Noisy Car - Want to reject

[RingoC]

Hi,

 

My partner purchased a 05 Vauxhall Astra 1.7 CDTI for £4295 from a garage (not dealer) in November 2011. When she purchased it she noticed that it was a little noisy but was informed by the salesperson that as it was a diesel it would get quieter.

 

She purchased the vehicle by part-exchanging a 03 Ford Ka £1500 p/ex and the rest on finance (HP agreement).

 

She has since rejected the car to the finance company (within 2 weeks) on the grounds that it was not as described but they state that the car must be faulty to be rejected and that the garage should be given opportunity to repair it. The concern is that the garage will claim that the noise is a feature of the vehicle and that there is nothing wrong with it. The garage is 40 miles away so we would also be without a car whilst it is booked in.

 

In the meantime we decided to get a dealer to look at the car for an independant opinion. The dealer used to work for the garage that we purchased the car from so I am a little concerned about how independant they are but we have now paid out for a vehicle inspection and they don't come cheap. He did, however, note that it requires a new alternator belt and possibly new cam belt.

 

Our local garage also seems to think that the vehicle, whilst noisy, is the way 05 CDTI Astras are. Having read further on the internet many seem to pick up on this too.

 

We are now in a position where we a stuck with a vehicle that my partner does not want (at the expense of me having to sacrifice my BMW for her use) and we want to know where we stand. The first payment to the finance company has not yet been paid and I have been informed that this may be in our favour? Is this correct?

 

What should we do next? What should our considerations be?

 

Any help will be greatfully appreciated!

[sailor sam]

If you bought it from a 'garage' it matters not that it isn't a dealer under the SOGA. As far as I know, some VX's engines are notorious for noisey cams and failing pully bolts. There are a number of recent cases on here proving this. But being noisey dosn't necessarily mean there's a problem. You can't reject it until there is one and the seller has had the opportunity to inspect it. As far as the first payment is concerned, yes you should make it as at the moment you havn't given a reason not to do so.

 

Do you have the service history on the car? How many miles has it done?

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[RingoC]

Hi Sam,

 

Thankyou for your reply

 

It has service history in the form of receipts as opposed to a service log/book. It has done 87,000 so not particularly high for its age

 

The dealer pointed out that it requires a new alternator belt and suggested that it has a new cam belt as that was due to have been replaced at least 60k

[sailor sam]

OK, so have you asked the seller if/when the cam belt was changed?

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[RingoC]

Not as of yet, no. We assume that from the receipts that we have that only the auxillary belt was changed last year but no other belts including the alternator belt and cam belt

[sailor sam]

Hmm, could be a tricky one. Under the SOGA, the belt would have to fail within 6 months of buying the car for you to have a case. That of course would result in serious damage to the engine. Personally I would of asked the question before buying the car. I don't supose that it was advertised as having a cam belt change was it? I suggest you contact the seller and inform him that the dealer has strongly suggested the cam belt needs changing (and the alternator belt). As you purchased the car only recently, perhaps he would like to carry this work out for you.

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[RingoC]

Thankyou for your continued assistance on this matter, Sam. Where would I stand if he refuses to replace the cam belt? Do we have any backing due to being told the car would be quieter?

[sailor sam]

Thankyou for your continued assistance on this matter, Sam. Where would I stand if he refuses to replace the cam belt? Do we have any backing due to being told the car would be quieter?

 

Thats the tricky bit. It would concern me greatly if the cam belt was the cause of the noise, especially knowing the history of VX cam failures. The problem is though that the cam belt is a 'wear and tear' item. It would make all the difference if the car was advertised as having the belt changed previously. You seem to be in a bit of a catch 22 situation. Untill the car actually develops a fault then you have no reason to reject it. No doubt the belt needs changing urgently so I suggest the softly softly approach and contact the seller as I previously suggested.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[grahamengineering]

If the car is only making the noises it should make then no you cannot reject it. Sam is wrong regarding the belt failing within 6 months and its down to the trader. This 6 months law is aimed at new items not used. As far as the law is concerned if the item worked at the time of sale then it is fit for purpose. The dealer will simply point out that if it hadn't worked at he time of sale then the engine wouldn't of turned over.

[sailor sam]

If the car is only making the noises it should make then no you cannot reject it.

 

Agreed unless the noise progressively get worse and there is an obvious problem.

 

Sam is wrong regarding the belt failing within 6 months and its down to the trader. This 6 months law is aimed at new items not used. As far as the law is concerned if the item worked at the time of sale then it is fit for purpose. The dealer will simply point out that if it hadn't worked at he time of sale then the engine wouldn't of turned over.

