Topic: Car & mechanics advice thread

[rob1966]

I don't think BMW or any car manufacturer will pay for major repairs without a full service record at their official service centres.

The chain is a non service item that should last for at least 240,000 miles. They even put the chain at the back of the engine as it should never need touching.

Years ago I had a Kawasaki motorbike that wore out the cam lobes at 17,000 miles - it hadn't seen a Kawasaki dealer for a service for years and they still paid for all the parts to repair, I just paid labour.

140k. Which whilst I realise sounds a lot, I did seek opinions on and was advised I’d get the same out of it again at least.

If it’s a known issue with that type of car then surely he could have known about it in advance?

Easily.

No, because it doesn't happen to every car, only some and at 140,000 he could reasonably expect it not to be an affected engine. Two of my mates have the same car, 10 plate and 13 plate and neither has had an issue.

[Danny Boys Dad]

140k. Which whilst I realise sounds a lot, I did seek opinions on and was advised I’d get the same out of it again at least.

If it’s a known issue with that type of car then surely he could have known about it in advance?

So should you, takes 5 minutes to do a quick google to see if there's anything untoward you need to know about. It's not the dealer's job to do your homework for you.

Not heard of a BMW doing 280k either and personally I wouldn't touch a car that had done 140k with someone else driving it.

Sounds like you'll just have to bite the bullet on this one.

[Jm55]

The chain is a non service item that should last for at least 240,000 miles. They even put the chain at the back of the engine as it should never need touching.

Years ago I had a Kawasaki motorbike that wore out the cam lobes at 17,000 miles - it hadn't seen a Kawasaki dealer for a service for years and they still paid for all the parts to repair, I just paid labour.

Easily.

No, because it doesn't happen to every car, only some and at 140,000 he could reasonably expect it not to be an affected engine. Two of my mates have the same car, 10 plate and 13 plate and neither has had an issue.

Coincidentally when my girlfriend was giving me a lift to work on Wednesday he tyre went (I know what a fucking week,) and the AA guy that came out happened to be an ex BMW engineer. As soon as I told him my issue he guessed the model and age of the car and said it was an issue which whilst BMW never officially acknowledged, they were providing repairs on, although as was said above the service history needed to be BMW.

Surely if it had been serviced and checked properly prior to me buying it it would have been detectable?

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Any chance of a record of the previous owner's service history Jm? Very long shot I know.

[rob1966]

Coincidentally when my girlfriend was giving me a lift to work on Wednesday he tyre went (I know what a fucking week,) and the AA guy that came out happened to be an ex BMW engineer. As soon as I told him my issue he guessed the model and age of the car and said it was an issue which whilst BMW never officially acknowledged, they were providing repairs on, although as was said above the service history needed to be BMW.

Surely if it had been serviced and checked properly prior to me buying it it would have been detectable?

Unless the chain was stretched and rattling then no, the engine would sound fine. You cannot see the chain nor inspect it as you can with a rubber belt.

So should you, takes 5 minutes to do a quick google to see if there's anything untoward you need to know about. It's not the dealer's job to do your homework for you.

Not heard of a BMW doing 280k either and personally I wouldn't touch a car that had done 140k with someone else driving it.

Sounds like you'll just have to bite the bullet on this one.

The engine should easily last that long, the rest if the car probably wont though

[Danny Boys Dad]

The engine should easily last that long, the rest if the car probably wont though

So much to go wrong on them these days, I start wanting to get rid when they get to around 80k. Definitely wouldn't buy a car that had done 100k+

[rob1966]

So much to go wrong on them these days, I start wanting to get rid when they get to around 80k. Definitely wouldn't buy a car that had done 100k+

Mine has got 84k on it now and is 10 yrs old next April, I intend to keep it for as long as I can. It's in excellent nick, the engine should go on for years and to be honest, there is nothing more modern I fancy. The XF is too big for the drive and I don't like the inside of the XE, too cramped, every other car is too big and bulky and they all look the same.

[Son of Spion]

It is a chain mate - they told me over the phone and as I’m not knowledgable on these issues I remembered the word belt, rather than chain.

I spoke to the mechanic who tells me minimum of £1500 rising to 3k potentially if the valves have bent. Absolutely can’t believe it.

Painful! Sorry to hear that.

Timing belts / chains always worry me. My car has a belt rather than a chain, and when I bought it as a private sale I took a mechanic friend along. He was right on the belt issue and told me that unless they can show proof that it has been changed recently I should definitely get it changed myself as a precaution if I bought the car. I did purchase the car and he did the belt for me straight away. I'd recommend anyone buying a used car with a timing belt to do the same unless you know for sure it's been changed recently. It's simply not worth taking the risk when you consider that if it breaks it can potentially wreck your engine and write your car off. 

You know the score with a belt, but a chain is supposed to last for the lifetime of the vehicle I believe. So, extremely frustrating if it does go on you. If my next car has a chain on it then it will definitely be something I would get checked over from time to time to see if it has stretched. A friend of mine has a Mini Cooper and I know she gets her timing chain checked by someone who knows what he's doing from time to time.

I hope you get it all sorted, mate.


EDIT:

I've just been reading about timing chains and it appears they are certainly not immune from potential issues, particularly in higher mileage vehicles. Apparently, the timing chain is inside the engine because it needs lubricating by the engine oil. Timing belts being outside the engine. Lack of oil changes, low oil levels or poor quality oils can all contribute to timing chain wear and tear. With a used car it's often difficult to know just how well or badly it has been treated in the past. From what I've just read, to help avoid timing chain issues it is recommended that oil is changed regularly, and top quality oils and filters are used. Also, keeping the correct oil levels will make sure the chain is always correctly lubricated. This article suggests that in a well maintained engine, a timing chain could last 300,000 miles or even longer.

The thing is, who knows if previous keepers have only bothered changing the oil once it turns to sludge and then only with stuff they bought from Poundland?   
I don't suppose the second-hand dealer knows this either, unless the car came with wads of service history and times and dates of all work carried out. They may spruce the car up before sale, give it a service etc, but they probably won't know how the car was treated by Joe Bloggs who owned it a few years previously.

[rob1966]

^

Really good advice that - even if they say it has been done, unless they give you a bill to prove it, change it. Some garages will write the mileage on the timing belt cover when they do it.

I had the tensioner fail twice on bikes - once I got away with just changing the chain and tensioner, the second time was starting the bike and it took out 5 of the 20 valves. Did it myself and it still cost me £500.

Had a very lucky escape when I was 18, I was in my Step Dads Cortina, I'd dropped our kid at college in Huyton and had come off the M57 at Kirkby. I stopped at the bottom of the slip road when the car died and wouldn't start - the belt had shredded - luckily did no valve damage.

[Son of Spion]

^

Really good advice that - even if they say it has been done, unless they give you a bill to prove it, change it. Some garages will write the mileage on the timing belt cover when they do it.

I had the tensioner fail twice on bikes - once I got away with just changing the chain and tensioner, the second time was starting the bike and it took out 5 of the 20 valves. Did it myself and it still cost me £500.

Had a very lucky escape when I was 18, I was in my Step Dads Cortina, I'd dropped our kid at college in Huyton and had come off the M57 at Kirkby. I stopped at the bottom of the slip road when the car died and wouldn't start - the belt had shredded - luckily did no valve damage.

Yep. Each time my belt has been changed a sticker with the mileage done at the time has been stuck to the cover. I also note every job done on my car, whether it is done by myself or a garage and exactly when it was done. I've had it years and it will probably be going to the big scrappy in the sky when I let it go, but if I was selling it on the next owner would have a detailed history to go on at least.

A woman I know asked me a while back if I'd do the timing belt on her car for her. I said no chance, get it done by a professional and get it done properly. You can't mess about with these things.

Lucky escape with the old Cortina, eh.    A painful hit with the valves on the bike, though. 

[Jm55]

The thing is though that I don’t need to show that the issue was there when I bought it and I don’t need to show that the dealer knew or even should have known about it.

Within 30 days to 6 months the onus on the seller to show that the fault wasn’t there at the time of purchase. So presumably I should have a decent case as unless he can show that chain was in perfect nick and had no signs that it may break, which I’m being told is unlikely as he probably hadn’t seen it? Then he’s going to struggle. That’s the Consumer Rogjts Act legislation which says that. When I quoted it to him on the phone he didn’t even know what the law was, he thought the above provision was within 30 days, so I’d say I’ve got a decent chance.

[rob1966]

The thing is though that I don’t need to show that the issue was there when I bought it and I don’t need to show that the dealer knew or even should have known about it.

Within 30 days to 6 months the onus on the seller to show that the fault wasn’t there at the time of purchase. So presumably I should have a decent case as unless he can show that chain was in perfect nick and had no signs that it may break, which I’m being told is unlikely as he probably hadn’t seen it? Then he’s going to struggle. That’s the Consumer Rogjts Act legislation which says that. When I quoted it to him on the phone he didn’t even know what the law was, he thought the above provision was within 30 days, so I’d say I’ve got a decent chance.

By all means try but don't hold your breath that you will get anywhere.

To change the timing chain on a BMW requires the engine to be removed from the car. If I was the seller I'd make you take me to court and then see you try to convince the judge that a car dealer should perform an engine out job on a car where the chain isn't rattling and the manufacturer states it is a lifetime part. If the engine wasn't rattling, and as you didn't claim it was at time of sale, then the chain was fine at the point of sale - a loose chain rattles like fuck. Also you have the mileage going against you, as with this engine, any failures have happened well before 140,000 miles. If a judge found in your favour, then used BMW's wouldn't be worth a cold bucket of piss as no-one would dare sell one.

[Jm55]

By all means try but don't hold your breath that you will get anywhere.

To change the timing chain on a BMW requires the engine to be removed from the car. If I was the seller I'd make you take me to court and then see you try to convince the judge that a car dealer should perform an engine out job on a car where the chain isn't rattling and the manufacturer states it is a lifetime part. If the engine wasn't rattling, and as you didn't claim it was at time of sale, then the chain was fine at the point of sale - a loose chain rattles like fuck. Also you have the mileage going against you, as with this engine, any failures have happened well before 140,000 miles. If a judge found in your favour, then used BMW's wouldn't be worth a cold bucket of piss as no-one would dare sell one.

Again though mate. The burden of proof is on him to show that it wasn’t there, whether or not he should have seen it etc is irrelevant.

[The Gulleysucker]

Again though mate. The burden of proof is on him to show that it wasn’t there, whether or not he should have seen it etc is irrelevant.

Good luck but do keep us informed of your progress on this.

[gamble]

I feel for you buddy, got an e61 with a m47 engine. Was on the bones of my arse 2years and needed a motor ASAP when I bought it for £3300 and in two years i have spent £7k on it. Every time I spent money on it I was deeper and deeper in.

This is a crappy era for bmw engines, in fact as pretty as they are I don’t really rate any of the engines. Same for the mercs too.you have to spend money on them, and that means regular servicing at a proper bmw specialist with the proper oem software (and the mercs star system has to be original if you have a merc).

I think your motor was probably never looked after, and at that mileage your swirly flaps are going to go any day if they haven’t been removed by someone who knows what they are doing (bmw main dealers know even less, all they do is replace parts rather than fix the solutions). And as a modern diesel I would be stunned if you haven’t had any dpf issues on it yet, which get misdiagnosed even with expensive software.

You can try bully him and even put a small claims in against him and hope he coughs up, but I doubt it will be fruitful. Second hand dealers will know ways to avoid liability like you can’t imagine.

Try find a local bmw specialist with oem software. A proper independent will have their own dealer number and be able to maintain e-service online history on the newer BMW’s. This era of bmw runs on condition based servicing, you can get high mileage only if your car is properly looked after regularly, with the regular bills.

Modern motoring is crap. Makes mugs out of everyone, drivers, mechanics and dealers with crappy parts, manufacturers basing models on product life cycles (I.e they make more money from parts and servicing than they do the actual cars) and misdiagnosis.

[Jm55]

Good luck but do keep us informed of your progress on this.

Keep me informed when you know what the law is mate, rather than making smart arsed comments on the internet.

[Tesco tearaway]

Keep me informed when you know what the law is mate, rather than making smart arsed comments on the internet.

How was that a smart arsed comment?
I too would like to see how you get on.

[The Gulleysucker]

Keep me informed when you know what the law is mate, rather than making smart arsed comments on the internet.

It was a genuine enquiry and not intended as smart arsed in any way.

Though now I can't help but feel there's something a bit odd in that if as you so claim, you know the law, why is it you've posted in here to get an opinion of your own confident position on it?  You say you're a lawyer so surely this is a case that's more suited and likely would be more fruitful for you to perhaps instead discuss amongst your legal profession colleagues rather than on here.

But from what you said, any warranty was just for three months (I'm guessing 90 days) or for a certain mileage whichever came first and those conditions were exceeded so you are clearly outside the warranty.

Unless you took out some kind of additional mechanical repair cover policy on purchasing the vehicle, I have my doubts you'll make much progress with the dealer, it's a used car, but if you do, I'm sure I speak for most on here, we'd all like to hear about it.

[Jm55]

I don’t claim to be an expert on this subject, I work in employment/commercial
Law not in the car trade industry and I don’t know every single law on the subject and even if I did I’m not a mechanic so I’m unlikely to know how to interpret everything on it which is why I was asking for advice.

That said, if you read the consumer rights act it quite clearly says that between 30 days and 6 months after purchase the onus is on the seller to prove that the fault wasn’t there at point of sale., otherwise the buyer is entitled to replacement or repair free of charge. It doesn’t need to be shown that the fault was there, or that the seller knew about it, or to show he should have reasonably known about it. He has to prove it wasn’t there.

When you think about it that’s a reasonable position because I think the idea that consumers should have to villigently check a car they’re buying from a reputable dealership is somewhat archaic, we should have trust that the people Selling us these products have done this themselves, especially when we’re talking about sometbing which can potentially endanger life if it goes wrong. I realise you can’t always expect them to catch every single detail, but then, someone has to take the burden of that risk and why should it be the consumer.

If your post was inquisitive rather than sarcastic then fair enough I apologise and I’ll happily let you know how I get on. The likely situation is I’ll havs to pay for repairs and then chase the dealer up
For the money back by vidtue of the CRA. What would be needed would be for him to get an independent mechanical opinion to state that the fault wasn’t there when I bought it. Clearly the chain wasn’t snapped as the car was drivable, but from what I’ve read/been told, it would have been on its way out at that point, and therefore likely to fail at some point.

People saying that the dealer should rigidly stick to the warranty are a little naive in my opinion. A warranty is one form of commercial protection, not a definitive one.at the end of the day a 5 grand car with over a 100k left on its life shouldn’t be breaking to this extent aged 3 months, in or out of warranty and it’s reasomable to expect more dealer sympathy than I’ve had. You’d get that with almost any other product, like electricals for example, most decent retailers will contribute to out of warranty repairs, so why not for a car? Thankfully the law seems to agree.

[John C]

You got your answer here.

3 months OR 3000 miles was the warranty. Whichever is earlier. Not whichever is later.

If your car did 2000 miles but broke down on the 93rd day, it is no longer valid.
If your car did 3001 miles in 45 days, then it is no longer valid.

The warranty says 3000 miles. You have driven 5400 miles. It might have been reached in 3 months and 1 day, or 3 years. Beyond 3000 miles, it is not valid anymore.

The dealer might be an ass in saying this. Probably the way he said it.

But thats the way it is. Such contracts are made for a reason based on time AND distance.

