Engine Failure After One Week Of Buying From Car Dealer- Urgent Advice Please

[wurie25]

I will try to make this brief, need some urgent advice.

I bought a car in leeds on June 16th for £700, its a V reg fiat punto, 2000. I bought it from a car dealer who is an acquaintaince of a friend of mine. He had acquired it as a part exchange and sold it to me cheaper than he would've sold it on for as he knew my friend.

On 20th june I drove to london from Leeds. The engine sounded different when i arrived in London and it appeared to struggle for the whole weekend. I left london to return to Leeds at 4.30 am on the 23rd as I had a minor op due at 12pm. The car broke down on the M1 somewhere nr luton @ 5.20am. I was towed to a local garage as the car would not start and it was diagnosed as a terminal at that stage. I had to return to Leeds urgently so that i could attend the hosp appt. This was at a cost of 100 however i missed the appt. A local garage in leighton buzzard collected the car however did not undertake any work, they advised that the fly wheel was loose. In order to make a full diagnosis they would need to remove gearbox to identify the fault. They offered to speak to the car dealer to expalin however he refused stating that it was no longer their concern as i had bought the car now and that they thought given the amount that I had paid for the car that I did not have any rights to come back to them. The owner made an offer that if the car was returned to him in the working order that i had bought it that he would refund my money. Thsi was obviously impossible given that it had broken down over 150 miles away from leeds

I contacted trading standards who advised that i was covered under the sale of goods act. I wrote a letter reuqesting a refund but he did not respond.

Meanhwile i was unable to return to leighton buzzrd where the car was until July 3rd, this was at a further cost of £50. I made a day trip from Leeds I authorsied the garage to remove the gearbox to identify to the fault. This was at a cost of £65 per hour and took 3 hours. They repaired the bolts on the fly wheel for a further £65. In the meantime I was given a to hire a car at £65 per day from them. It was only later they discovered that there was a major engine failure and a suspected snapped piston. This would require further investigaton at £65 per hour which i could not afford as my bill was already £448. The mechanic was clear that the engine had been recently opened and bodged together. I went back to the car dealer who did not offer any remedy apart from his inital offer. Tradings standards contacted him, he offered to look at teh car if i returned this to him and if necessary repair the car if he felt that he was at fault. Trading standards accpeted this and closed the case. It would cost me over £400 to tow the car to leeds. He was not willing to contribute to this. I can not be bothered with this as i have now relocated to london. it is clear that the car is irrepairable and i want to scrap it as its still in the garage in leighton buzzard. I want to know if i would need the car as evidence if i want to reclaim the costs incurred on repairs/travel and loss of earnings and part of the money back that i spent on the car. Is it likely that a judge would accept that it was not reasonable for me to return the car to leeds. I can provide reports from the garage where it will be scrapped and i also from the breakdown recovery company.

Can anyone offer any advice?

Thanks

[wheelergeezer]

BIG MISTAKE

 

Now that another garage has dismantled the car, I wouldn't want anything to do with it if I was the seller. You should have contacted the seller immediately and got THEM to recover it at Their expense and get a refund. Now you are in a right old pickle and I suspect you will get nowhere at all.

[Conniff]

Fully agree with wg.

What a weird first diagnosis that the flywheel was loose. This wouldn't prevent the engine from starting.

[Bookworm]

I disagree.

 

The dealer has made a big mistake, he said he would take the car back if it was returned in the state it was when sold. This obviously can't be done without the other garage trying to fix it, so the dealer can't then turn round and say "oh, but you didn't give us a chance to sort it first".

 

Secondly, attempting repairs does not necessarily mean that the goods have been accepted.

 

Personally, I would send the dealer a letter formally rejecting the car under SOGA 79, as not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose and presumably not as described, giving him 14 days to collect the car at his expense, refund in full + additional costs incurred due to his breach of contract and negligence, specifying that if he doesn't comply, he'll end up in small claims court with additional costs to boot. Oh, and you'll ask for compensation for the missed appointment etc (contributory negligence).

[Conniff]

In normal circumstances I would agree with you BW, but something is not quite right here.

 

They diagnosed the breakdown as 'terminal' and then said the flywheel was loose. It's millions to one on that happening and it does not make it terminal. What brought them to diagnose that, the only way would be to remove the starter to give access to the flywheel, why would they want to remove the starter motor unless the engine would not turn over with a charge start on and they suspected the starter motor was faulty. But you don't have to remove a starter motor in order to check if it is working or not.

There is no mention of replacement of the starter motor, so it must have turned over ok in which case there would have been no reason to remove the starter, and the whole flywheel thing was a con.

 

The car struggled. Again, not a flywheel problem.

 

Now they are saying 'broken piston'. What makes them think there is a problem with a piston (which if anything is more likely to be a broken con rod which would have probably come through the side of the block) and the op would definately have known it was serious and wouldn't (I'd have thought), said 'the car broke down', and it would have been obvious to anyone especially the garage in Luton when they opened the bonnet.

 

So far the bill is £500 and has not cured the fault, in fact the fault hasn't yet been established. The seller can't be expected to pay for errors in diagnosis and off-chance repairs that haven't worked. If the same had happened in his own workshop, he could have written in off.

 

I agree the seller was completely out of order in saying the problem was not his. He should now either go and get the car, (he has a right to inspect it), put it right and return it to the op, (at his expense, but not the bills outstanding from Luton), or write it off and give the op his £700 back.

That will, of course, leave the op with the £500 bill from Luton.

 

We have advised many on here who have said they have paid x amounts to a garage who still haven't cured the fault, to ask for parts changed to be reinstated and the bill cancelled.

 

I'm sure a court wouldn't expect a full purchase price refund 'and' payment of the bill wrongly charged. I don't see a way out of this for the op to come out without a loss, but I do know that I would not accept a car back for a refund if it had been 'unprofessionally' messed around with by someone else, I would accept the court appearance and feel confident that the most it would cost me would be repatriation of the car and the return of the purchase price.

[Bookworm]

I'll bow to your knowledge of what goes on under a bonnet, Conniff, as most of your post went "whooooosh" over my head.

 

As for the costs reclaiming, it would depend on the garage which has examined the car, tbh. If you're right and the garage is not doing their job right, then I would cautiously agree with you as to the cost of repairs, with the proviso that the OP not being a mechanic himself, how would he know whether he is being BSed or not?

 

The dealer has really shot himself in the foot with the comment about the car being returned as it is, though. In that manner, I'd argue that he has given the green light for another mechanic to look at the car and maybe fix it. I'd also think that a judge faced with this type of cowboy trying to shirk his responsability and wash his hands of this lemon may well decide to come down hard on him, but that is of course speculation.

 

Like I said, I'd go for the whole hog, and if need be drop some of the expenses at negotiating stage, if negotiating there is to be had. ;-)

[Conniff]

The dealer has really shot himself in the foot with the comment about the car being returned as it is, though. In that manner, I'd argue that he has given the green light for another mechanic to look at the car and maybe fix it.

 

I agree with that. The first thing required is a firm diagnosis of what is wrong with the car so we can see the way forward. The seller must have been roughly aware of the cost of what was told to him in the phone call and should have seen through what he was being told about the flywheel, unless he is just a salesman and has no mechanical knowledge.

 

The main thing is to try and get the op his car back, running properly and without financial loss.

 

I think the Luton garage needs to be implicated in this and asked to drop the false bill claimed so far and to fix the problem with the seller paying the bill for getting the car running again.

 

There definately should be three way negotiations before involving the courts.

 

Having read through this all again, I would suggest that the op contacts the seller by 'recorded delivery' letter enclosing his full costs as they are at the moment with a suggestion that he either reclaims the car and fixes it with no cost to the buyer, leaving the seller and the Luton garage to fight over the bill so far, or, gets a full refund for the car and his out of pocket expenses, with a hint that further action will be taken if he doesn't come to some agreement. He can then make any further action dependent on what the seller comes back with.

 

My remarks of mechanical incompetence are based solely on the original posters claims and my engineering background and without having had opportunity to examin the car.

[heliosuk]

Sorry chaps, disagree with Conniff. It is possible for a flywheel to come loose yet still run and start/non start. This is especially true with fuel injected engines as the CPS won't register a signal. What you need to be aware of is that the issue of flywheel loosining/disintegrating is becoming more frequent with the advent of the dual mass flywheel. Many manufactuers are experiencing problems with these and the cost is un real. However it is unlikely that the little Punto had this type of flywheel.

 

Generally, if a flywheel comes loose then it ruins the end of the crank which is terminal so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Luton garage tried to do the right thing with the customers best interests at heart.

[Conniff]

I took loose to mean loose and not disengaged from the crankshaft.

I would have liked to know what brought them to the conclusion the flywheel was loose on a dead car. It's not the first thing to look at.

 

DM problems are mainly Peugeot problems as they use a plastic one. No other manufacturer is having the problems they are, especially the U.S. which has been using them for donkeys years.

[heliosuk]

Yes, I took loose to mean loose and not disengaged which will still give a situation where it could or could not start. Whatever it is, it will have been knocking away. As you say, it's very unusual on a single mass flywheel but I have seen it happen on numerous occasions especially where somone has been in there before and not changed the strech bolts if it has been removed. The consequnce is an elongation of the holes and thread and even with new bolts it's impossible to get the clamping forces required when running.

 

BMW, Ford, Toyota, M/Benz have/are experiencing problems with DM flywheels and have been for a while and in the US as well, though as usual, none of them will admit it officially!!

[middenmess]

With the majority of posts on this forum the initial response from caggers is a request to post up any written letters,statements or court documents etc.

 

Whilst not disputing anything that the OP has stated it would appear that the dealer et al have been hung,drawn and quartered purely on the OP's uncorroborated posting.

 

The car may, or may not, have been fit for purpose but surely any sensible person on realising that there was a problem with the car on reaching London would have contacted their breakdown recovery service to recover the vehicle back to Leeds rather than attempt to drive a vehicle which by their own admission wasn't driving properly.

 

By continuing to drive the car with it's problem they advanced it's demise and must therefore have severely jeopardised their claim against the car dealer?

 

But I stand to be corrected.

[Conniff]

All the threads are generally uncorroborated to start with and we have to take things at face value until we are in a position to be shown something more substantive.

If the op does not come back with anything to back his story up, the thread will just peater out. Until that time the discussion is based mainly on discussion of what has/could, have/will happen.

 

This is a self help forum with assistance based mainly on others experiences. There are no names or identification marks, so you should take it as it is intended until the position changes. If there is no further response from the op, then no harm will have been done.

[middenmess]

Hi Conniff--agree it's a discussion with everyone's thoughts and opinions and that was all I was doing-- putting in my thoughts and opinions-- not trying to be controversial or [too] arguementative:)

 

PS.Everytime I see your avatar,all I can think of is Swine Flu!!

[Conniff]

At present there are only two things to discuss. The car breaking down and the phone call (heresay) that he wont have anything to do with it.

Having said that, did the op take the call or was it done by the garage?

There's another thing to think about.

 

The technical stuff is really just thumb twiddling until the op comes back, (which he failed to do in his other thread).

 

Sorry about my avatar. I only said to my wife this evening when seeing the flu bug on tv was 'how ugly it was'. Now I will see the bug every time I see my avatar.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Conniff