Dealer trouble

My daughter has just bought a Golf TDi from a dealer on Autotrader. His sales patter has turned out to be less than accurate.

Rather than no-expenses-spared FSH from VW as claimed, it has been to a variety of non VW garages and rather than needing nothing done as claimed, it needs a cambelt & waterpump asap (whereas he said it would be good for 66K). It also seems to need anti freeze, door microswitch, hazard warning switch & relay and attention to tailgate wiring, rear wiper and drivers window - and hasn't even had a proper check yet.

It came with 21 days warranty and is still within this period. Is she entitled to a refund? Can she get the work done and invoice him for it? Taking it back to someone who has proved unreliable has little appeal (if he offered to fix it).

I'd be grateful if anyone would advise.

Reply to
aeio
Loading thread data ...

Just as they bought it from auction, then, after a good clean.

Car dealers can claim what they want warranty wise, but are still subject to the laws of the land. They invariably seek to limit their liability by buying an insurance warranty, etc. And or this 21 day thing.

However, it would also be unreasonable to expect a used car to be perfect in every respect. However, if you can prove they claimed it had a FMDSH which was up to date it would be reasonable to expect that to be true. And if a cam belt should have been changed at a specific mileage, that should have been done.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

But, of course, you noticed all of those when you checked the paperwork before agreeing the deal, right?

Age of car, price?

Reply to
Adrian

I wasn't there. Daughter got a lift there with friends and I'd given her a long list of things to check including paperwork & things on the car and test drive so she was under a bit of pressure. She did look at the paperwork and checked service interval but assumed that cambelt and waterpump were OK as it said so in the ad:

"cambelt and waterpump have been done twice already so no need to worry about that"

- and the seller had assured me of that by phone. The transcript of call shows him assuring me that the cambelt would be OK for 66K, whereas 5 years is up in August (and VW say it should be done at 5 years)

Could a young lady more interested in the fabric the seats are covered with, be expected to know there was a time limit on cambelt or that cambelt kit in service invoice, didn't include water pump?

She did pick up on the door micro switch (no warning when she left the lights on and opened door) but dealer made her think that was normal for that car.

Golf 1.9TDI £2K 136K miles

Reply to
aeio

But not closely enough to notice it didn't say "VW MAIN DEALER" all over the service invoices?

So "done twice already" (at five year intervals) means it's due this year?

Reply to
Adrian

That bit is sort of true. But he claimed it was no-expenses-spared by VW and that cambelt would be OK for 66K miles. VW say it should be done every 5 years so the 5 years is up in August.

Additionally, he stated that waterpump had been done twice. The service station in records confirm it was not done as last cambelt change (5 years ago) and there is no evidence it was done at the first cambelt change (60k miles) so the only sensible thing to do it to change both asap (according to VW)

And

Reply to
aeio

That is correct. The early paperwork (and first cambelt change) were from VW though and I imagine that'd be cunningly placed on top - dunno though.

Yes.

Reply to
aeio

En el artículo , aeio escribió:

So basically a shed, then. You can't expect it to be fault-free.

Reply to
Mike Tomlinson

Its an old car but was sold as having no faults and as not needing cambelt or waterpump but it has and it does - about £500 worth I'd guess. I've often read there are more rights when dealing with a dealer than buying privately but don't know how this works out in practice - or what advice I should give. Are you saying it was a fair deal and we don't have a leg to stand on?

Reply to
aeio

They may well have

So the cambelt is fine

That unfortuntlay is her problem, if she is clueless about cars take along someone who is

Reply to
steve robinson

Cambelt is not a fault, its wear and tear, age related maintainance they usually do the waterpumps at the same time

No car with 136 K on the clock is going to be faultless, new cars are not faultless, at that sought of milage your looking at a lot of age related maintanance

Reply to
steve robinson

steve robinson put finger to keyboard:

At the moment, yes - but the statement "there's no need to worry about it" is false as it is due to be done again within four months.

I think you mean take along someone who isn't :-)

Reply to
Scion

steve robinson put finger to keyboard:

But if the dealer says it's been done and there's no need to worry about it, it should not be due to be changed within a few months.

