Problem with 2006 Toyota Verso semiautomatic car

[Verso owner]

I recently bought an 06 Toyota Verso semiautomatic 7 seater car from a second hand car dealer for £4000.

I bought it for a friend who does not have much money

- we are providing him with an interest free loan.

 

It was advertised on the Internet (Motors UK) and the dealer is about 195 miles from where I live.

From the description the car was excellent i.e. low mileage (47,000 miles), one lady owner, FSH, very good condition, new MOT, just serviced.

I checked the MOT history on the gov.uk website and it had an excellent history and the annual mileages confirmed that the 47,000 mileage figure was accurate.

 

I travelled to the dealer on the 18th March, had a test drive and bought the car.

I drove it home and parked it on my drive until Sunday 24th March as I had only insured it for the one day.

This allowed time for my friend to arrange insurance for himself.

 

He had a 30 mile drive in it that day and when he was nearly back home he texted me to say there was a problem with the car.

He was using it in automatic mode and it suddenly flipped into neutral when standing at traffic lights in town.

It was not possible to select any gear and the only remedy was to switch off the engine, wait for a minute or so and restart.

 

The same thing has happened to me when I drove it back to the dealer (see below).

In fact the car stopped on a busy main road at traffic lights about a mile from the dealer, causing significant disruption.

The common factors seem to be that the engine has to be thoroughly warmed up and stop-start traffic is encountered, hence this was not detected during the test run nor during the 195 mile drive home which is virtually all motorway/dual carriageway with no hold ups as it was evening time.

 

To cut the rest of the story very short,

I have "rejected" the car as we were well within the 30 day period and the car has been back at the dealers since 1st April.

The dealer says that we must have damaged the clutch in the time we had it (his local garage has told him this) and will not do anything as the clutch is not covered by the warranty.

 

I am not a technical person but I fail to see how a driver can damage the clutch when driving in automatic mode?

However, before I returned the car I had it taken for a test run by our local Toyota garage and they confirmed that there is a problem with the transmission but were unable to specify exactly where without dismantling the transmission.

 

The car has no problem going up hills so I am doubtful about the clutch being faulty. 

I have now booked the car in for a full diagnostic check with the Toyota garage that is very near the car dealers location as otherwise we were in a stalemate situation with the dealer doing nothing.

 

This issue has prompted me to do some research and I have since discovered that there have been problems with this Toyota semi-automatic gearbox and the symptoms we are experiencing are exactly as those described on various Internet forums. Hence my increasing cynicism that the dealer is using the clutch argument so as to wash his hands of it, as the fault could be down to several reasons, some very expensive to fix!

 

I can see this having to go to the Small Claims Court.

In over 50 years of motoring in many different, mainly secondhand cars, I have never been in such a situation before so this is all new and very stressful (and time consuming/expensive) for me.

 

Do you think we have a reasonable chance of getting our money back this way?

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

[BankFodder]

As long as the dealer is established and has assets and will not suddenly disappear overnight then you will get your money back.

If you haven't done so already, you should make sure that the dealer has notice in writing that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act and because the defect has occurred within 30 days you want a refund plus any ancillary losses – which could include the cost of returning the car.

I have to say that the consumer rights act right to reject the vehicle is all very well we are finding a lot of difficulty actually managing to enforce this right especially with second-hand car dealers.

I'm afraid that you are another second hand vehicle purchaser who for some reason rather has fallen into exactly the same difficulty – by a car for a fairly cheap price and you bite so far away from you that that itself is a cause of problem. I find it difficult to imagine that there wasn't another suitable vehicle much closer that 195 miles away. However I realise that saying that doesn't help you – but maybe it should be a warning to others who might read this thread.

I wouldn't mince around. Don't get into any protracted conversations about getting it tested or discussing whether or not you damage the clutch. If you are prepared to take action then send the letter of claim and give 14 days. On day 15 issue the claim in the County Court. We will help you. If you are prepared to do this then don't make the threat. Don't bluff.

If this is what you are prepared to then make sure the letter of claim goes off on Monday first class. Spend the next 14 days registering on to the free County Court's money claim online website and start preparing your case. The particulars of claim will be very short and you should post them here so that we can check them before you click them off on day 15.

Don't expect this to be in instant solution. Assuming that the dealer doesn't cave in you will probably be looking at six months before the matter comes to hearing and you get a judgement in your favour. If you are lucky then maybe once the dealer receives the papers they will cave in and pay you out.

What is the name of the dealer?

[Verso owner]

Bankfodder – thank you for your rapid reply.

Yes, I agree with you, it was against my better judgement that we travelled such a long way to get that car.

However in our defence we have been scouring lots of websites for many weeks for a decent 7 seater automatic (petrol).

Believe it or not they are pretty scarce!

 

We are controlled by the price our friend can afford to pay (approx £4000 – repayments of £100 p.m.), hence this usually dictates the kind of car we could get – usually a very high mileage diesel which we did not want. When the Verso came up it seemed like a good opportunity.

 

Re: Consumer Protection Act: yes, I wrote to the dealer on the 28^th March to tell them that I was rejecting the car in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that I wanted a refund. I didn’t mention anything about additional expenses because I didn’t know I could include these. By the time this business is over, these will be considerable I think.

 

Re: your comment

“I wouldn't mince around. Don't get into any protracted conversations about getting it tested or discussing whether or not you damage the clutch”.

 

Do you advise then that I should cancel the diagnostic test at the Toyota garage?

I just felt we needed some independent technical expertise as we are not car mechanics!

Maybe this could go ahead in parallel?

I am paying for it out of my own money anyway as there is no chance that the dealer will do this.

 

Re: Letter of Claim. Is there a template for this?

I followed your link but all I can see is a POC.

Thanks.

 

Jeff

 

P.S. I meant to ask, would the fact that we didn't research the car before we bought it affect our claim?

Four of us went to see the car before we bought it and all agreed it seemed to be in really good condition so we had no reason to suspect any problem.

[BankFodder]

I noticed that you haven't told us the name of the dealer. Are you trying to protect them?

[Verso owner]

No I am not.

Is it wise/relevant to put these details on a public forum at this stage?

 

The questions I have raised are "generic" and would apply to any second hand car dealer I'd have thought.

[BankFodder]

Yes it is relevant because if the dealer realises that he is being talked about openly on social media then it will help to put pressure. It is relevant because if others who are thinking of doing business with the same company see that there is a story to know about then that may protect them. No, it doesn't apply to any second-hand car dealer but unfortunately it certainly applies to more than one would like to imagine.

Once again it is relevant because if second-hand car dealers realise that by failing to respect the consumer rights of their customers, that they may be referred to on social media, then they may prefer to take a more customer-facing approach in future.

All of those reasons, at least.

 

By not mentioning the car dealer by name, you are effectively protecting him and also you are effectively removing protection from others who might spend their money in similar circumstances and he might think twice or whom might ask better questions if they were forewarned.

Don't you wish you had been forewarned?

[Verso owner]

Just came across this thread on the forum:

 

Now I am totally confused!!

Back to the Consumer Standards helpline in the morning methinks

- can't afford to get this wrong.

 

Is it possible, in my case, that the dealer genuinely did not discover any transmission fault with my car simply because it's an intermittent thing and a short test run (like the one I did pre-purchase) does not show up the problem?

 

This still doesn't affect my rights under the CRA

but just wondering if this could be a legitimate defence for him?

 

I am loath to reveal the dealer at this stage until I get a definitive answer from either the Toyota garage and/or an independent motor engineer. Suppose the verdict is that (somehow!!!!)  we have indeed damaged the transmission in less than 6 hours of driving, and I have been slagging off the dealer in the interim?

 

I am convinced that we have not done any damage of course but it's only fair that we keep an open mind surely, even if the dealer is not?

