Faulty car bought from local dealer.

[azza87]

Hi folks, this is my first post on here so please be gentle!

 

On 8th April this year I bought a used 2000 Peugeot 206 1.4 LX from a local dealer for £999

 

After the test drive I thought I could hear a hissing noise coming from somewhere in the car but was told by the dealer sat next to me that it was just the fans being on but said he would lift the bonnet if I wanted to have a look for any problems under there, but stating that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the car at all. Looking under the bonnet, the engine running I could no longer hear the hissing noise so thought no more of it.

 

I left a £100 deposit on the car and because the car didn't come with tax the dealer offered to have the car taxed so I could drive it away the following day, at a cost of an extra £70 to me. I returned the following day to pay the rest of the money owed for the car and got in, started the engine and drove off.

 

As soon as I drove off I could again hear the hissing noise and it seemed to be coming from the passenger foot well, this time the fans were definitely turned off. Not knowing what this could be I got home and called my soon to be brother in law to ask if this was normal, he has previously had a peugeot 206 and I thought he might know what it was/could be.

 

He came around the following day to have a look at the car, along with his brother who is a trained mechanic and was told that it was a fault on the brake servo, which was leaking air.

 

They asked me if the car came with any MOT and it did, it was MOT tested in july last year. I was told I could probably pick up a second hand servo unit from from a local scrappy for around £40 and that they would fit it for me so I went online to try and find this part, not really knowing what it was.

 

I had the part number and put a request in on 1stchoice for the part I needed and soon had a garage calling me who had the part I needed. I bought the part over the phone and was then just waiting for it to be delivered, with there being bank holidays they said there could be delays in them sending it/me receiving it.

 

Just under two weeks later, the part still hadn't arrived and just out of interest I started to flick through the documents the dealer had given to me with the car. It was then that I noticed that the MOT certificate for the car stated that there was an advisory notice issued on it's test in July last year, but I couldn't see the advisory within the documents I had.

 

This could be because either the dealer didn't have it (it was a part ex vehicle) or they did have it and knew of the faults and withheld it to sell the car.

 

I then went back online and read somewhere on this site (or at least I think it was on here) that you can actually check the MOT history for cars on the VOSA website using the MOT certificate details.

 

I went straight to the VOSA website and when the results came up for the history of this car, I was shocked to see that this car had actually failed 4 previous MOT tests due to very dangerous faults, as well as being given 4 advisory notices. The latest of which (the current MOT) was an advisory for "c/v boot leaking and a leak on the servo".

 

This would explain the hissing noise in the car, and match up to my brother in law's and his brother's diagnosis of the fault.

 

As well as these faults, two weeks after buying the car I had to replace a punctured tyre, I had barely driven the car so was sure this couldn't have been caused by me and that it must have been a slow puncture (not that this can be proved) costing me £60.

 

Obviously I'm not happy with this car, which looking at it's history is quite a problematic car that is already costing me money I can't really afford on repairs. Seeing as it's MOT is due in July I don't fancy my chances and would like to reject the car and get my money back to put towards a more reliable car.

 

I'm not even sure this is a possibility been a used car and would really appreciate some advice on what can be done here.

 

Many thanks

Aaron

[raydetinu]

you should of taken the car striaght back to the dealer and got him to put it right; clearly a safety issue with servo. they canoot sell a car which is unroadworthy.

Also should got them to do an MOT on it, before you paid for it.

Doubt whether you can reject it but SOGA gives you certian rights and I would get MOT done now, so you know what other serious faults are then take it back to dealer and get them toi put them right.

Speak to consumer direct or Trading standards ( they may have had other complaits on this dealer )

[azza87]

you should of taken the car striaght back to the dealer and got him to put it right; clearly a safety issue with servo. they canoot sell a car which is unroadworthy.

Also should got them to do an MOT on it, before you paid for it.

Doubt whether you can reject it but SOGA gives you certian rights and I would get MOT done now, so you know what other serious faults are then take it back to dealer and get them toi put them right.

Speak to consumer direct or Trading standards ( they may have had other complaits on this dealer )

 

I can't really afford to put it through an MOT at the minute else I would go down that route. Thinking back I would have taken the car straight back, but at the time I thought it was just the one fault (servo) and was told if I could get the part it would be fitted for free by my brother in laws brother who is a trained mechanic.

 

It was only when I realized there were other faults and a bad history after looking at the MOT history on the VOSA website that I realized just what a money pit this car was going to be.

