Advice On Car Issue
06 August 2009, 04:30 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advice On Car Issue
Hi all,
long story but besides the "Should have took the car back etc" What do you guys think?
I bought a 2006 STI about 4 month ago from a garage.
Car advertised as UK model, wasnt, was import.
Warrenty until December, wasnt, June it ended.
Full Service, Brake pads down almost to the metal
Within the first week, the clutch was playing up.
Spoke to the garage who said "The car is under warrenty with Subaru, take it to them." (Over the phone)
So took it in to a dealer, where I find out its an import and not on their records.
A couple of weeks talking to Subaru UK, car was OKed to be done under warrenty.
Car goes in, gearbox out, not standard clutch, Subaru claim no warrenty.
I told them to talk to the garage direct I got the car from.
The garage then says will only pay half the clutch cost £450, I have to pay the other half, which I did, needed the car but had "Paid under duress" on te invoice.
Subaru tell me the front AST shock is leaking.
I contact AST who say if it can be repaired, its £60. So I took it off and took it to them. It carnt be repaired so cost me £300.
Brake pads cost me £50
Alarm to meet insurance, UK should have one £200.
Total cost to me £1000.
I asked the garge for refund, in letters.
First time get offered £200 as they claim they could have done the work cheaper.
I said not exceptable and want a minimum of £700, good will gesture reduction of £300.
They now send a check for £350 and say thats it!
Am I right to arrgue for the rest or small claims court etc, any advice?
long story but besides the "Should have took the car back etc" What do you guys think?
I bought a 2006 STI about 4 month ago from a garage.
Car advertised as UK model, wasnt, was import.
Warrenty until December, wasnt, June it ended.
Full Service, Brake pads down almost to the metal
Within the first week, the clutch was playing up.
Spoke to the garage who said "The car is under warrenty with Subaru, take it to them." (Over the phone)
So took it in to a dealer, where I find out its an import and not on their records.
A couple of weeks talking to Subaru UK, car was OKed to be done under warrenty.
Car goes in, gearbox out, not standard clutch, Subaru claim no warrenty.
I told them to talk to the garage direct I got the car from.
The garage then says will only pay half the clutch cost £450, I have to pay the other half, which I did, needed the car but had "Paid under duress" on te invoice.
Subaru tell me the front AST shock is leaking.
I contact AST who say if it can be repaired, its £60. So I took it off and took it to them. It carnt be repaired so cost me £300.
Brake pads cost me £50
Alarm to meet insurance, UK should have one £200.
Total cost to me £1000.
I asked the garge for refund, in letters.
First time get offered £200 as they claim they could have done the work cheaper.
I said not exceptable and want a minimum of £700, good will gesture reduction of £300.
They now send a check for £350 and say thats it!
Am I right to arrgue for the rest or small claims court etc, any advice?
06 August 2009, 05:40 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did call trading standards but they weren't interested, they just said if I wasn't happy, go to small claims court. I can not get anyone to advise if I am in my rights to ask for a full refund for the repairs.
06 August 2009, 05:53 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you EVIDENCE that they stated it was a UK Car?
Have you EVIDENCE that they stated December 2009 warranty?
You clearly have all other evidence of actions since purchase.
Is the garage local?
Has it a reputation to keep hold of?
If the evidence is there and the garage cares about its reputation then sue in the small claims court - you WILL win!
If the garage is not local to you, that is better as they have to come to YOUR County Court! They will 'try' to move it to theirs, but you refuse that.
Good luck - remember, a reputable garage has a LOT to lose by being sued in court and will rather settle for what you want.
The law and the judge will be with the 'little fella'
Have you EVIDENCE that they stated December 2009 warranty?
You clearly have all other evidence of actions since purchase.
Is the garage local?
Has it a reputation to keep hold of?
If the evidence is there and the garage cares about its reputation then sue in the small claims court - you WILL win!
If the garage is not local to you, that is better as they have to come to YOUR County Court! They will 'try' to move it to theirs, but you refuse that.
Good luck - remember, a reputable garage has a LOT to lose by being sued in court and will rather settle for what you want.
The law and the judge will be with the 'little fella'
06 August 2009, 06:27 PM
#7
winning in a small claims court and actually getting the money is another matter again,to make the mistakes they have i doubt they are a big outfit
good luck tho either way
good luck tho either way
Trending Topics
06 August 2009, 08:25 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the original advert that states its a UK model and e mails of them saying it is. The clutch didnt wear out, it failed. The car is only 2 1/2 years old so I would say its not reasonble it should fail. Plus they have not denied the clutch was faulty and the problem lies with them, its that they only want to pay half. And according to the sales of goods act,
"Goods also do not conform to contract if they do not comply with any description given by the retailer prior to sale.”
“Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.”
And I was also told that in a small claims court, any previous offer towards the cost of a repair is taken as exceptance of liabilty?
"Goods also do not conform to contract if they do not comply with any description given by the retailer prior to sale.”
“Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.”
And I was also told that in a small claims court, any previous offer towards the cost of a repair is taken as exceptance of liabilty?
06 August 2009, 08:45 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any offer is seen as an attempt to settle by the courts - if they deem that the offered amount is reasonable than you will not win, as the Judge will deem that you should have settled.
BUT, if the car being a UK car was MATERIAL to your purchase, then you can claim for all the costs buying an Import has cost you .... of course, an Import is worth a lot (maybe 33%) less than a UK car! That is a difference you can claim, as the garage will have paid less and have lied to make a bigger profit. If you have hard evidence of this and the fact the car is an Import, you have a substantial claim!
AND YOU WILL WIN!
As for companies not paying CC Judgements .... they have to, or lose their credit rating! Make sure the local papers are alerted to the Court Case too - they LOVE to print articled on dodgy garages!
You can, and should, take this outfit to the cleaners ... I cannot see why you would lose. Send then a letter giving them 10 working days to respond with an acceptable amount of compensation, failure of them to do so will result in a County Court Claim, all costs involved will be added to the award by the court.
Consumers are much more powerful than they realise - I took on the might of the Dixon Curry Group and won ... because I didn't blink (despite their Legal Team scare tactics!), if you don't blink you will come out on top .
Go for it! You haven't said if they are a garage who care about their reputation?
BUT, if the car being a UK car was MATERIAL to your purchase, then you can claim for all the costs buying an Import has cost you .... of course, an Import is worth a lot (maybe 33%) less than a UK car! That is a difference you can claim, as the garage will have paid less and have lied to make a bigger profit. If you have hard evidence of this and the fact the car is an Import, you have a substantial claim!
AND YOU WILL WIN!
As for companies not paying CC Judgements .... they have to, or lose their credit rating! Make sure the local papers are alerted to the Court Case too - they LOVE to print articled on dodgy garages!
You can, and should, take this outfit to the cleaners ... I cannot see why you would lose. Send then a letter giving them 10 working days to respond with an acceptable amount of compensation, failure of them to do so will result in a County Court Claim, all costs involved will be added to the award by the court.
Consumers are much more powerful than they realise - I took on the might of the Dixon Curry Group and won ... because I didn't blink (despite their Legal Team scare tactics!), if you don't blink you will come out on top .
Go for it! You haven't said if they are a garage who care about their reputation?
06 August 2009, 08:46 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nar, it was a cash buy. What gets me is the car doesnt match the advert, only found out when the clutch went. Subaru said they would cover the warranty, then when they found a none standard clutch, obviously wouldnt. The garage who said it was under warranty so take it to Subaru, wont pay the full amount as they say it would have been cheaper for them to do it themselves. And they where the ones that told Subaru to do the work and charge me half!
06 August 2009, 08:51 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a copy of my ltter to them, being posted tomorrow.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)
Dear Mark,
On the 23rd of May I part exchanged my BMW 330CI for you for sale Subaru STI.
After a couple of week it became clear that the clutch was at fault, this was confirmed by the local Subaru dealer (Research garage LTD) I was then informed that the car was not a UK model as advertised by yourself. This contravenes The Sale of goods Act 1979. The Act states “Goods also do not conform to contract if they do not comply with any description given by the retailer prior to sale.” “…Miss-leading descriptions can lead to criminal prosecution..” Also, “Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.” A two year old car of a value of £13,995 it is reasonable to expect the below faults to not be present.
