Car Finance - PCP - 13 months in

[Guest]

Good evening all,*

So, my car is with a main dealer who says that the oil / service indicator was 100% reset. This in turn led me to be unaware that the car was racing over the required oil change. It has now come up for a service on mileage and still not on time, (due to it not being there yet), still nothing regarding oil service required. Now I know full well I didn’t reset this (the same way as I didn’t reset the current one on the dashboard). However, not having knowledge of this service has now resulted in the car engine meeting the end of its life on an A road. I dont want to reject the car I simply want it fixed and back on the road. Had I known about this service I would have done it, who in their right mind would reset an oil warning when they will have it for 4 years. Anyway I spoke to my finance company who rightly told me to contact the dealer. I have done this and waiting on their reply. I suspect I will be told to swing on it, as why would they back down at the first step. So any suggestions of where to go and force the dealer would be highly appreciated.*

The car is 13 months in to a 4 year PCP and is currently under 5 years. The main dealer is a no go so my only option is with the dealer and finance company.*
The main dealer cant provide a date this was reset, but even the finance company already agree it wouldn’t make sense for me to do it, particularly when there is now a service due showing.
The benefit to this being reset before I brought it would be to hide a fault (as the car had a service 5,000 miles before I brought it. Therefore in theory all being good it wouldn’t require one for another 16,000 miles which is where we are now).

Many thanks.*

[Williamst142]

Just to confuse this further, the paperwork sales ‘Conditional sale agreement’ so possibly not pcp. I have monthly payments with a ballon at the end.*

[R0b]

When I did my driving lessons some time ago, I was taught to check the oil levels regularly rather than wait for the next service due - that would mean monthly, or prior to long distance driving. So even if the oil indicator was reset, are you suggesting you never checked the oil levels at all except where the car indicated a service was due?

Whilst I sympathise, you do have a duty to take reasonable care of the car under the finance agreement and in my view that would extend to carrying out reasonable checks and inspections around the vehicle, including the oil level at various times. Simply relying on the next service due date is dangerous, particularly if your driving distances vary.*

I think you'd be lucky to get anything out of this and if the dealer, main dealer or finance co. reject your complaint/issue, you might struggle if you brought the matter to court, you are probably going to be on the backfoot from the start.

Even if you could support an argument, I'm not sure what that might be. Did the dealer carry out a service prior to collection or any kind of inspection that might give a plausible explanation as to why the indicator was reset?

Tagging Des*for any other comments.

[Williamst142]

All noted Rob. But a Conditional sale agreement, is covered by section 75 of the consumer credit act?
My understanding that any fault on my part would be considered as contributory negligence as opposed to a complete defence for the supplier?

[R0b]

Conditional same is almost identical to a HP/PCP and covered by s.75 provided it meets the relevant criteria.

Contributory negligence applies only in so far as there is culpability elsewhere. In other words, you'd need to show sufficient proof that the finance co. (through the dealer acting as agent at the time) had also contributed to the problem and then blame would be apportioned.*

I can't see how contributory negligence applies here because your duty is ongoing and carrying out that duty would, on a balance of probability, more likely than not have discovered the issue.

[Williamst142]

Thanks for clearing the first part.*
Your final comment though, how I read that is if I had completed my part then their fault would not have been discovered, now I agree on probability your correct. However, had they not reset it the car would have alerted me it required attention prior to purchase and I wouldn’t have purchased it in that instance (thus fit for purpose). In this case the car would have had the correct % readings within it and thus that safety measure wouldn’t have been missing, similar to if I was classed as a safety measure to the cars engine.*
This could have been reset to hide another fault as it had just completed a service 5,000 miles before (however, this is unlikely to every be discovered).*

[Williamst142]

I dont see how this can excuse the dealer from selling essentially a car with a fault. That may or may not be discovered.*
The finance company may have something to say about checking the oil etc etc, but buying it from the dealer the argument would be there was tampering / underlying fault with the car.

[R0b]

I'm struggling to understand what fault you are describing. The fact that the indicator was reset does not suggest that there is or was a fault with the car, unless the software itself caused the indicator to reset and then it might be deemed a fault. Even if the software was to blame cause the reset, that issue would have been have naturally been overridden by your duty to maintain the car so whichever way you cut it, you still end up with the same result.

Can you explain how the car would have alerted you needing attention prior to purchase if it the car had just completed a service 5,000 miles prior? Presumably would have still purchased the car only that the service level would have been needed after 11,000 miles rather than 16,000. Still, I would have thought it would have taken several months to reach that threshold and there we come back round to your duty of care. The same applies if you were driving long distances.

On your last point about a hidden fault, the court will not accept what-if situations or potential faults, there would need to be some kind of evidence to suggest that but for the rest of the indicator, that hidden fault would have become apparent. If you haven't found that hidden fault up to this date, you are not going to convince anyone now.

Dealers/finance companies are required to provide you with a car that's of satisfactory quality and in a roadworthy condition. To satisfy that requirement, dealers would generally undertake an inspection of the car physically and ensuring other things work on the car and I would imagine the oil levels would also be checked. So if they have done all of that and have paperwork to prove it, then they will likely argue that they complied with their duty at the time of transferring possession of the car.


I don't want you thinking I'm being negative for the sake of it and it's obviously not what you want to hear but i'm just giving you a reality of what you might expect. Of course it is my opinion, but I think to give your case any merit, you probably need some expert evidence to support your case.

[Williamst142]

Ok I will try and explain it: The car has an oil change at XX miles. This oil service warning shouldn’t come on for another 21,000 miles, unless there’s a fault or it genuinely needs an oil change.*
Now the main dealer are 100% sure its been reset thus either hiding the fault or the fact the cars requesting an oil change much earlier than expected. Now as we agree a fault wont be found now we are this far in.*
So either way that warning is a safety measure put in place on modern cars to protect the engines (yes I agree it shouldn’t be completely relied on but its still there for a reason).
We can all see the benefit of resetting this if its before you sell it (dealer or the seller to the dealer).*
I then purchase said car, which has been tampered with but the car is clearly not in a fit state, due to having requested attention for either a fault or the requiring oil change and that this matter was covered up with the resetting (it will have been either of these) as the rest of the service warnings are still reading correctly.*
So the fact I then buy a car and my actions could result in this cover up not being dedicated isn’t reasonable.*

Also back to the point about oil checking, it will have been checked at its MOT, and thinking about it this was back in September, marry that up with my mileage and your looking at around the time that the oil service warning should have come on (not sure what to make of that tbf).*

[R0b]

I get what you are trying to say, but I am just not convinced based on what you've described would give rise to what you are claiming.

If the car has been physically reset by the last owner or by the dealer, I am not sure that would render the car unfit for its intended purpose because it could be argued your lack of duty to take action would have effectively eclipsed that. Putting it simply, the resetting of the indicator is unlikely to be the cause of the engine failing because it was inevitable that you ought to have checked the oil on a regular basis, which was the real cause.

I don't have the faintest idea on how car electronics work but if all of the other service warnings are reading correctly, is it plausible for the oil indicator to have reset without affected the other warning indicators? No idea, that would be for an expert to determine. Even if you prove this I'm not necessarily convinced the car would not be in a fit state since the indicator is more of a convenience thing and most manufacturers recommend services occurring no later than 12 months or hitting the mileage whichever is earlier. Possibly and argument that it wasn't of satisfactory quality, but the onus is on you to prove the fault existed and that may be difficult to conclude.*

*