 

I found the car/dealer via the auto trader website and yesterday sent a polite email in to auto trader warning them of this so called dealer, just encase there are others out there thinking of buying what seem to decent cars from this dealer. It doesn't just give the dealer a bad name but auto trader too, today while searching on auto trader I noticed that this dealer had changed the name of his company but is still advertising the same stock and links to the same website.

 

The name of the has also been changed on their website. In my eyes this seems dodgy, they sell a few dodgy cars and so they don't have bad reviews etc they change their name and start again.

 

I've jotted down a sort of speech (well, just a summary of what I want to say really) and am planning to give the dealer a ring to let him know I'm not happy with the car, I'm just not sure exactly what I'm supposed to say. I've also edited a SAR letter ready to be printed off to be sent to him giving him 12 days to respond.

 

Is this the right road (no pun) for me to go down with this?

 

Many thanks

 

EDIT: I've just received a reply from auto trader with the following email:

 

"Thank you for your email.

 

If you haven't already, I would suggest contacting your local Trading Standards about this seller.

 

They may be able to enforce your consumer rights and hopefully lead to any monies being returned.

 

Auto Trader works very closely with both Trading Standards and the Police to try to eradicate this type of practice.

 

 

If you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me."

 

It's strange how they are still allowing this person/company to carry on advertising on their website, albeit with a slightly altered name.

 

Thanks

Edited May 4, 2011 by azza87

[raydetinu]

I dont think you mean sar, LBA maybe!

No good just moanling, there are steps you must go through first.

You must give the dealer an opportunity to address the faults amd hopefully put them right.

If this fails which from what you say is likely then the other steps follow.

Court or TS will not be impressed if you do not approach dealer first despite what you may think at this stage.

Also you must keep records, letters, emails responses from from dealer.

Good luck,

Keep us informed

[azza87]

Many thanks raydetinu, I will give the dealer a ring tomorrow and see what he has to say about it. I have already jotted down a summary of what I will say over the phone already, I just haven't plucked up the courage to actually make the call!

 

I will post back tomorrow after the phone call and let you know what is said.

 

Many thanks again.

[sailor sam]

Good advice from Raydetinu although I would think as the car has only been owned for under a month, I would take a different view about being able to reject. But as Ray says, you must give the dealer the opportunty to rectify before we start thinking about that. Keep it friendly and say to the dealer that you accept he 'may of been unaware' of the advisory notices.

[azza87]

Good advice from Raydetinu although I would think as the car has only been owned for under a month, I would take a different view about being able to reject. But as Ray says, you must give the dealer the opportunty to rectify before we start thinking about that. Keep it friendly and say to the dealer that you accept he 'may of been unaware' of the advisory notices.

 

I will be polite, jumping in with both feet and shouting down the phone wont get me anywhere lol It might well be that he didn't know about the advisory notices. That said, he deffinately knew about the fault on the servo (he might not have known exactly what the fault was) but he knew there was one, I've had my grandad in the car who is hard of hearing and even he could hear the hissing noise!

 

I will see what he says tomorrow and will post back.

 

Many thanks.

[azza87]

I am literally fuming right now. I've just got off the phone from the dealer who was actually rather rude/abrupt about the whole thing.

 

He said he couldn't remember the car I was talking about, saying he sells on average 9 cars a week, after I gave him the description of the car and went over the two faults (c/v boot leaking and leak on the servo) he asked if I was calling for him to supply the parts.

 

I said that I was ringing for him to either repair the faults or to cover the cost of the repairs needed. I told him that there was an advisory on the MOT that came with the car, and being polite I said something along the lines of I'm not sure whether you knew there was an advisory or not but I wasn't given one.

 

He snapped back while I was mid-sentance asking who had done the MOT and when I answered he said he'd never heard of them and hadn't put the car through any MOT. I told him that the car actually came with the MOT as it was tested last july to which he just "hmm'd" before coming out with a rather silly comment about bread, saying you wouldn't buy a loaf of bread and when it goes moldy take it back would you, so why are you ringing me?

 

He asked me how much I paid for the car and what year the car was, my answer being £999 and the car was from 2000. He quickly, rather abruptly responded saying "so you paid less than a grand for an 11 year old car and expect me to pay out for repairs? It ain't happening sunshine" and hung up on me.

 

I am so angry, my blood is literally boiling, I'm just about to phone trading standards to see what they have to say. I know it's an 11 year old car but at the end of the day, it was sold with these faults and the dealer has basically told me to go whistle!