As in communication with yourself, after we where informed by Research garage, that if the fault was indeed covered by warranty, Subaru would cover the costs, the car was delivered to Research garage on the 8th June. Once the gearbox was removed, it was discovered that the clutch that had failed was not standard and because of that, Subaru would not cover the warranty claim or costs. They where instructed to contact yourself to decided the next course of action. They where instructed by yourself for them to proceed with the work and that I would have to cover at least half the cost. This is also contravenes The Sale of Goods Act 1979 which states “Compensation by way of damages is designed to compensate for actual losses and so normally amounts to the cost of repair or replacement (with goods of a similar age). Any direct and predictable expense arising as a result of being supplied with faulty goods can also be claimed by the customer. This could include the cost of returning the goods, for example. In some instances the customer could get the defect remedied by someone else and claim the cost from the retailer as compensation for breach of contract”
It was discovered by Research garage that the front drivers shock absorber was leaking and that it was not the standard Subaru suspension so the car was not “Standard, un-touched” car as described, again, contravening The Sales of Goods Act 1979, . I took off the suspension and took it to the manufacture of the suspension, AST, who had explained on the telephone, that there was a possibility it could be repaired for £60 which I believed was a good quote. Once AST had examined the suspension, the concluded the damage was at least “12 months old” and that the suspension was un-repairable and so I had no choice than to pay the £314 for a replacement to get the car back on the road. As explained above by The Sales of Goods Act, “..Normally amounts to the cost of repair or replacement..” So the full cost should be refunded. A cheaper part that is of not the same quality or makes the car unsafe or performs differently, is not expectable. As advertised “UK Model” which the car isn’t, my insurance company once informed of the error, insisted an alarm was fitted as a UK model has one as standard, and must have one to be covered, this cost £104.99.
The car was advertised as a “free service included in the price,” But the brake pads where almost gone, to the point of becoming dangerous. This also contravenes The Sale of Goods Act 1979.
The total costs I have incurred are as follows:
• Partial payment of clutch £470.22
• Shock Absorber replacement £314
• Alarm £104.99
• Brake Pads £55
Total £944.21
I would have considered that a good will reduction to £627.77 would have been more than reasonable and so a cheque of £350, which I have not cashed, is disappointing. The options open are for you to reconsider your offer and send a cheque to cover the full amount or as I have been advised by trading standards, to pursue the full amount through the small claims court. It is excepted by the judge in such a case that any offer of payment to partial cover costs in the past, is an acceptance of liability.
Please note that you are required to respond within 14 days to this letter.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)
Dear Mark,
On the 23rd of May I part exchanged my BMW 330CI for you for sale Subaru STI.
After a couple of week it became clear that the clutch was at fault, this was confirmed by the local Subaru dealer (Research garage LTD) I was then informed that the car was not a UK model as advertised by yourself. This contravenes The Sale of goods Act 1979. The Act states “Goods also do not conform to contract if they do not comply with any description given by the retailer prior to sale.” “…Miss-leading descriptions can lead to criminal prosecution..” Also, “Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.” A two year old car of a value of £13,995 it is reasonable to expect the below faults to not be present.
As in communication with yourself, after we where informed by Research garage, that if the fault was indeed covered by warranty, Subaru would cover the costs, the car was delivered to Research garage on the 8th June. Once the gearbox was removed, it was discovered that the clutch that had failed was not standard and because of that, Subaru would not cover the warranty claim or costs. They where instructed to contact yourself to decided the next course of action. They where instructed by yourself for them to proceed with the work and that I would have to cover at least half the cost. This is also contravenes The Sale of Goods Act 1979 which states “Compensation by way of damages is designed to compensate for actual losses and so normally amounts to the cost of repair or replacement (with goods of a similar age). Any direct and predictable expense arising as a result of being supplied with faulty goods can also be claimed by the customer. This could include the cost of returning the goods, for example. In some instances the customer could get the defect remedied by someone else and claim the cost from the retailer as compensation for breach of contract”
It was discovered by Research garage that the front drivers shock absorber was leaking and that it was not the standard Subaru suspension so the car was not “Standard, un-touched” car as described, again, contravening The Sales of Goods Act 1979, . I took off the suspension and took it to the manufacture of the suspension, AST, who had explained on the telephone, that there was a possibility it could be repaired for £60 which I believed was a good quote. Once AST had examined the suspension, the concluded the damage was at least “12 months old” and that the suspension was un-repairable and so I had no choice than to pay the £314 for a replacement to get the car back on the road. As explained above by The Sales of Goods Act, “..Normally amounts to the cost of repair or replacement..” So the full cost should be refunded. A cheaper part that is of not the same quality or makes the car unsafe or performs differently, is not expectable. As advertised “UK Model” which the car isn’t, my insurance company once informed of the error, insisted an alarm was fitted as a UK model has one as standard, and must have one to be covered, this cost £104.99.
