More used car issues, advice please

[unhappychap]

Hi all,

 

I bought a Ford C-Max from a large dealership just under 4 months ago. In this time I have been having major issues with them completing some bodywork and it is hopefully getting sorted in the next couple of weeks for the 5th and final time.

 

Around a week ago, I started getting a warning message on the dash that the tailgate was open. Even when it is shut. Last night, the ESP light came on and I am unable to turn this off with the settings control which must mean there is an issue. Looking around the net, this could be an ABS pump which could cost well over £1,000 to fix.

 

This car has been nothing but trouble since day one.

 

I have heard that under the SOGA, any issues within 6 months of purchase is deemed to have been there since the date of purchase.

 

What exactly does this mean for me? Can I have the garage sort the issues under the SOGA? I do not have a spare £1,000 to chuck at a car which is only 3 years old.

[sailor sam]

I would of thought that an ABS pump should last a bit longer than 3 years so I would'nt regard it as a wear and tear item. As you say, under the SOGA any defect which occurs within 6 months of ownership is assumed to be there at the point of sale. So in effect, yes they should sort it out at no cost to you. Obviously you need to approach them first to see what response you get.

[unhappychap]

Thank you. Probably the same response as I've had for the last 3 months trying to sort out the paintwork issues.

[unhappychap]

Update on this.

 

The car was checked and requires £430 of work to rectify. The dealership have offered to pay 25% of this however due to the issues and fights I have had for 4 months now over a paintwork issue on the car which after 5 attempts has now been resolved, I have asked for 50%.

 

I'm awaiting a call back with their decision.

[sailor sam]

Personally I think you are being too generous! I would of been asking for 100%.

[unhappychap]

The thought did cross my mind, but as the warranty has run out, and this issue is independant of the initial problems with the car, they don't really have to contribute anything towards the costs.

 

I'd love them to pay the full costs, however I do not see that happening.

[sailor sam]

The thought did cross my mind, but as the warranty has run out, and this issue is independant of the initial problems with the car, they don't really have to contribute anything towards the costs.

 

I'd love them to pay the full costs, however I do not see that happening.

 

The warranty is irrelevant if you have only had the car for 4 months. SOGA is your friend for up to 6 months!

[unhappychap]

Doesn't that involve the dealer having to prove that the fault didn't exist when the car was purchased though? The warning lights were not on at time of purchase. They came on after the warranty had expired on the car.

 

Believe me, if I had something that I could produce to make them foot the bill I would. Doesn't the ECU record information of when the warning lights came on? I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[sailor sam]

You would possibly have to get a diagnostic check done at another reputable garage to establish whats what. What happened about the ABS pump you mentioned in your original post?

[unhappychap]

The ABS Pump has failed, but it is made up of 3 parts, the part which needs replacing is one of the cheaper parts (£140 odd quid or so). This is what has caused the ESP light to come on.

[unhappychap]

Right, had the car back again after them having it for the fifth time to sort the paintwork issues. It's still not done properly.

 

I'm at the end of my patience now.

 

Can anyone give me advice where'd to go from here? I'm now sick and tired of giving them chance after chance to sort this.

[sailor sam]

When did you first report the paintwork problem out to them?

[unhappychap]

The very first time I looked at the car. When I told the salesman I wasn't interested due to the paintwork issue. That's when the string of broken promises started.

[sailor sam]

Have you got any written correspondence about the bodywork problem to confirm it?

[unhappychap]

Nothing in writing no. Each time it comes back, I complain to head office and they arrange for it to go back in again.

[sailor sam]

Well technically under SOGA you seem to have given them reasonable opportunity to rectify so you do have grounds to reject. BUT without some form of documented evidence, persuing it in court may be tricky, especially after 4 months. I think i would take it to another reputable bodyshop for an estimate to get the work carried out to the spec which you expect and then write enclosing a copy stating that you will now arrange for the work to be carried out and persue them for the cost. I think you will have a better chance in a potential court claim by doing that. Alternatively you could take advice from your local trading standards/consumer direct about the matter and see what their take is.

 

Please keep us posted.

[unhappychap]

Thanks, I spoke with Consumer Direct who advised that a cosmetic issue such as paintwork would not be covered under SOGA as it does not render the car unfit for purpose.

 

The garage concerned have booked it in for another paint job and have further reduced the amount to be paid in connection with the other issues so now I only have to pay for the trade price of the parts.

 

They did mention that I could get estimates and have another bodyshop of my choice do the work and they would pay the bill if it was reasonable.

 

Thinking about it, I'd rather they just sorted it, as what's to say another bodyshop wouldn't botch the job, which would mean I would have a battle with yet another company.

 

Car goes back in tomorrow.

[sailor sam]

I would diss-agree with the advice CD have given you. Not only should the car be fit for the purpose, it should also be of satisfactory quality. It appears that the bodywork issue was there from the start which you had complained about and they have been attempting to put right. That suggests to me that they acknowledge it was not of satisfactory quality and as such, they should put it right.

[unhappychap]

It's gone back in today to have the panel painted again. I'm hoping that this will be the final time.

 

Interesting that it appears CD have given me incorrect information, I may phone them back and challenge their response.

[grahamengineering]

Seriously Sam, People with proper knowledge on here can give proper advice, Consumer Direct can give proper advice yet you still think you can contradict them?

 

CD are correct that paint finish does not render a car unfit for purpose. If as in post number 2 you say an ABS pump should last longer than 3 years (I agree it should) but why not tell the OP to have a go at the manufacturer not the trader. You are completely incorrect that any faults coming up wihin the first 6 months is down to the seller. Each and every case is different and fitness for purpose criteria is assessed accordingly. A 3 year old C-max with 30k miles is different from one with 130k miles.