[dx100uk]

you have to be aware that cag is a forum, and people are here from many walks of life

 

that life provided them with their income, or did until CRA came in and tightened down on the ole game may car dealers played for more than 40years

 

TINY..Tough Its Now Yours!

 

and are trying everything they can to minimise its impact by interpreting things as they feel fit

picking out single lines of the CRA here and there that 'supposedly' backs up their 'theories' when if you read the whole section that one liner came from...it says nothing of the sort..

 

you don't have to prove anything, and pers id not go running to 'helplines' 

CRA is very clear and I cant see you having any issue here.

[Verso owner]

OK, hope you're right! I wouldn't say that the Consumer helpline is any old "helpline" though - they are the definitive mouthpiece of Trading Standards surely,  but aimed at Joe Public like me rather than companies or corporations.

[buyer-beware]

I tnink it’s important you get balanced advice.

If you wish to reject within 30 days the ownership falls into you as the consumer to prove the fault was present at the point of sale, pre-existing and not disclosed to you.

 

It isn’t as simple or one sided as you have been advised.

The CRA is designed to protect consumers and retailers equally.

If you go to court with the intent to reject you will need to produce a report confirming this. 

 

After 30 days, the ownership is reversed and the dealer will have to prove the fault was not present. 

 

You also need to consider any fault related to the age, or mileage, serviceable,  or related to wear n tear is specifically excluded. 

 

You are still entitled to one repair within 6 months but as long as it is a genuine claim. 

 

Fyi

 

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/865#sthash.omv9rATy.E5OXlfgs.dpbs

 

FYI again.

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/1312#sthash.NvaTZTVG.dpbs

 

 

 

For the reasons above, I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it is only fair the OP sees what retail motor dealers believe and keep paying their very heavy subscriptions too.

 

Its important he knows what he’s up against so he can make his owner informed decisions. 

 

I chose to believe the UK’s leading Motoring Legal experts and I am entitled to give my balanced help / advice to the OP. 

 

OP, you are up against the following. 

 

30 Day Right To Reject Reminder

We have had a few calls of late from dealers who are of the belief that a refund has to be given in the first 30 days if there is a fault. 

This is not necessarily the case. 

Firstly, if the customer is asking for a refund under the 30 Day Right To Reject,  the onus is on the customer to prove there is a fault and they need to prove that:
 

1.    The fault is worthy of a refund. On a used car this is only likely to be the case if there was a major fault such as the  turbo failing or the gearbox ceasing. Minor faults do not entitle the customer to a refund. 

 

2.    The fault was present at the point of sale. So, even if the turbo failed at Day 29, this doesn’t automatically mean the customer is entitled to a refund unless they can prove it was failing at the point they took delivery. 

These are relatively high hurdles for the consumer, and rightly so given the benefits of this 30 Day Rule. If you have any doubts as to whether you have to refund or offer a repair, members can call the Lawgistics Legal helpline to discuss the specific facts of your case and we will help you minimise any potential loss.  

[dx100uk]

well they would say that wouldn't they.

bit like ambulance chasers giving advice to a potential customer so they can get fees out of the other party even if they lose.

 

post 8 explains all..

[buyer-beware]

If you want to give advice, make it balanced.

Explain both sides of the coin.

Don’t just cherry pick the bits you want to here and then ignore the actual true facts.

 

The CRA is designed to be fair to both parties.

The OP needs to understand the above so he can make  fully informed, educated decision.

Not be mislead by a warped misleading interpretation. 

[BankFodder]

2 hours ago, buyer-beware said:

I tnink it’s important you get balanced advice. If you wish to reject with 30 days the ownership falls into you as the consumer to prove the fault was present at the point of sale, pre-existing and not disclosed to you. It isn’t as simple or one sided as you have been advised. The CRA is designed to protect consumers and retailers equally. If you go to court with the intent to reject you will need to produce a report confirming this. 

 

After 30 days, the ownership is reversed and the dealer will have to prove the fault was not present. 

 

You also need to consider any fault related to the age, or mileage, serviceable,  or related to wear n tear is specifically excluded. 