[Dragons Dennis]

Calm down dear.

 

Now then. Points of relevance are that you bought from a dealer and that the car was not roadworthy at the time of sale. I conclude that because ANY fault with the braking system would be deemed unacceptable. The hissing noise that the dealer clearly tried to divert your attention from, was the servo leaking. Whilst it could be argued that the servo will not stop the brakes from working (true) it would make them far less effective that if the servo was working correctly - to the point that you may not have sufficent strength to apply enough pressure to stop the car in time to prevent a collsion.

 

The dealer is without question accountable. The fault was there at the point of sale and the dealers attitude is simply inept. I strongly advise you to contact trading standards before you do anything further.

[azza87]

I've just gotten off the phone from trading standards/consumer direct after speaking to a very helpful lady. She said regardless of the age of the car, or how much I paid for it the car sould be free of any minor defects unless they were pointed out at the time of purchase.

 

She told to to get back to the dealer outlining a piece of legislation called the sale of goods act 1979 outlining the faults and that there were 3 remedy options available which are a full, effective and lasting repair, a like for like replacement or a refund and that I should give him 14 days respond.

 

She said that if after the 14 days and this still hasn't been resolved I could take this to small claims and I can get back to them if needed with the reference number she gave me.

 

Is there a SOGA template letter available for me to edit that covers this type of purchase that I can use?

 

Many thanks

[sailor sam]

Simply write to the dealer and say;

 

Dear sirs

 

Re: (VEHICLE MAKE/MODEL)

VRM: (VEHICLE REG)

 

I refer to the above mentioned vehicle which I purchased from you on (DATE). I have reported to you that the vehicle has the following faults which appears on a previous MOT advisory notice of (DATE);

 

c/v boot leaking and leak on the brake servo.

 

I therefore formally request that you either carry out a full, effective and lasting repair, a like for like replacement or offer a full refund in which I will hand the car back. I make this request under the sale of goods act 1979.

 

Please indicate your intentions within 14 days from the date of this letter to avoid the necessity of me considering legal proceedings.

 

Please note that all further communication should be done in writing although I will discuss arrangements to book the car in for the work to be carried out.

 

I very much look forward to your response within the time given.

 

Yours ect ect

 

Send by recorded delivery and come back when you get a response or after 14 days if you don't.

[Dragons Dennis]

NO. Send by special delivery. Much more effective. Many times I have had recorded delivery items just dropped in with our other post unsigned for. Special is tracked every inch of the way. Cost you £4 or so, but worth it - especially in court.

 

Good advice from SS above though. Great letter sam.

[azza87]

Many thanks for the letter Sailor Sam. I will edit it now and send it off first thing tomorrow morning via special delivery and post an update after the 14 days.

[Jeepstar]

I dont think you should hold out much hope for the dealer to offer any help. You accepted the car with what MOT was on it. If the MOT tester at the time didn't feel the faults were bad enough to fail, then the car was deemed roadworthy. Providing the braking was of a satisfactory standard, I assume the brakes worked ok on the test drive? Then it is still fit for purpose. Neither a servo leak or a split cv boot are stopping the car from operating.

 

I'm amazed the trading standards helpline gave you the information it should be free of minor defects. This is completely untrue and most certainly not the case if you decided to pursue it legally. It must be free of MAJOR defects, essentially the engine and gearbox must work. What the SOGA dictates for used cars it must be fit for purpose and of a condition representive of its age, miles and the price paid. Frankly in an under £1k car if this is all the faults you have you are doing well.

 

Not what you want to hear but people do have to be realistic in what they are buying. I'm with the trader on this one.

[azza87]

I dont think you should hold out much hope for the dealer to offer any help. You accepted the car with what MOT was on it. If the MOT tester at the time didn't feel the faults were bad enough to fail, then the car was deemed roadworthy. Providing the braking was of a satisfactory standard, I assume the brakes worked ok on the test drive? Then it is still fit for purpose. Neither a servo leak or a split cv boot are stopping the car from operating.

 

I'm amazed the trading standards helpline gave you the information it should be free of minor defects. This is completely untrue and most certainly not the case if you decided to pursue it legally. It must be free of MAJOR defects, essentially the engine and gearbox must work. What the SOGA dictates for used cars it must be fit for purpose and of a condition representive of its age, miles and the price paid. Frankly in an under £1k car if this is all the faults you have you are doing well.