 

Absolute rubbish. First of all, what I meant was if it was only down to a noisey engine for there to be a cause for complaint, it may need an actual failure to occur before the OP would have a case. I am also aware that a cam belt is a servicable item (wear & tear) BUT if it was described as having a recent cam belt change, then the OP would have a good case in getting the resulting damage to the engine rectified. It is reasonable to expect a trader to know the history of the car i.e. when it last had a cam belt change.

This is the main reason I suggest the OP now asks the question to the seller as per my previous post.

 

Secondly, although the car may of been 'fit for the purpose' at the point of sale, if a fault develops within 6 months of the sale it is down to the seller to prove that the fault did not exist then. That applies to used cars. Why would it apply to new cars? Have we not gone down this road of argument before?

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[BrazilianCCK]

The manufacturers recommended cambelt change interval on that engine is 100,000 miles or 10 years, and whilst there is some anecdotal evidence of failure before then that has led to a popular belief that it should be changed at 60,000 miles or 6 years, in terms of the law the dealer has no liability for the change as it is not due yet on time or mileage - even if as Sam has pointed out it was specifically advertised as having had the cambelt changed then you don't have a problem anyway !

 

It is a very old engine in terms of design, though a reliable one, so won't be in terms of refinement the same as an engine of later design

 

Also, have you continued to use the vehicle since rejecting it as if you have I'm afraid your rights to reject have been lost anyway, though I don't see that you have any reason to reject in the first place

 

Best course of action would be to sell on I think

[grahamengineering]

Agreed unless the noise progressively get worse and there is an obvious problem.

 

 

 

Absolute rubbish. First of all, what I meant was if it was only down to a noisey engine for there to be a cause for complaint, it may need an actual failure to occur before the OP would have a case. I am also aware that a cam belt is a servicable item (wear & tear) BUT if it was described as having a recent cam belt change, then the OP would have a good case in getting the resulting damage to the engine rectified. It is reasonable to expect a trader to know the history of the car i.e. when it last had a cam belt change.

This is the main reason I suggest the OP now asks the question to the seller as per my previous post.

 

Secondly, although the car may of been 'fit for the purpose' at the point of sale, if a fault develops within 6 months of the sale it is down to the seller to prove that the fault did not exist then. That applies to used cars. Why would it apply to new cars? Have we not gone down this road of argument before?

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

 

I think you misunderstand this 6 month rule you keep banging on about sam. What the law states is that the is assumed the fault was there unless the trader can prove different! Can he prove different? Well yes of course he can, if the belt wasn't there when the buyer collected, the engine wouldn't of run.

 

Yes we have discussed this before sam, as it appears you have with a number of other users. Most seem to tell you the same as me. Please ensure you know the law concisely before giving people on here false information and false hopes.

[sailor sam]

I think you misunderstand this 6 month rule you keep banging on about sam. What the law states is that the is assumed the fault was there unless the trader can prove different! Can he prove different? Well yes of course he can, if the belt wasn't there when the buyer collected, the engine wouldn't of run.

 

Yes we have discussed this before sam, as it appears you have with a number of other users. Most seem to tell you the same as me. Please ensure you know the law concisely before giving people on here false information and false hopes.

 

In you last post you said that the 6 month rule applies to new items so your knowledge of SOGA seems to be in question also. With respect it is not your position to chastise me (or any one else for the matter). There is a set proceedure if you feel that inacurate or poor advice is being given. You will find it in the forum rules. In this particular case, I would like to invite the OP to say whether I have indeed given him 'false hope' as I do not believe I have. I have certainly pointed out that he cannot reject just on a noisey engine unless a actual fault can be found. May I refer you back to posts 2, 4 and in particular 8.

 

Basically, wind yer neck in.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[RingoC]

I can confirm that I have not been given 'false hope' and that the advice given was my thoughts on this too. Thankyou for everybody's input, particular Sam

 

Thanks for everybody's advice

[rebel11]

Heres some further info:-

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-buying-second-hand-cars/

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-buying-second-hand-cars/second-hand-cars-your-rights/

[sailor sam]

I can confirm that I have not been given 'false hope' and that the advice given was my thoughts on this too. Thankyou for everybody's input, particular Sam

 

Thanks for everybody's advice

 

Thank you for that Ringo. BTW, I have also asked a member of the site team to take a look at my contributions based on the continued criticism of this member. I await their response.

 

Now we have got that out of the way, is there any progress on your case?

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[RingoC]

No worries. As per your signature it's always worth people getting professional clarification. These forums and advice given in them gives people a general direction to be looking in and that's exactly what I have taken from the posts in this thread.

 

The garage have agreed to check the car over on the 13/01 so I guess I'll know their stance come then

[sailor sam]

No worries. As per your signature it's always worth people getting professional clarification. These forums and advice given in them gives people a general direction to be looking in and that's exactly what I have taken from the posts in this thread.

