case, there was no guarantee that the dealer would give us our money back anyway or would end up paying us £10 a week for the next umpteen years. The decision to have the car repaired was also made in the light of the fact that apart from the gearbox issue the rest of the car was in good nick. It is running fine after nearly 4 months now, so even if our friend gets a few more years out of it it will have been worth it. Now that it is all settled I can reveal the name of the dealer - it was Thatcham Motor Company, in Thatcham, Berks. Very pleasant to deal with at first whilst everything was ok but boy oh boy, beware if anything goes wrong! Similarly Momentum Warranties who provided the 6 months "warranty". On paper this warranty apparently covers practically every conceivable fault that the car might develop until you try to make a claim! It seems that only if a component physically breaks that any cover is provided, otherwise they will hide behind the "fair wear and tear" get-out clause. Can an ECU unit be subject to wear and tear? I would not touch either of these outfits again with the proverbial barge pole. Buyer beware!
  4. Yes, you did but I wanted to wait until we got the official reports as there was a point where I began to doubt myself, asking myself could we have accidentally damaged the MMT system after all? The dealer now has both reports and so there will be no protracted exchanges after tomorrow because if the dealer does not do the BACS transfer refund then, then we will start the court procedure.
  5. Thank you Chuffnut, King12345 and BankFodder for your latest comments. The latest twist is that the dealer is saying that he will not accept the independent engineer's report because (a) I chose the independent engineer not them, and (b) the conclusion supports my case! I chose the engineer completely at random from the IAEA website, just someone who is geographically close to the dealer and to the Toyota garage and with whom I have absolutely no connection. An echo of that now infamous quotation "he would say that wouldn't he"! The irony is I wanted to have an independent report because I felt that the dealer (and possibly a judge) could argue that a report from the Toyota garage alone was indeed a case of "they would say that wouldn't they" because it would be in their interest to identify a long list of faults so as to maximise the amount they would earn from repairing the car! The ingenuity of the dealer knows no end. They are sticking to their mantra that we damaged the car because we are not experienced in using the Toyota MMT system. I can see this going to court now if they do not refund. In a way it may be the best outcome, as we would be able to add on all the additional costs that this fiasco has cost us. My dilemma is what to do about the car itself. My friend is the legal owner and it is insured in his name, yet it will be sitting in the dealers compound until the matter is sorted. Does anyone have any comments to make about this?
  6. Chuffnut - what do you think a judge would make of my issue then, based on your foregoing discussions about vehicle age/mileage/cost? 13 year old Toyota car (06 reg), low mileage (48K), one owner, FSH, apparently in excellent condition, cost = £4K. Faulty auto gearbox - a fault which showed up after about 6 hours of driving. Would a "reasonable person" think that wasn't satisfactory quality?
  7. What Chuffnut is saying seems reasonable. I cannot imagine any judge upholding a consumer's right to return a car because of a minor fault. If that had been the case with me I would have happily accepted a repair by the dealer as the most of the car is in A1 condition but a major fault (subsequently discovered to be inherent in the design of the semiautomatic transmission system) in the auto gearbox is quite a different ball game!
  8. Yes, I would feel a bit uneasy about "rocking the boat" as you say, although it is quite a bitter pill to swallow. I guess we have learnt a lot from this experience! What I have done is to include a list of all the expenses we have incurred in my latest letter to the dealer so they are aware, but I haven't specifically said that we might try to reclaim these. It could deter them from getting awkward at the last minute and opting for the small claims court option.
  9. Just a quick update as to where we are at (if there is anyone out there who is still interested of course!). The car has been tested by the Toyota garage and their computer has found an error code which indicates that there is a fault with the clutch actuator system. Unfortunately it is not possible for the software to say when the fault occurred but both the Toyota service guys and the independent automotive engineer have stated that it is highly improbable that the fault occurred within the first 6 hours we had the car. The cost to repair would be around £2400. The dealer has agreed to refund us the money we paid for the car provided we supply a copy of the independent engineer's written report, which is not unreasonable of course. We should get that report middle of next week. In some ways it might have been better that the whole business went to court as we would almost certainly have won the case and been able to claim back the huge amount of additional expense that this matter has caused us. (Must be of the order of £600+ by now).
  10. @buyer-beware Yes apart from the gearbox issue the car seems to be in excellent condition. It's just that having now become aware of the history of this particular Toyota model with the semiautomatic gearbox I would not be confident to drive it as it would always be in the back of my mind that the same problem could arise at any moment. A bit daunting when doing 70mph on the motorway! There is only a one year warranty on the new parts fitted by the official Toyota garage and I have read of instances where people have had the necessary work done (at about £2K), only for the same problem to arise again! It is indeed possible that the dealer did check the car before selling it on and did not pick up the problem. We certainly didn't during the short test run. However that does not prevent us rejecting the car within the 30 days (remembering that the fault appeared after only about 6 hours of driving in total!).
  11. Gentlemen - I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here! Can I say that the advice I got from the Consumer helpline concours with that of Buyer Beware i.e. in the first 30 days the onus of proof is on me. I'm on to it, make no mistake! The car goes to the Toyota garage on Tuesday for their assessment and will also be examined by an independent automomotive engineer who is registered with the IAEA. If it has to go to court so be it. If I win then all the costs I have incurred will be claimed back. I should have added that I am aware of the risks but the independent expert is confident that we have a case. The main fault (gearbox automatically shifts into neutral and no further selection of a gear is possible unless engine stopped and restarted) appeared after a total of about only 6 hours of driving. What is the greater probability - extremely unlucky or there was an existing intermittent fault?
  12. OK, hope you're right! I wouldn't say that the Consumer helpline is any old "helpline" though - they are the definitive mouthpiece of Trading Standards surely, but aimed at Joe Public like me rather than companies or corporations.
  13. Just came across this thread on the forum: Now I am totally confused!! Back to the Consumer Standards helpline in the morning methinks - can't afford to get this wrong. Is it possible, in my case, that the dealer genuinely did not discover any transmission fault with my car simply because it's an intermittent thing and a short test run (like the one I did pre-purchase) does not show up the problem? This still doesn't affect my rights under the CRA but just wondering if this could be a legitimate defence for him? I am loath to reveal the dealer at this stage until I get a definitive answer from either the Toyota garage and/or an independent motor engineer. Suppose the verdict is that (somehow!!!!) we have indeed damaged the transmission in less than 6 hours of driving, and I have been slagging off the dealer in the interim? I am convinced that we have not done any damage of course but it's only fair that we keep an open mind surely, even if the dealer is not?
  14. No I am not. Is it wise/relevant to put these details on a public forum at this stage? The questions I have raised are "generic" and would apply to any second hand car dealer I'd have thought.
×
×
  • Create New...