Car fault, dispute, shady legal consultancy and GDPR

[19CH84]

Update on the car. Had diagnostics done, the faults are:

car engine misfire
HO2S signal stuck lean sensor

[19CH84]

Update on the car. Diagnostics run

Engine misfire
HO2S signal stuck lean sensor

[des8]

So the "HO2S signal stuck lean sensor" could be that the sensor is noting too much oxygen in the exhaust gases (or could just be a defective sensor that needs replacing) and is sending a lean signal to the ECM

What is causing the misfire? (presumably the vehicle started but ran poorly)

[19CH84]

Potentially bent rods, I just asked a local garage to run diagnostics as this is what the dealership asked for.

[19CH84]

But I don't know really, could be a number of things. I'm led to believe that the onus on is on the garage to prove there wasn't a fault at the time of sale, since the engine failed within 6 months.

All I know is that there was an oil leak reported on the MOT and from what I have read, oil leaks that go without repair can lead to certain issues that might then result in engine misfire.

A day or 2 before hand I had white smoke coming out the exhaust and I started losing power. I had to pull over on the hard shoulder of a motorway. After that I didn't see anymore smoke but the I had still lost some power, then it just cut out and haven't been able to start it up since.

[des8]

So you need to let him examine the vehicle

[19CH84]

He has been reluctant to offer this. He has already outright said no, until his 'legal team' got involved. During this dispute he has also falsified documentation, attempting to deceive me and committing fraud. So although I know he has the right to inspect the car, he's shown he can't be trusted so I don't think he's going to give an honest determination. For that reason I asked for a third party inspection, explaining my concerns, but they never acknowledged this

[des8]

Generally if a dealer refuses to even look at a rejected vehicle, the advice is initiate a court claim.

You seem to have tried discussing the matter and it seems from your posts that he has now (albeit grudgingly) agreed to look at the vehicle.
Courts expect parties to attempt to sort out disputes without involving them, so if you proceed before he inspects the vehicle you are slightly wrong footed.

It will probably be to your advantage to get an independent engineer's report (not just a read out from a plug in computer)

[19CH84]

So despite having diagnostics run as per request from the dealer, they have refused to accept the report provided, because it did t show customer details, however the VIN was disclosed on the report which can be used to verify the identity of the car and thus the owner.

I have Supplied a copy of my receipt from the garage who run the diagnostics to prove they were carried out by a garage.

This cost me £110 all in, for diagnostics and recovery.

How can they refuse this information? I provided what they asked.

[des8]

Has the dealer collected the car yet?

Have you already sent a "letter before claim"?

[19CH84]

Dealer hasn't collect the car

Letter LBA sent today.

[19CH84]

Hi, so an update on this feed. I eventually reached an agreement with the garage to inspect the car. They came back with big end bearing failure. They claim its a sporadic failure which they would not be liable for.

is this true? How do you differentiate between wear and tear, sporadic failure or a fault?

What is the life span of this engine component?

Dealer denies there was an oil leak when sold, despite this showing on the MOT 3 weeks before purchase and has not provided evidence this was repaired.

Also, dealer is putting emphasis on my mileage. The car averages 10800 miles in the 10 years prior to me buying it. UK average is 13500 miles. I did 3500 in 5.5 months, so approx 7500 per year. So my usage is far less than its previous owner and than the UK average. So I don't see what relevance this has.

The MOT shows mileage of 106813, however all accompanying paperwork from dealer declares 108000 miles. This is on sales invoice, the dodgy PDI report and the warranty agreement. So this begs the question, who drove it for 1200 miles in 3 weeks. Either he has made a mistake on 3 different pieces of paperwork, which then brings the quality, accuracy and Credibility of paperwork in to question OR someone has driven a third of my distance in a fraction of the time. So surely this fact either debunks any relevance the mileage has or if that any stress placed on the engine was more likely to have happened during this 3 week period than it was during my 5.5 months.

Putting it simply, I covered 145 miles per week since owning the car. someone else did 400 miles per week during those 3 weeks.

Dealer has offered to arrange repair through warranty company but has said this will cost me £400 plus excess. However, the warranty agreement doesn't cover labour which is £520 alone based on the quote given by the dealers mechanic. Also the warranty agreement says I will need to contribute 50% of the repair due to the age of the car (10+ years). The engine has been quoted at £950, so that's £475 to be contributed by me, so all in would atleast be £995. So I'm at a loss where he gets £400 from. I queried this and he said £400 was as estimate since price cannot be determined until they source an engine. But then soon after the dealer emails again to say it will cost £400 plus excess. Doesn't say its an estimate this time.

Obviously I'm apprehensive about giving any money to them for starters. However, I don't feel they have proven that the damage wasn't present at the time of sale. They haven't provided any documentation to this effect. Only a PDI check which I have evidence proving this was completed some time after the date of sale, therefore invalidating it.

Any suggestions?

[des8]

So big end failed within 6 months of you taking delivery of vehicle.

CRA 2015 section 19 (14) ".... goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day."
In other words if the goods prove to be unsatisfactory within the first 6 months, it is deemed they were unsatisfactory when delivered.

This gives you the right to either reject the goods or request a repair.
If you reject the dealer has one opportunity to repair.
If you request a repair the dealer can refuse if it is uneconomic.
Repairs are at the dealers cost.
If rejection is agreed the dealer can make a deduction for usage (about 9p per mile I think but they will try for 45p per mile

[19CH84]

Their legal consultant previously said "s23 CRA 2015 goes on to add that such a liability is only in respect of faults that were present at the point of sale. There is an implied exclusion to items of wear and tear and/or items that sporadically fail".

where is this even implied?

The dealer claims it to be sporadic failure in his outcome email. i called the mechanic directly who said it was wear and tear. What is the difference, if any?

What bearing does this have on my claim?

To date, they haven't provided any evidence that this fault wasn't present at the time of sale. All I've been sent is a dodgy PDI report which doesn't cover this specific issue and was completed after car was sold to me.

The dealer also seems to be implying wear and tear due to my usage. I've done 3500 miles in 5.5 months, which works out at 636 miles per month. However national average per year is 13500 or 1125 miles per month. The previous owners did 108000 in 10 years that's 900 miles per month. So my usage is far less than any of those averages. So I don't see the relevance.

In the 3 weeks between the MOT and me buying it, 1200 miles were done, based on the registered miles on the MOT certificate and the miles declared on my sales invoice, warranty agreement and his PDI report. That 400 miles per week, compared to my 636 per month, or 140ish per week.

Surely it can't be deemed reasonable to sell a car, even second hand, that breaks down after 3500 miles and tell the consumer basically tough if it breaks down. Why bother giving a 12 month warranty in that case? It doesn't seem logical to me

[des8]

You don't really expect a dodgy dealer and even dodgier "legal consultant" to roll over and give in without a fight?

It isn't a question of implicit exclusions, or wear and tear.
The statute is clear, and actually usews the word "MUST"

What was the LBA you sent?