 

Not what you want to hear but people do have to be realistic in what they are buying. I'm with the trader on this one.

 

The leak on the servo is actually getting worse, it's only been a month and the sound of air leaking from the servo is now much louder, the brakes aren't quite as responsive as they were when I bought the car.

 

Although it's not too bad, I've also noticed that the clutch seems to be on it's way out too. For the last day or two I've had to really dip the clutch to change gears, if the clutch pedal isn't completely flat to the flaw I have trouble moving between gears, usually 2nd-3rd is worst. I noticed this on my old punto last year and the following week had to be towed to a garage when it finally went which cost me £215 to have fixed.

 

I know I bought the car with the MOT on it and that the faults would have been acceptable at the time of the MOT test, that is almost a year ago now so probably wont be an advisory this time around but a fix it or fail. I can't see what difference it makes whether the faults are minor/major when the seller failed to even mention them at the time of sale.

 

If he had mentioned them there is no way I would have bought the car, which is probably why he didn't mention them. I had enough problems with my punto, I can't afford to be running around in another money pit of a car.

[sailor sam]

I dont think you should hold out much hope for the dealer to offer any help. You accepted the car with what MOT was on it. If the MOT tester at the time didn't feel the faults were bad enough to fail, then the car was deemed roadworthy. Providing the braking was of a satisfactory standard, I assume the brakes worked ok on the test drive? Then it is still fit for purpose. Neither a servo leak or a split cv boot are stopping the car from operating.

 

I'm amazed the trading standards helpline gave you the information it should be free of minor defects. This is completely untrue and most certainly not the case if you decided to pursue it legally. It must be free of MAJOR defects, essentially the engine and gearbox must work. What the SOGA dictates for used cars it must be fit for purpose and of a condition representive of its age, miles and the price paid. Frankly in an under £1k car if this is all the faults you have you are doing well.

 

Not what you want to hear but people do have to be realistic in what they are buying. I'm with the trader on this one.

 

Sorry, don't agree and the reason why is what I have high-lighted. Exactly; the faults were not bad enough AT THE TIME but sufficent enough to issue an advisory, something the dealer should of mentioned to the OP before he bought it. It is quite obvious to me (from the OP's account) that the dealer deliberately miss-lead the OP into buying it therefore, the OP may have a case to persue.

 

However, the dealer is still entitled to have the opportunity to rectify.

[Cardiff Devil]

Holding a valid MOT certificate does not mean the vehicle is automatically deemed roadworthy. It simply means it met the required standards at the time it was tested. Any subsequent faults that arise could render the car unroadworthy. Although you can't prove it, you did mention to the trader at the time of the test drive that you could hear a hissing noise, he tried to fob you off by saying it was the fans.

 

You bought an 11 year old car, so it would be reasonable to expect some odd minor little faults but a leaking brake servo is not minor at all, as someone said above, in an emergency stop situation having less pressure in the braking system could be disastrous.

 

Some good advice given above. Make sure you keep copies of all documentation and you keep your correspondence with the dealer to writing, sent via recorded post only. That way, he can't deny ever receiving anything.

 

Good luck, and stick to your guns.

[sailor sam]

If he had mentioned them there is no way I would have bought the car, which is probably why he didn't mention them. I had enough problems with my punto, I can't afford to be running around in another money pit of a car.

 

Whoa! Don't start knocking Puntos! I have an 11 year old HGT which I have owned from new. Its just done 60k (ok, low for the age) and the only major expence so far was the timing belt (£350) apart from the normal wear & tear items. It still runs like a dream and loves motorways (temp reading always lower than 'normal'). Clutch still the original (but that depends on how it's driven!), so all in all a very good car in my experience.

[azza87]

Whoa! Don't start knocking Puntos! I have an 11 year old HGT which I have owned from new. Its just done 60k (ok, low for the age) and the only major expence so far was the timing belt (£350) apart from the normal wear & tear items. It still runs like a dream and loves motorways (temp reading always lower than 'normal'). Clutch still the original (but that depends on how it's driven!), so all in all a very good car in my experience.

 

Not knocking Puntos as a whole, just knocking the one I had that cost me a fortune. Maybe you've been lucky with yours, although there is that old saying isn't there that fiat stands for fix it again tomorrow . When I put mine (1.2 ELX) through it's last MOT it cost me just short of £480 to get it through and 2 weeks later the clutch went, costing another £215. Apart from that, and the dodgy alternator/waking up to find the car battery completely flat it wasn't too bad

[Jeepstar]

Sailor, I fail to see how you can prove he set out to deceive. Unless you knew he had the V32 (advisory sheet) and removed it from the paperwork you could never prove he knew of its existence. You could also argue he may of assumed since July 2010 the faults had been rectified.