 

You are still entitled to one repair within 6 months but as long as it is a genuine claim. 

 

Fyi

 

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/865#sthash.omv9rATy.E5OXlfgs.dpbs

 

Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean by ownership falling and ownership being reversed?

Also would you mind giving the authority the assertion you have made which I have picked out in purple

[buyer-beware]

May I suggest you take that up with the Lawgistics. The UK’s leading Motoring Law Firm. 

[BankFodder]

No I don't think you may. You decided to tell people about some aspect of the law and I think that we need to understand what you mean. For instance, what on earth do you mean by reversing ownership? Are you suggesting then that they sell the car or they transfer the title to the dealer or to some other person?

I think it's reasonable for you to explain what you mean – otherwise it's really not worth you giving any information here if it doesn't make sense

[buyer-beware]

In the interest of the OP I think it’s really important you give balanced advice. Are you calling Lawgistics liars and misleading? 

[BankFodder]

I'm afraid I am saying that I don't think you understand what you're posting here. I think that if you're going to attempt to give authoritative advice then at the very least people should have confidence that you understand what you're saying – even if they don't understand what you're saying.

I'm afraid I have both problems. I don't understand what you're saying and I don't believe you do either

[dx100uk]

YES!! they are liars!

 

there is nothing in the CRA that stipulates the owner HAS to prove the fault was there upon buying the item if they exercise their short term right to reject within 30days..

 

Lawgistics are talking utter tosh!!

 

TINY does not apply anymore.

 

one of the reasons CRA was brought in was to specifically stop dodgy motor traders pulling these stunts.

 

the item has failed within 30 days

- unfit for purpose,

it matters not if/if it was not there at the time of sale.

 

now if the fault renders the retailer likely to refund is another matter

elsewhere faulty windscreen wipers or a bulb out are not sufficient reason.

however no oil in the car IS..it proved fatal.

 

as for this reverse ownership.

if you mean outside of 30days but within 6mts the dealer has to prove it wasn't there..

..sort of makes a mockery of the before 30days the buyer has too doesn't it really...

 

sorry but the CRA is quite clear but people want to manipulate things to their own advantage and find get out clauses in the CRA when there are none.

 

keep paying their very heavy subscriptions too. ..

 

to hear what they want to hear surely?

do they ever go against what the member wants to hear?

thus running the 'i pay you lots of money to get me out of what I believe is not my responsibility'?

just wondering?

[buyer-beware]

I repeat. For the reasons above, I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it is only fair the OP sees what he’s potentially up against. He can then make an informed decision. 

 

I repeat, I chose to believe the UK’s leading Motoring Legal experts and I am entitled to give my balanced help / advice to the OP. Even if you don’t want hear it. 

[BankFodder]

44 minutes ago, buyer-beware said:

OP, you are up against the following. 

 

30 Day Right To Reject Reminder

We have had a few calls of late from dealers who are of the belief that a refund has to be given in the first 30 days if there is a fault. 

This is not necessarily the case. 

Firstly, if the customer is asking for a refund under the 30 Day Right To Reject,  the onus is on the customer to prove there is a fault and they need to prove that:
 

1.    The fault is worthy of a refund. On a used car this is only likely to be the case if there was a major fault such as the  turbo failing or the gearbox ceasing. Minor faults do not entitle the customer to a refund. 

 

2.    The fault was present at the point of sale. So, even if the turbo failed at Day 29, this doesn’t automatically mean the customer is entitled to a refund unless they can prove it was failing at the point they took delivery. 

These are relatively high hurdles for the consumer, and rightly so given the benefits of this 30 Day Rule. If you have any doubts as to whether you have to refund or offer a repair, members can call the Lawgistics Legal helpline to discuss the specific facts of your case and we will help you minimise any potential loss.  

 

13 minutes ago, buyer-beware said:

I repeat. For the reasons above, I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it is only fair the OP sees what he’s potentially up against. He can then make an informed decision. 