[sailor sam]

Seriously Sam, People with proper knowledge on here can give proper advice, Consumer Direct can give proper advice yet you still think you can contradict them?

 

Anyone with half a brain and knows consumer law will know that the goods must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. If the OP has had issues from day 1 about the bodywork, then the car could not of been 'of satisfactory qualiity'. If it were the case that the seller was not obliged to rectify, then why has he attempted to do so on numerous occasions?

 

CD are correct that paint finish does not render a car unfit for purpose. If as in post number 2 you say an ABS pump should last longer than 3 years (I agree it should) but why not tell the OP to have a go at the manufacturer not the trader.

 

I did not say that paint finish does not render a car 'unfit for the purpose' but it may mean it is not of satisfactory quality. The issue is between the OP and the seller, not the manufacturer. Again. anyone who knows consumer law will know this.

 

You are completely incorrect that any faults coming up wihin the first 6 months is down to the seller. Each and every case is different and fitness for purpose criteria is assessed accordingly. A 3 year old C-max with 30k miles is different from one with 130k miles.

 

Don't think i have said that. What SOGA says is that any fault which occurs within 6 months of purchase is assumed to be present at the point of sale. It is for the seller to prove otherwise. The only thing I will agree with you on is that a 3 year old C-max with 30k will be different to one with 130k. Only problem with that is, waht relevance is that to the OP?

[grahamengineering]

Responding to point 1 in your above post sam, Satisfactory quality is a moveable thing where used items are concerned. The OP's opinion of satisfactory quality in a paint finish may well differ from what consumer laws interpretation is. None of us can say either way without seeing the paintwork.

 

Point 2, I think consumer direct have actually given the OP the correct advice.

 

Point 3, This is where you are giving VERY incorrect information. SOGA does not see faults occuring within 6 months down to the trader.

For instance if a timing belt breaks and destroys an engine. Unless the trader fitted a belt then it is down to wear and tear.

 

YOU are even contradicting your own advice given in posts 2,7 & 16 in this thread and numerous others on these forums.

 

You ask me what relevance the mileage differences I gave are. Well like point 1, Neither you or me or anyone else on this forum know the mileage or price paid on this vehicle. Both of which have major impact on what the law considers reasonable.

[sailor sam]

Responding to point 1 in your above post sam, Satisfactory quality is a moveable thing where used items are concerned. The OP's opinion of satisfactory quality in a paint finish may well differ from what consumer laws interpretation is. None of us can say either way without seeing the paintwork.

 

Rubbish. Satisfactory quality could mean appearance as well as function.

 

Point 2, I think consumer direct have actually given the OP the correct advice.

 

Debatable, even they can make mistakes. Perhaps they need to look into the issues further. As you say, we don't know what extent the paint work defect is but it's obviously causing concern for the OP and has done since purchase.

 

 

Point 3, This is where you are giving VERY incorrect information. SOGA does not see faults occuring within 6 months down to the trader.

For instance if a timing belt breaks and destroys an engine. Unless the trader fitted a belt then it is down to wear and tear.

 

Why can't you read what I put correctly? I never used the phrase 'down to the trader!'

 

YOU are even contradicting your own advice given in posts 2,7 & 16 in this thread and numerous others on these forums.

 

You've accused of this before without backing it up. It's getting very boring to be honest.

 

You ask me what relevance the mileage differences I gave are. Well like point 1, Neither you or me or anyone else on this forum know the mileage or price paid on this vehicle. Both of which have major impact on what the law considers reasonable.

 

At last, a bit of sence! Obviously all will depend on how the car was advertised/described.

[heliosuk]

Many of the posts we see on this forum rely on SOGA however as I frequently point out this six month assumption is fundamentally flawed. The SOGA statement is "it is assumed" the fault existed at the point of sale and that the dealer has to prove otherwise. This is where it gets very grey and as grahamengineering points out there are many circumstances where this is very much open to debate.

 

What is wrong is the wording in relation to assume.

 

Where there are cosmetic issues it gets even worse as the problem moves from opinion to a fault which is not necessarilly the case.

 

One thing is for certain though and that is that there can only be so many repaints and the more rectification work done will not fix the issue but make it worse unless it goes back to bare metal and then the cycle will repeat itself.

 

As there have been no pictures posted it is difficult for any of us to give a real opinion as to what is right and wrong. For example I am slightly colour blind so perhaps could not say if it is good or bad, conversely if it's an alignment issue I can tell the difference between 0.2 and 0.5mm!!

 

Sitting on the fence on this one other than again reitterating don't rely on SOGA. It's too easily defended!!!!

[unhappychap]

Thanks for the replies.

 

The issue with the paintwork initially started with me 'walking away' from the car the salesman was showing me as the area around both the rear arches was damaged and already rusting (common on the Ford Focus/C-Max due to stone chips). This is when he 'promised' to have the car sent to the bodyshop and to have the areas fixed to 'showroom' standard. Like a mug, I believed him.

 

Since then, the car has now been back to them 6 times, ranging from poor repairs, to them painting panels which did not even need painted and ignoring the problem areas. It wasn't just a simple colour difference (I am well aware that it can be almost impossible for new paint to match old paint without noticing) this was down to shoddy work and them trying to cut corners to save their profit margin.

 

On two occasions, they attempted SMART repairs (obviously a lot cheaper than bodyshop repairs) and the result was a disgrace. The rust was back again within two weeks. They just painted over the damaged area.

 

I am due to get the car back today or tomorrow, so fingers crossed it will now be of satisfactory quality.

 

Oh, the car is a 2008 C Max and had 36k on the clock.