 

The trader allegedly said the noise could be the fans. But was open enough to invite the customer to inspect inside the engine bay prior to purchase. The hissing would of been significantly worse from there.

 

Assuming the brakes were of sufficient standard at the time of sale then the trader has done nothing wrong.

 

Sorry OP but if you want a car that you wont be spending much money on, then you really need to buy new.

[azza87]

Sailor, I fail to see how you can prove he set out to deceive. Unless you knew he had the V32 (advisory sheet) and removed it from the paperwork you could never prove he knew of its existence. You could also argue he may of assumed since July 2010 the faults had been rectified.

 

The trader allegedly said the noise could be the fans. But was open enough to invite the customer to inspect inside the engine bay prior to purchase. The hissing would of been significantly worse from there.

 

Assuming the brakes were of sufficient standard at the time of sale then the trader has done nothing wrong.

 

Sorry OP but if you want a car that you wont be spending much money on, then you really need to buy new.

 

Jeepster, when he opened the bonnet all you could hear was the sound of the engine running. Also, when my brother in law and his brother looked at the car to diagnose the problem they could barely hear it when looking under the bonnet, unless you know what it is and stick your head right in to where the servo is!

 

Assuming the brakes were of sufficient standard at the time of sale then the trader has done nothing wrong - obviously this isn't the case as the leak on the servo has been present since it's MOT in July last year. The dealer might or might not have the V32 document, we'll never know that, you can see where it has been pulled off of the MOT certificate leaving staple wholes at the top of it, but this could have been by the previous owner.

 

For the dealer to say there was absolutely nothing wrong with the car at all when I questioned the hissing noise as well as say it flew through it's MOT was a blatant lie. The MOT history on the VOSA website indicates the car actually failed it's MOT with 4 dangerous faults which were then put right and was passed on a second attempt the following day still with the advisories above.

 

This could be innocent but the way the dealer has acted here went I reported the faults to him, as well as the that fact he has now changed the name of his business would suggest he knew what he was doing is in the business of selling dodgy cars before changing the name of his business.

[sailor sam]

Sailor, I fail to see how you can prove he set out to deceive. Unless you knew he had the V32 (advisory sheet) and removed it from the paperwork you could never prove he knew of its existence. You could also argue he may of assumed since July 2010 the faults had been rectified.

 

The trader allegedly said the noise could be the fans. But was open enough to invite the customer to inspect inside the engine bay prior to purchase. The hissing would of been significantly worse from there.

 

Assuming the brakes were of sufficient standard at the time of sale then the trader has done nothing wrong.

 

Sorry OP but if you want a car that you wont be spending much money on, then you really need to buy new.

 

It is the seller's responsibility (especially a trader) to know the car he is selling. I doubt whether a court would accept that the trader (being the previous owner) didn't know about the advisory notice. In any event, according to the OP, there was no advisory notice with the docs and the fact that the trader suggested that the noise was a 'fan' leads me to believe that the trader was being a tad 'conservative' with the truth. As the OP has only owned the car for a month, my advice stands. To clarify though, the OP could have a word with consumer direct to see what they suggest.

[azza87]

As the OP has only owned the car for a month, my advice stands. To clarify though, the OP could have a word with consumer direct to see what they suggest.

 

I did contact trading standards/consumer direct and was told to send off the soga letter. I used the template you posted up (thanks again) and posted it on friday afternoon so it should have been delivered today. Now it's just a waiting game to see what his response is.

[sailor sam]

Keep us posted.

[azza87]

I received a response from the dealer today:

 

Dear Mr Aris,

With regard to your letter recently received:-

 

My company warranty is 30 day mechanical breakdown only, it does not stretch to advisory items issued by an MOT station alien to ourselves issued some 10 months ago! Last July these 2 items were 'Advisory' as you alledge. May I also point out you bought an 11 year old car for less than a grand. You 3 seperate requests will not be met by myself and I am happy to attend court as intended in your letter.

 

Any further correspondence (except a court summons) will be ignored.

 

Signature/name

 

Is he in the right to refuse to do anything here, if not what do I need to do now? I would have called trading standards back with the details of the letter but I didn't get home from work until 7PM so lines would have been closed.

 

Many thanks.