Let's not go round in circles any longer

[Jm55]

You got your answer here.Let's not go round in circles any longer

That’s not the answer though mate is it? I’m honestly not being argumentative here but in the original post I quite clearly stated 2 methods of legal recourse, the warranty and the Consumer Rights Act. It appears the former is more rigid than I hoped but having looked into it the latter is on my side. The reason I asked about that was on the off chance someone had been in a similar position or had worked in a similar area. As you say, there’s no point in going round in circles and lll revert to this thread when I have news on the issue.

[rob1966]

Yes do let us know how you get on. Like I said, I've mates who own 3 series Diesels around the same age and I'd be interested in the outcome. I'd also advise going after BMW themselves, this is a fault that they are well aware of.

I will almost guarantee that the dealers response will be that it is a lifetime part, its an engine out job to check it (the labour costs alone make that a prohibitive job for a car dealer) and that the accepted way of telling if a chain is on its way out is that you get a rattle that you cannot miss. The chain will be slapping about and hitting the cam chain tunnel and the noise is very loud. He will say that it wasn't rattling at the time of sale, it won't have been as you wouldn't have bought it, so the chain was fine.

[Jm55]

Yes do let us know how you get on. Like I said, I've mates who own 3 series Diesels around the same age and I'd be interested in the outcome. I'd also advise going after BMW themselves, this is a fault that they are well aware of.

I will almost guarantee that the dealers response will be that it is a lifetime part, its an engine out job to check it (the labour costs alone make that a prohibitive job for a car dealer) and that the accepted way of telling if a chain is on its way out is that you get a rattle that you cannot miss. The chain will be slapping about and hitting the cam chain tunnel and the noise is very loud. He will say that it wasn't rattling at the time of sale, it won't have been as you wouldn't have bought it, so the chain was fine.

He can say what he wants mate but that isn’t proof.

The weekend before I bought it he advised me he’d get it serviced to double check for any issues, which is why I picked it up on the Monday. Monday came along and he advised me it had been recently serviced which he ‘wasn’t aware of,’ so therefore didn’t get it serviced. I stupidly agreed, which isn’t a mistake I’ll be making again, but in this scenario that may actually assist me as if he didn’t service it himself then he’s glinf to struggle to show that fault wasn’t there at the time of purchase.

[CraigDS]

Under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act the onus is on the seller to show the fault wasn’t present at the time of purchase. Now given the fault gives some fairly obvious signs, and given you then drove over 5,000 in the car without fault, I’d say he’s probably got a pretty good defence.

The onus is not on him to show the fault won’t happen within X miles after purchase, just that it’s not there at time of purchase.

[El Lobo]

Aye

Its a bit shitty of him to be fair but you're pissing into the wind expecting a warranty company to be lenient after the warranty ends, or a mechanic/garage to basically give you money out of the goodness of their heart. Sounds like he's doing you a favour offering to fix it at cost.

[rob1966]

Rather than try and get the parts at cost, I'd see if he can source a reconditioned engine. You can send an engine off and get it done for around £1800, so a dealer should be able to get a good discount.

[Barneylfc∗]

I'm genuinely at a loss to why anyone would think the dealer is liable for anything here to be honest. Open and shut case for me. Out of warranty, and no fault at the time of purchase. The dealer is doing you a favour offering you anything at all.

[rob1966]

I'm genuinely at a loss to why anyone would think the dealer is liable for anything here to be honest. Open and shut case for me. Out of warranty, and no fault at the time of purchase. The dealer is doing you a favour offering you anything at all.

That my view too. It is more from a customer service point of view that it would he helpful if the dealer, as he appears to be doing, did his best to assist the customer in getting the car sorted at a reasonable cost. If it was my business, I would take this approach.

I did look at a 3 series diesel before I got my car, from what I've learn't about the engines in the past couple of days, I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole now.

[Jm55]

Under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act the onus is on the seller to show the fault wasn’t present at the time of purchase. Now given the fault gives some fairly obvious signs, and given you then drove over 5,000 in the car without fault, I’d say he’s probably got a pretty good defence.