The car was advertised as a “free service included in the price,” But the brake pads where almost gone, to the point of becoming dangerous. This also contravenes The Sale of Goods Act 1979.
The total costs I have incurred are as follows:
• Partial payment of clutch £470.22
• Shock Absorber replacement £314
• Alarm £104.99
• Brake Pads £55
Total £944.21
I would have considered that a good will reduction to £627.77 would have been more than reasonable and so a cheque of £350, which I have not cashed, is disappointing. The options open are for you to reconsider your offer and send a cheque to cover the full amount or as I have been advised by trading standards, to pursue the full amount through the small claims court. It is excepted by the judge in such a case that any offer of payment to partial cover costs in the past, is an acceptance of liability.
Please note that you are required to respond within 14 days to this letter.
06 August 2009, 09:02 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO that letter is FAR too wordy ... don't ever give too much rope or you will get hung by it.
State that the car was not as advertised, you have a financial loss due to the fact that the car is an Import, you have PROOF that they stated the car as a UK car.
I assume that they know the general details of what you have had to pay?
You still have not stated whether this Garage is a garage of high regard or not yet?
But - go easy on the length of any communication! Minimum is best by a long way!
State that the car was not as advertised, you have a financial loss due to the fact that the car is an Import, you have PROOF that they stated the car as a UK car.
I assume that they know the general details of what you have had to pay?
You still have not stated whether this Garage is a garage of high regard or not yet?
But - go easy on the length of any communication! Minimum is best by a long way!
06 August 2009, 09:16 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have sent over 6 short letters with costs etc and just get fobed off. This is the final letter to state the law, sales of goods act, and wfere the garage is in breach of the act.
The garage is not a main dealer or any Subaru garage, just a small firm in Leeds.
The garage is not a main dealer or any Subaru garage, just a small firm in Leeds.
06 August 2009, 10:30 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not, repeat not, send that essay - one paragraph will do it.
Then after 10 working days, issue a summons - THEN they will know you are serious and will probably end it right there.
07 August 2009, 12:10 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: glasgow
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmm number 1 they will prob say how would they now about the clutch as its on the gear box not accesable ? 2 if its on the reg doc as date of reg and first reg in the uk and they match u would asume its a uk car well thats what there going to say id guess
as for the front shock absorber damage was at least “12 months old they said well u could get them on that as the did not give the car a proper look over? and wen they said ok to subaru to fix it and u would pay half they had no rite if an expess was to incur to u it must be u that says yes or no to repair it as its not the show rooms propety any more? theres 1 more to get them on
as for the front shock absorber damage was at least “12 months old they said well u could get them on that as the did not give the car a proper look over? and wen they said ok to subaru to fix it and u would pay half they had no rite if an expess was to incur to u it must be u that says yes or no to repair it as its not the show rooms propety any more? theres 1 more to get them on
07 August 2009, 11:39 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah the problem is that they, as you say, told Subaru to go a head and do the repair, a small claims court takes that as a admitance of liabilty, then they said they would only pay £450 as thats how much it would have cost them to do it themselves. So what, where they going to ask Subaru to put the car back together and take it to them to do free of charge? The sale of goods act is very clear on this, "Compensation by way of damages is designed to compensate for actual losses and so normally amounts to the cost of repair or replacement (with goods of a similar age). Any direct and predictable expense arising as a result of being supplied with faulty goods can also be claimed by the customer. This could include the cost of returning the goods, for example. In some instances the customer could get the defect remedied by someone else and claim the cost from the retailer as compensation for breach of contract"
The advert of the car was wrong in more than one instance and it is the sellers responsabilty to ensure it is correct and not miss-leading, this they failed on as they stated it was "UK model" no where on any log book etc is this stated, its obvious it was copied and pasted from a website somewhere else.
The advert of the car was wrong in more than one instance and it is the sellers responsabilty to ensure it is correct and not miss-leading, this they failed on as they stated it was "UK model" no where on any log book etc is this stated, its obvious it was copied and pasted from a website somewhere else.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ossett2k2
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
15
23 September 2015 09:11 AM