Car refund refusal

[labman]

Re: Car refund refusal

Playing Devil's Advocate, the cambelt is not due for change until 80000 miles, so why should they change it? Would they compromise and do it for cost price?

[eifedwards]

Re: Car refund refusal

No they refuse point blank to change it at all. Which is why I am at a loss of what to do.
It was overdue on time over 2 years ago. All a bit of a confusing mess. Not given up with MBNA yet.

Playing Devil's Advocate, the cambelt is not due for change until 80000 miles, so why should they change it? Would they compromise and do it for cost price?

[wales01man]

Re: Car refund refusal

Excuse my ignorance?when you brought the car it had done 62k miles a cambelt change should be at 80k how can it have been overdue 2 years ago?
It seems your not getting the result you want from the dealer is it now the time to take the action that's needed to resolve it to your satisfaction a court case or get it repaired by them but independently checked

[eifedwards]

Re: Car refund refusal

Not ignorance at all. VW stipulate that the cambelt is due at 80k OR 4 years whichever comes first. Thats why it is overdue. My position is that I should have been told about that as I would definitely have walked away.

[wales01man]

Re: Car refund refusal

wasn't saying your ignorance,
think you need to take action maybe a ccj from what I read they will not do what you want

[labman]

Re: Car refund refusal

From what I can find out from reading they say 6 years, but presumably you have the handbook for your specific model and engine. That would mean it pretty much needs doing.

It is a general wear and tear item though. Considering the figures involved, I'd see if they can sort the gearbox, and if they do successfully, I'd get the cambelt done myself somewhere. Probably wrong consumer advice wise, but probably best car advice wise.

[des8]

Re: Car refund refusal

Whilst I normally go along with the advice to avoid litigation if at all possible, in this case it seems to me that a vehicle has been sold which was not fit for purpose, and the customer is getting short shrift.

This revolves round not only the oil leak (which the sellers agree to fit) but also the need for the cam belt to be renewed. This is not just wear and tear, but an essential part which NEEDS renewing at set intervals. If it is not renewed I believe you may be able to argue the vehicle is not fit for purpose. I certainly would not drive a vehicle needing a cam belt change because of the risk of major damage to the engine. VW dealership used to charge about £400 twelve months ago so it is not a cheap item.

There was also mention in OP's first post of myriad other faults.

The OP has to weigh the cost, stress and chances of winning in court (never a certainty) against the costs of sorting the problems himself.

Perhaps get the oil leak fixed and then picket the dealership, handing out leaflets to prospective purchasers... That might get them negotiating.
Certainly a dealer to avoid in future

[eifedwards]

Re: Car refund refusal

Thanks very much all of you for your continuing advice.

[eifedwards]

Re: Car refund refusal

Long chat with MBNA "legal team" today. Claim rejected on grounds that I have to let the dealer fix the car. He refuses to replace the cambelt which is overdue as I have stated earlier. MBNA claim that the dealer told them that I was made aware the cambelt was out of date and has confirmed this in writing. I demanded a copy of the letter and they duly obliged. The letter states no such thing. In fact the letter makes no sense whatsoever.

Talked to dealer yesterday. Taped the conversation. In it he states that he told me the cambelt did not need replacing until 80,000 miles. So, verbal agreement that he misrepresented the car albeit through ignorance.

So, the way I see it, I have been screwed royally by MBNA. They have fobbed me off with a generic - let the dealer fix it - line that they probably use for all car matters.

If I give him the car and it is returned without a new cambelt I still maintain that the car is not fit for purpose. Am I right?

getting very very frustrated, mainly with MBNA, because I think that they have dealt with the matter quite appallingly. I have escalated it to the the next level with them as I think I have mainly been dealing with their underlings.

[eifedwards]

Re: Car refund refusal

Trying to add the letter as an attachment but being a bit thick. Bear with me!

[eifedwards]

Re: Car refund refusal

Has this worked?

[Amethyst]

Re: Car refund refusal

Hiya, Yes it worked, I've just taken it down while I depersonalise it (as you left all your details on it which isn't advisable - attachments are only visible by registered users of the site but that's over 35k people it is always best to take personal information off of documents before uploading) Five mins xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Car refund refusal

Here we go Letter from Garage Proprietor to MBNA.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Car refund refusal

Long chat with MBNA "legal team" today.

Rather than their "illegal team"?

getting very very frustrated, mainly with MBNA, because I think that they have dealt with the matter quite appallingly.

Perhaps the Mafia Bank of North America would prefer not to understand their liability under section 75 (link) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

I have escalated it to the the next level with them as I think I have mainly been dealing with their Untermensch.

I've fixed your post for you. :rofl: