Car bought from dealer, broke down 4 days later!

[chapman9]

Hi All

Will try and keep this brief,

bought an 02 Chrysler Grand Voyager from a main dealer (not chrysler), drove the car fine for 4 days, on the 4th day, the engine warning lights starts flashing, and engine starts juddering, pull car over and call RAC who says there was no coolant in the car, and when he tried to put some in, it was leaking from the rear of the engine.

 

Took it to a garage today who said the head gasket has blown, but would have to take to specialist as it's a v6 and can easily cost 2k-3k

 

Called the dealer this morning, and he says there is nothing they can can do and it's our fault (!), (we've only had it 4 days, and driven around 200 miles in it), we were offered a warranty when we bought it for between 1&5 yrs (it would only have covered £1k repairs).

 

Even without the paid for warranty, after 4 days, this shouldnt happen??

 

Spoke to Consumerdirect and they said that you shouldnt have to buy a warranty, and as it's only 4 days, we have more of a comeback to the garage.

 

Any advice would greatly be appreciated..

[gazhodge1981]

Hi,

I am sorry to read your story

I have worked in the motor trade for 6 years now and they have to offer you so sort of free warranty, even if it's only 30 days. Does it say anything on the order form or paperwork the garage gave you??

Your purchased would be covered under the sale of goods act and not fit for purpose. Your local trading standards are a good place to start as they will give you advice and even investigate for you.

As for your fault, I really don't see how as a head gasket goes over time (not 4 days), they are just trying to get out of paying for the repair as it is a major job (maybe more than you paid for the car)

If i was you I would contact trading standards and then tell the dealer they either fix the car or refund you all of the money you have paid for the car, They really don't have a other option tbh.

Hope this helps

[sailor sam]

Consumer Direct are spot on. Very simply contact the dealer and give him one of 2 options; 1) he carries out the necessary repairs or 2) gives you a full refund. Indicate that you will await 7 days for the offer of either or you will reject the car under the SOGA. Follow this up in writing and send by recorded delivery.

 

As a matter of interest how much did you pay for the car and how did you pay?

[sailor sam]

Hi,

I am sorry to read your story

I have worked in the motor trade for 6 years now and they have to offer you so sort of free warranty, even if it's only 30 days. Does it say anything on the order form or paperwork the garage gave you??

Your purchased would be covered under the sale of goods act and not fit for purpose. Your local trading standards are a good place to start as they will give you advice and even investigate for you.

As for your fault, I really don't see how as a head gasket goes over time (not 4 days), they are just trying to get out of paying for the repair as it is a major job (maybe more than you paid for the car)

If i was you I would contact trading standards and then tell the dealer they either fix the car or refund you all of the money you have paid for the car, They really don't have a other option tbh.

Hope this helps

 

Not quite so. Under the SOGA (and you should know this having worked in the trade for 6 years), any defect (ex wear & tear) which occurs within the first 6 months of ownership is assumed to be present at the point of sale. It would be for the seller to prove that the defect wasn't a known or present defect at the point of sale. The responsibility to the consumer lies with the seller not any warranty comapny. It is a breach of the SOGA for a trader to reduce a consumer's rights by implying a warranty replaces them.

 

I do concur with the rest of your post.

[gazhodge1981]

I never said they have to provide a warranty under the soga. The SOGA could be used if needed. I only pointed out that as a main dealer they should offer at least 30 days. Thats why the order form and paperwork needs to be checked. (not that it really matters) You will find that unless it is an extended warranty sold by the dealer, then it is the dealer who will underwrite it as it such a short term. Depending who the main dealer is then for sure they cover the cost. (If we are talking about a small dealer then yes they would use a warranty company)

As for the options of the dealer then they only have the two 8-)

[heliosuk]

I think you have misinterpreted hodges post Sam. I read into his initial post everything you point out in post No.4.

 

However, as you know I am highly critical of SOGA particularly in respect of the assumption that a fault existed at the point of sale for 6 months after. Interestingly you add excluding wear and tear. The definition of wear and tear is subjective and is related to the price paid for the vehicle and the failed item in question. Whilst in most cases it is probably safe to assume that the fault did exist, and this is there to protect the consumer, at no point does anyone who quotes this "6 month assumption" point out that if the "dealer" challenges it it changes things a lot. The dealer might have to prove the problem was not there at the time of sale for a 6 month period but there is a tendancy I feel to lure people into a false sense of security by saying automatically it's the dealers problem. People who post this "assumption" need to add the proviso it's not challenged.