 

I repeat, I chose to believe the UK’s leading Motoring Legal experts and I am entitled to give my balanced help / advice to the OP. Even if you don’t want hear it. 

I'm sorry but this is mainly wrong.

I quite agree that people are entitled to hear a balanced view – but if you are simply repeating your interpretation of somebody else's view then it is unhelpful.

If you would like to turn to the source – the statute and come back here and explain to everyone how the statute supports your position then we would like to see it. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I take the view that what you say is completely misleading.

What you are saying is wrong in a number of respects – but in particular I will say that the short-term right to reject does not depend on the seriousness of the defect. The seriousness of the defect was an issue under the old pre-2015 law. In that case, it was a matter of common law that a defect which undermine the purpose of the contract did indeed terminate the contract. A defect which did not undermine the contract was always considered to be "a breach of warranty" and could be remedied by a repair and/or damages.

The Consumer Rights Act has change that part quite radically. If this is really what the motor trade are saying then please post a link to that so we can have a look at it and also the date at which it was posted.

I can scarcely imagine that any reputable organisation would still trot out such out of date information.

Please post a link to the source of your information – but also if you want to give advice authoritatively here then please will you link to the source.

 

 

[dx100uk]

well I can then only repeat what I said before BB

they will say that else there'd be a mass exodus of 'paid members' not hearing what they want to hear.

 

as far as I can see there is no requirement under an 'unfit for purpose' claim made under the '30days short term right to reject' option of the CRA for the buyer to prove it was present at the time of buying, they are claiming 'its fatally failed within 30 days' not specifically 'xyz has failed'. 

 

cant see the point of the introduction of the 30 days under CRA if it was not needed to be introduced. 

the previous SOGA etc obv didn't have such protection thus it was needed.

 

now as you and i have said, if the reason doesn't hold water to be fatal 'enough' is another matter. 

 

 

[buyer-beware]

I repeat again, even if you don’t like it. It is a thoroughly valid and worthy point to make to the OP......

 

I quote Andyorch

 

“Please can we keep this civil....the OP is free to take whoevers advice he feels is correct and unbiased.

 

Andy”

 

 

[Verso owner]

 

Gentlemen - I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here!

 

Can I say that the advice I got from the Consumer helpline concours with that of Buyer Beware i.e. in the first 30 days the onus of proof is on me. I'm on to it, make no mistake!

 

The car goes to the Toyota garage on Tuesday for their assessment and will also be examined by an independent automomotive engineer who is registered with the IAEA.

 

If it has to go to court so be it.

If I win then all the costs I have incurred will be claimed back.

 

 I should have added that I am aware of the risks but the independent expert is confident that we have a case.

 

The main fault (gearbox automatically shifts into neutral and no further selection of a gear is possible unless engine stopped and restarted)

 

appeared after a total of about only 6 hours of driving.

 

What is the greater probability -  extremely unlucky or there was an existing intermittent fault?

[Gick]

Verso owner, you do realize that ringing the Consumer Helpline is a bit of a lottery? The 'advisers' are well meaning volunteers who may or may not have any real understanding of the law about which they are giving advice!

 

You need to make an appointment with them to have a chance of getting advice from a solicitor who again may or may not have an expertise with the CRA 2015

 

There have been many instances on this forum when Citizens Advice (who run Consumer helpline) got things wrong in law - private parking springs to mind.

 

Lawgistics may claim to be the UK's No1 motoring lawyers but as that claim is directed at the motor trade who purchase a subscription from them, as dx (and before him Christine Keeler) said 'well they would, wouldn't they'.

[buyer-beware]

@Verso owner

I am glad you are seeing sense.

If the report shows conclusively the fault was present at the point of sale then the retailer hasn’t a leg to stand on. 

 

I would take a punt that the fault was there and that’s why it’s previous owner got rid.

The dealer might of checked the car thoroughly and did his job correctly but never knew of the problem..... who knows. 

 

Can I ask why you immediately jumped to reject without asking the dealer to repair?  

It sounds like a lovely car ?

A rejection should always be the last resort.