The dealer was lying. (Not front page news, unfortunately...)

Reply to
Scion

aeio put finger to keyboard:

Do you have any *written* proof of the dealer's claims?

What are you after - to reject the car, or to have the dealer get some work done?

Reply to
Scion

En el artículo , aeio escribió:

How old? You seem to be avoiding the question.

From what you've said, I get the impression this was a verbal assurance, in which case it's the dealer's word versus yours/your daughter's. If you have it in writing you're on firmer ground.

Yes, you do. I hope you have a written bill of sale and it doesn't include the words 'sold as seen'.

If you have the cambelt/waterpump assurance in writing, a small claims court would probably find in your favour. But you should approach the dealer in the first instance to give him a chance to put things right.

You say it's under warranty, talk to the dealer. But I think it would be unreasonable to expect every niggling little fault to be fixed on an older car. The cambelt/waterpump is a different issue - ultimately it'll come down to whether you have anything in writing.

The dealer may offer you a refund just to get you off his back. If so, I'd take it and look elsewhere.

I think that car also has the dual mass flywheel which is known to be a source of problems and is listed here:

formatting link
this may influence your approach to the dealer.

Good luck.

Reply to
Mike Tomlinson

sorry - didn't notice I'd missed that - its 2003 so 12 yo.

Yes have it in the ad (taken down the minute car was sold, but fortunately I got a screenshot), and also have phone recording.

yes and no

Have done and he won't. He says VW are talking rubbish in saying belt needs done every 5 years or 50K miles (it is 4 years or 60K according to Haynes) and his mechanic says belt will be fine up to 100K and just to ignore the time requirement and waterpump does't matter. He may be right or wrong but the fact remains that he said they'd both been done but waterpump hadn't and he said belt would be OK for 66K miles, but didn't mention that it was almost 5 years since it had been done. VW say change them both right away.

He's offered £50 to buy a new waterpump and wants to fix the other issues himself. (going by experience sofar, that is not worth much)

Thanks.

Reply to
aeio

Belt life depends on what it's made from and size of idler pulley. They have changed both to increase life to 100K.

Reply to
Peter Hill

As his right under the Sale of Goods Act.

Any faults, the supplier has the right to resolve them. Only if he can't, then does your daughter have the right to a refund or replacement.

Reply to
Adrian

I noticed an article which indicates this is a slightly grey area:

formatting link
Is a buyer really compelled to take a car back to a dealer who has already mis sold a vehicle? Would they not be expected to bodge it and then say oh the guarantee is up now?

In an case, does the fact that the car was not as described not give her a right to reject it? The cambelt & waterpump promise and the full VW service history carried a lot of weight and have proved to be false.

Reply to
aeio

That's a different kettle of fish - it relates to an acknowledged problem which appeared after purchase, and was fixed elsewhere without any reference to the supplier.

I suspect you'd be hard pushed to use that case, as reported, as a precedent, since it not only goes against the OFT's own guidance but the judge ordered payment of the invoice without any invoice actually being presented.

No, and "guarantee" is irrelevant here. These are undoubtedly pre- existing faults. The only question is whether they are ones which can reasonably be expected to be found in a 12 year old £2,000 136k mile used car.

No.

Your daughter had adequate opportunity to determine the service history truth before agreeing the deal - you've said she inspected the invoices. Does the gap between a VWMDSH and the service history that does exist make a material difference to the value of the car? Probably not and, if it does, it's going to be minimal.

The cambelt and waterpump can easily be changed - although tbh I don't think it would be unreasonable for the dealer to offer to split the cost

- perhaps parts paid for by one party, labour by the other - since there was never a claim that they were newly fitted, merely that they didn't yet need "worrying about". No timescale is stated or implied. You've already said that his position is that that claim is justified, since the time-based interval is overly cautious. So it's not a simple "misdescribed", but a more involved question of interpretation. For an older, highish mileage, lower value car, it could easily be argued that that's not an entirely unreasonable interpretation.

Reply to
Adrian

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.