Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Soga ( disc brakes and pads )


Kricker
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3781 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi there I'm new to this forum and could do with some help.

 

5 months ago I bought a used 207 from a dealer and at the time no issues with the car where pointed out, I was told that it came with 2 year warranty and a years free mot when the current one runs out which is around now..

 

I booked it in with the dealer for its free mot and then after dropping the car off I was contacted by the dealer stating that some work needed to be carried out and that it needed new rear disc brakes and pads which don't fall under the warranty I thought fair enough wear and tear, he quoted me a price and asked was it okay for the work to be carried out and I said yes.

 

Now the car failed the mot due to a faulty hand brake and they've fixed it and rebooked it for tomorrow....

 

Now the problem is since then a friend of mine who used to work for ford has told me that because the car is less than 6 months old it's up to the dealer to fix these faults free of charge as when they originally acquired the vehicle it should have been inspected and noticed any issue with discs and pads and had them replaced and or notified me that they would soon need replacing which they didn't !! I also only do roughly 250 miles a month with the odd long drive weekend away that's a only about 2000 plus miles in 5 months and I'm under the impression discs and pads last anywhere from 25,000 to 50,000 miles

 

The dealership will be contacting me to update me on the car tomorrow and when to collect the car, but I'm unsure how to approach the situation, do I refuse payment or question the work carried out pre sale ????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its wear and tear and not a soga fault and down to you to pay.

Discs and pads may last 25,000 to 50,000 when new but you did not buy new and cannot expect the same life from used ones

 

But surely they would have noticed that the brakes where badly worn when they acquired it and should have changed them ? As the soga states if an item is not of satisfactory quality it is up to the seller to legally fix the problem ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Brakes are classed as wearable parts and as such are not covered as you describe.

If the brakes had fallen apart or been unserviceable thet would be a different story. But as it's the friction material and disks that are both wear items then it's just case of bite the bullet I'm afraid.

The garage 'might' offer some towards it but wouldn't hold your breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the problem is the 250 miles a month. Brakes need to be used to keep them up to scratch. Rear disc brakes are often an over specification, where drums would do just as good a job, provide a better parking brake and be more durable, as a consequence they just don't do the work when used, leading to unswept areas of the disc, corrosion (as they are often exposed through alloy wheels) and seizure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the problem is the 250 miles a month. Brakes need to be used to keep them up to scratch. Rear disc brakes are often an over specification, where drums would do just as good a job, provide a better parking brake and be more durable, as a consequence they just don't do the work when used, leading to unswept areas of the disc, corrosion (as they are often exposed through alloy wheels) and seizure.

 

Totally agree J66, couldn't have put it better myself. Rear brakes do very little work compared to the front which is why they tend to seize up first (with discs). The 207 set up especially being such a light car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...