 

We have seen a same said scenario on the forum just recently!!

 

In the OP's case however it's pretty clear cut I'd say but I would question the chatges involved which the dealer is also bound to do.

[sailor sam]

I agree that SOGA is not as clear as it could be but it is in place for a reason. Saying that 'They have to offer you a warranty' is simply wrong. As you know warranties are merely insurance policies which have many 'get out clauses'. In any event, a warranty does not replace the consumer's statatoury rights under the SOGA and a dealer is not allowed to reduce (or attempt) to reduce those rights. What the dealer should do is give the consumer good after sales service and there are many cases where sellers donh't want to know such as in Ardams case where the seller didn't even inspect the car. How can we possibly know whether a dealer is reponsible for a repair or not if he dosn't even investigate? Oh and i say ex wear and tear as I don't think that genuine sellers should be be liable for things like clutches/brakes ect which have been worn out by poor driving.

 

In this particular case, there is no question that the OP will benefit fom SOGA in court if it goes that far. I am still interested in knowing how much the OP paid for the car.

[chapman9]

hi

 

we paid £3000 for the car.

 

update- i got a mechanic to look the car over, just looking under the engine and he confirmed it is a blown headgasket! he agrees the fault muct have been their at the time. so after numerous phone calls to the dealer and no response we have to write to them stating they have 7 days to refund. we did want the car repaired but after all the messing about we just want the money back now. so they now have till wed to refund.

 

what happens next if they dont? i have to get back to trading standards but will happen next?

[sailor sam]

Send the rejection letter (by recorded post) and see what happens. Ultimately you may end up taking the dealer to court unless trading standards come up with anything.

[chapman9]

yes weve done. they recieved it special delivery on wed.

so at the min its looking like trading standards will have to take it on.

[sailor sam]

Keep us posted please.

[chapman9]

hi all

 

well no communication from dealer with the 1st letter so as advised we sent the 2nd tues which they received wed, if still no response we are to send a 3rd then if that ails a 4th threatening court action. which is the one their probably gonna take more notice of. if it turns out that way we quite happily claim any compensation as obviously we are still without a car.

stress we could just do without rearly from something that could have been settled so easily.

[sailor sam]

Not sure why you need to send 4 letters! 3 max should suffice! What has TS said about this?

[chapman9]

trading standards are the ones who advised 3 letters then the 4th threatening court action.

i also think 3 is adequate. more than enough rearly considering how un co-operative they are.

[sailor sam]

And TS....?

[chapman9]

the 3rd letter has now been sent, if i dont hear from them by next wed we are are going through the small claims court.

ive also contacted the rmif which wasnt even worth the phonecall. surprisingly not they got through to the director of the garage who said he is writing us a letter basically saying how its our fault and how we should have avoided the situation. so will await whatever crap hes wrote in it.

[chapman9]

recieved a letter from the garage.

basically hes accusing us of driving the car whilst knowingly a red light i on apparently>?? no way would i carry on driving it knowing i only had it 4 days stupid man. then he says no insurance company will pay out for a driver error.

he hasnt even requsted the car back to look at it but yet is accusing me of blowing the headgasket!

thursday ive now got to submit a claim online and start court proceedings. wish us luck

[sailor sam]

recieved a letter from the garage.

basically hes accusing us of driving the car whilst knowingly a red light i on apparently>?? no way would i carry on driving it knowing i only had it 4 days stupid man. then he says no insurance company will pay out for a driver error.

he hasnt even requsted the car back to look at it but yet is accusing me of blowing the headgasket!

thursday ive now got to submit a claim online and start court proceedings. wish us luck

 

Has he stated in the letter that they are refusing to help of offer a refund?

[chapman9]

no not stated it in the letter.

i rang him yesterday offering him a last chance to repair the car and he was again accusing me of making the car breakdown and how its gonna cost me a fortune to take it to court etc etc.

 

so im now on the money claim online website and it says am i claiming against an individual or organisation?? this man is the director by the way, can anyone help?

[sailor sam]

If it's a limited co, you claim against the company (referring to them as a 'firm'). If its not, you claim against the proprietor/owner.