The onus is not on him to show the fault won’t happen within X miles after purchase, just that it’s not there at time of purchase.

Mate.

I don’t know how many times I have to say the same thing.

The onus is on him to PROVE that it wasn’t there. It’s not enough to say it would have been obvious, because what’s to stop him recognising it’s there and selling it anyway? The onus is on him to prove it, unless it’s been serviced pre-sale (it hasn’t it was last serviced in April) then he’s going to struggle to prove it.

Looks like it doesn’t matter anyway as having dug a little deeper the car was sold with an outstanding recall, which is illegal, and can result in a fine of up to 2.5k, so I’ll get him to pay for the repair or I’ll report him for selling a car illegally.

Happy fucking days

[McrRed]

OP is coming across badly I'm afraid.

Things can go catastrophically sometimes and it sounds like he's been caught out by the catastrophic failure of the timing chain.
My sister in law suffered an anuerism and died. There was no evidence of a problem before that. Life is shit sometimes.

I like the advice to go after BMW... might be some fruit in that. Good luck fella.

[Barneylfc∗]

OP is coming across badly I'm afraid.

Almost to the point where I hope the dealer tells him to do one, he goes down the legal route and loses and is ordered to pay the dealers costs too.

[Jm55]

Almost to the point where I hope the dealer tells him to do one, he goes down the legal route and loses and is ordered to pay the dealers costs too.

The car was sold with an outstanding recall on it, something which the dealer could have spotted by a simple DVLA search. He’s broken the law, not me. And considering someone has died as a result of that recall issue I have no issue in taking him to the cleaners.

Think what you want, the law is on my side with it.

[Barneylfc∗]

Do you know that it wasn't returned for inspection when the recall notice went out?
I assume you are referring to the death of Narayan Gurung? The recall is to do with failing electrics, nothing to do with a chain?

[Jm55]

Do you know that it wasn't returned for inspection when the recall notice went out?
I assume you are referring to the death of Narayan Gurung? The recall is to do with failing electrics, nothing to do with a chain?

If you look on the DVLA website there is a recall outstanding on the vehicle. I spoke with BMW this morning and they advised that issue has been outstanding from May 9. They have no record of it being inspected or repaired in that time and the documentation on the car has no record of any such inspection taking place.

The recall on my vehicle is in relation to the battery terminal, nothing to do with the chain, it just happens it was sold with that recall outstanding. So two separate issues. Even if i fail on the first one the second one seems pretty difficult to argue against.

[CraigDS]

Mate.

I don’t know how many times I have to say the same thing.

Saying something repeatedly doesn’t make you right.

Anyway, seems you’ve found another technicality to hold over his head to blackmail money out of him.

[Barneylfc∗]

If you look on the DVLA website there is a recall outstanding on the vehicle. I spoke with BMW this morning and they advised that issue has been outstanding from May 9. They have no record of it being inspected or repaired in that time and the documentation on the car has no record of any such inspection taking place.

The recall on my vehicle is in relation to the battery terminal, nothing to do with the chain, it just happens it was sold with that recall outstanding. So two separate issues. Even if i fail on the first one the second one seems pretty difficult to argue against.

So the problem you have encountered is nothing to do with the recall, but you're going to attempt to blackmail him with legal action anyway?
What do you expect to happen if it went to court? I'd genuinely like to know.

[John C]

Mate.

I don’t know how many times I have to say the same thing.

The onus is on him to PROVE that it wasn’t there.

Of course it isn't, it's impossible for the dealer to prove there was no fault. He's offered a goodwill gesture, that's about as much as you're going to get after ragging the car for 5000 miles.
This is getting fucking bizarre now 

[John C]

So the problem you have encountered is nothing to do with the recall, but you're going to attempt to blackmail him with legal action anyway?
What do you expect to happen if it went to court? I'd genuinely like to know.

[Jm55]

So the problem you have encountered is nothing to do with the recall, but you're going to attempt to blackmail him with legal action anyway?
What do you expect to happen if it went to court? I'd genuinely like to know.

Right.