 

The garage have agreed to check the car over on the 13/01 so I guess I'll know their stance come then

 

Indeed, thats why it's there. At the end of the day, it's the person judging a case whose opinions matter, not the so called 'experts' on here. So face to face professional advice in certain cases is always best before taking any action. Please let us know how you get on and thanks again.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[Conniff]

Is the finance HP ? Different rules apply .

[dx100uk]

yes very good idea

 

is this HP?

this will be clearly displayed at the top

i think it will also be 'a material matter' if its not but the car is mentioned on any type of agreement

 

if it is your home laughing

 

dx

[RingoC]

She purchased the vehicle by part-exchanging a 03 Ford Ka £1500 p/ex and the rest on finance (HP agreement).

 

Mentioned in the OP - its on HP

[Conniff]

Mentioned in the OP - its on HP

 

 

That's what comes of having 'old' men as site team. Thanks Ringo.

 

The rights to reject a car under SOGA are limited, but if it's HP then the finance company is the owner of the car until the final payment and it is them that you reject the car from even though you bought it from a garage. You must stop paying any finance when you reject as continuing to make payments makes it that you have accepted the car.

 

Any rejection 'must' be done in writing.

 

Continual use of the car after rejection can also be construde as having accepted it but defaulted on the finance.

[RingoC]

Thanks for that

 

We did reject the car in writing and have not made any payments as the rejection was made after 2 weeks. The car has not been used and we have invited them to collect the car. The finance company have not responded in writing but called asking for the car to go to the garage - so we have arranged to do that on Friday

 

We have not even paid the first payment as we did not want to accept the car - is this correct? The finance company have issued a notice about non-payment etc which appears to be a standard 'default' letter. We have since contacted them back and its been passed to their legal department - we've not heard back from them yet - its been 2 weeks

[Conniff]

If you are sure the car is noisy in comparison to other identical models, then it could have a wear problem that when it happens could be very costly let alone dangerous:

 

Although in this case it is a new car, this should be of interest to you:

 

"Wednesday 17 December 1986

 

 

The crucial question in the very recent, but immediately notorious, case of Bernstein v Pamsons Motors [1986] The Times, 25 October, was whether a buyer should be able to reject his purchase and recover his money because of a defect essentially trivial in itself and yet potentially disastrous in its consequences.

 

Bernstein v Pamsons Motors -- The Facts

 

It will be recalled that the plaintiff bought a new Nissan Laurel car in December 1984 from the defendant dealers at a cost of £7995.

After he had driven the car for 140 miles over a period of three weeks it suddenly came to a halt in the middle of its first long run.

Although happily not injured the plaintiff suffered considerable inconvenience and loss in returning home and in being without the vehicle.

 

The defendants undertook some £700 worth of repairs under warranty.

The plaintiff refused to take the car back and asked for his money back, which the defendants declined.

Eventually the car was sold for £6000.

 

Nearly two years later the plaintiff's claim for total reimbursement, based on the defendants' alleged breach of the conditions of merchantable quality and reasonable fitness implied by s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, came before Mr Justice Rougier in the High Court.

His Lordship found that the breakdown was caused by a drop of sealant which had got into the lubrication system while the car was being assembled.

This created a blockage which deprived the camshaft of lubrication.

 

It seems fair to describe this as a very minor fault, in the sense that it was only one errant drop of sealant whose movement must have been virtually impossible to detect or prevent and which in no way reflects upon the design of the machine itself.

At the same time, as the judge observed, the consequences could have been horrific if, for example, the car had seized up on the motorway.

 

The Judgment

Rougier J said that merchantability did not depend on whether a defect was obvious or hidden but, in the case of a new car, on factors such as the intractability or otherwise of the defect.

Where a buyer 'acquired not so much a car as a running fight with a defective machine' (as Gould J put it in Gibbons v Trapp Motors (1970) 9 DLR (3d) 742) the car was unmerchantable and the fact that the buyer persevered in trying to put it right did not preclude rescission.

 

The taken by the repairs was also very relevant, though not the fact that they were done f ree of charge under warranty.

Again, it was important to know whether the fault or faults might have knock-on effects, such that even if repaired the car might still not be as good as new.

'The price of the car could also be relevant: the merest cosmetic blemish on a new Rolls Royce might render it unmerchantable, whereas it might not on a humbler car.'

In the instant case the repairs had been lengthy but successful, but that was not conclusive.

There had been an imminent risk both of serious injury and of further damage to the car caused by the blockage.

 

While teething troubles might have to be expected, 'a defect of this sort goes far beyond what a buyer must accept'.

On these grounds his Lordship had little hesitation in finding the car unmerchantable.

[sailor sam]

Nah Conniff, as long as it started and couild be driven away when it was sold, it was fit for the purpose. SOGA only applies to new items (apparently)

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.