I’ve spoken with 2 or 3 car dealers who have all agreed in the same circumstance they would offer a significant contribution to the repairs. When I spoke to the dealer originally he (and I) were unaware of the mileage side of the warranty. It’s gone to have diagnostics run on it, he’s obviously asked what the mileage is on the car as a means to evade the warranty and he’s got lucky in that I’m a rare case of someone who drives to work 90 miles a day. The fact I drive a lot hasn’t made that chain any more or less likely to snap, but it is in excess of the warranty so he’s managed to back out of an agreement he made with me because of it. Legally fair enough, I’ve never questioned that, but ultimately he’s found a way out of an agreement he made.

If it went to court, you’d be looking at recouping the loss. The CRA entitles you to a repair or replacement in the first 6 months of purchase unless the seller can prove that the fault wasn’t there at the time of purchase. Admittedly I’m not 100% on what qualifies as proof, which is one of the questions I raised in the initial post but it’s fair to say it would be a significantly higher threshold than ‘it would have been obvious.’ So anyway, if I were to be successful I’d be able to recoup the full repair cost, even though initially I’d have settled for half each. If the car were to then fail again between now and a court case then I’d be able to get the entire purchase price back as the seller is only allowed one opportunity to repair before a full refund can be demanded.

In relation to the recall, it’s just a simple matter of breaching the legislation regarding it, the maximum fine of which is £2,500. Exactly what the rules are in relation to how much of that is charged I don’t know and am in the process of working out. At the end of the day mate, it’s a dangerous recall which he either hasn’t noticed (unlikely) or has sold in full knowledge of anyway. Why shouldn’t I raise that?

People have happily told me that the contracts have the stipulations for a reason, wel so does legislation and he’s in breach of it. I’m not blackmailing anyone, I want my car fixed. I paid 5 grand for something which is costing more than half the purchase price to fix within 3 months.

[El Lobo]

Right.

I’ve spoken with 2 or 3 car dealers who have all agreed in the same circumstance they would offer a significant contribution to the repairs. When I spoke to the dealer originally he (and I) were unaware of the mileage side of the warranty. It’s gone to have diagnostics run on it, he’s obviously asked what the mileage is on the car as a means to evade the warranty and he’s got lucky in that I’m a rare case of someone who drives to work 90 miles a day. The fact I drive a lot hasn’t made that chain any more or less likely to snap, but it is in excess of the warranty so he’s managed to back out of an agreement he made with me because of it. Legally fair enough, I’ve never questioned that, but ultimately he’s found a way out of an agreement he made.

If it went to court, you’d be looking at recouping the loss. The CRA entitles you to a repair or replacement in the first 6 months of purchase unless the seller can prove that the fault wasn’t there at the time of purchase. Admittedly I’m not 100% on what qualifies as proof, which is one of the questions I raised in the initial post but it’s fair to say it would be a significantly higher threshold than ‘it would have been obvious.’ So anyway, if I were to be successful I’d be able to recoup the full repair cost, even though initially I’d have settled for half each. If the car were to then fail again between now and a court case then I’d be able to get the entire purchase price back as the seller is only allowed one opportunity to repair before a full refund can be demanded.

In relation to the recall, it’s just a simple matter of breaching the legislation regarding it, the maximum fine of which is £2,500. Exactly what the rules are in relation to how much of that is charged I don’t know and am in the process of working out. At the end of the day mate, it’s a dangerous recall which he either hasn’t noticed (unlikely) or has sold in full knowledge of anyway. Why shouldn’t I raise that?

People have happily told me that the contracts have the stipulations for a reason, wel so does legislation and he’s in breach of it. I’m not blackmailing anyone, I want my car fixed. I paid 5 grand for something which is costing more than half the purchase price to fix within 3 months.

The fact that you not only drove the car out of the garage but also drove an additional 5,000 miles without it breaking I'd imagine is sufficient proof it wasn't like it when you bought it

And the warranty is pretty much as you say, you've gone past it....

So yeah, you're pretty much back to blackmailing about the recall