renault vehicle fault(s) ** Settled **

[infojunkie]

Hi, just looking for a view from an outsider!

Purchased a used renault megane cabriolet on a 56 plate in april 12. Within days it was obvious there was an entry point for water getting in from roof. Informed retailer, eventually got it booked in for repair after much wrangling, to replace the seals at their cost. Car came back to us with 3 points of entry water so we deemed a failed repair.

 

Also reported to retailer within a few weeks of purchase there was a knocking noise from the steering when on full lock/going round tight corners, again it was looked at by their service department and deemed to be 'nothing wrong with it' and their mechanic accused us of driving the car without the key in the ignition was the reason for the noise, just for the record we dont drive without the key card in anyway. No repairs/action by them.

 

The car has been back and forth to the garage trying to rectify these matters with no success. We are pushing they are just pushing back. It was also very inconvenient to have to keep taking the car in when they could never tell us how long they would have the car for (I am a support worker and my husband works in sales and travels alot, we also car share this vehicle so time is always tight) So eventually this April it was MOT time, and lo and behold it failed and we are told its the strut top mounts (also told this is probably what the knocking noise has been) which as i said earlier has been there since day one.

Took the failed mot and the car and parked it on the retailers forecourt, asked them what they intended to do to rectify faults, they said they would give it an MOT - it failed on CV joints, and denied anything wrong with strut top mount from independant MOT garage.

 

The retailer offered to investigate(in my book an admission of guilt they knew it was goosed when they sold it) but after saying we also wanted the roof repaired (again) and that we wanted the warranty money back in full (seperate payment) as we would never entrust them to make use of it therefore rendering it useless, they withdrew their offer to fix the car at all and told us to come and remove it from their premises. We have contacted trading standards and have a case open with them, we also contacted barclay partner finance that financed the car and told them we are holding them jointly responsible for the car faults. The retailer told Barclays a pack of lies in their response back to them saying they had carried out work for the knocking noise, news to us!

 

Anyway, I know we are going to have to pull out the cash for the strut top, and take that on the chin, also 4 new tyres as a result of uneven wear due to the fault. But we are going to press ahead for the roof repair and the warranty money back with small claims if need be as negotiations have now broken down with the retailer. Oh forgot to mention the retailer offered us 500 cash, surrender the warranty and not have the car fixed with them - which we declined to accept. Any advice please, i fear we are flogging a dead horse and am not well versed with county court etc, but the retailers actions seem very shady indeed and give me a glimmer of hope they are guilty! We really cant afford to have the roof repaired ourselves after paying for the other repairs (650 coins) and would need the warranty money back to get it done. The retailer is citing time lapsed to wriggle out of liability, and i have to admit it has dragged out, but not just down to us not being able to take time off work, also with them arguing over everything and having to fight tooth and nail just to get them to check stuff, then another trip back to get the so called reapir done!Thanks in advance

[Last Of The Time Lords]

Keep all correspondence in writing and use recorded delivery so that you can prove everything they respond with and receive etc. Don't worry about 'time lapsed' because you have given them chance after chance to repair during that time. If anything, you could have rejected the goods at an earlier point. You can claim for any outlay for independent repairs etc when at court if they are refusing to repair under SOGA.

 

You pay to file the claim through the court but do not pay costs even if you lose. They must pay for representation but you represent yourself. This means that in reality, it would cost them less to cave in, repair and settle your costs than it would to fight it and lose at court.

 

This might be useful: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm

[infojunkie]

Thankyou for your reply, we have some paper/ email correspondence but alot was said in person/over the phone, but am i right in thinking i can request all information relating to the vehicle including telephone logs?

 

Since I posted my OP, we have taken the vehicle to Renault and they have confirmed that not only is the strut top mount a straight forward MOT fail (Stoneacre said this was fine and blamed CV joints) but not all the seals have been replaced either (they said they had replaced all) Renault said this would cost a fortune to do. So I can only assume that they have lied to us that work was done.

 

We did think about rejecting the car altogether, but tbh my husband is now a student and we got the finance on his wage when he was working so i dont think we would now pass credit check for another and is the reason we didnt go down this route, mores the pity.

 

We have also lodged a complaint/appeal with Barclay partner finance as we are trying to hold them jointly responsible, but they have replied quoting 21 days to investigate. This is after initially closing our original complaint to them after Stoneacres response back to them (again full of lies) so we have to hold off with the LBA now as the Judge wont look on us favourably without giving them a fair time. So we are looking at 21 August before we can start proceedings.

 

Do you have any views on getting our warranty money back? I think it was approx 1,300 which included a G3 (or G4? cant remember!) treatment guard inside and outside. Obviously with the rain that gets in (we have to sit on a towel its that bad) I think this has ruined the treatment and forms part of argument in getting refund.

 

Cheers.

[Last Of The Time Lords]

If they have failed to honour the warranty by not repairing it under warranty, you could argue mis-sold warranty but remember that the warranty is a completely separate entity to SOGA and you must stick to arguing your rights at court under SOGA, it is powerful consumer legislation.

 

With regard to telephone logs, anything in your favour if they do exist will be conveniently lost or deleted etc. This is why writing and emails are key to proving stuff.

[heliosuk]

Hold on....car purchased April 2012 or is this a typo?

 

This means car was 6 years old when purchased. It could be successfully argued that it is expected that the performance of the seals is commensurate with the age and mileage of the car.

 

Be careful how you treat some of the legal advice on this forum. Much of it is well intentioned but fails to take into account the commensurate with age and mileage stipulations as there are no clear guidelines withing SOGA as to what this is.

[Last Of The Time Lords]

I didn't fail to take it into account Helios, indeed there are no guarantees in a battle such as this. I reckon they could throw in the authority of Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre but having owned cars older than that with better seals, it's worth arguing, especially bearing in mind their attitude. Most if not all garages boast that they check cars before delivery to the buyer so that implies the car has been deemed by the seller as satisfactory quality. To fail so soon and not be repaired is worth a battle in my opinion.

[heliosuk]

Attitude is an opinion Time Lord, not a fact.

 

One of the problems with SOGA is that it is not clear cut, has no base line or standard in which to measure against. SOGA is a brilliant tool in regards to new items but used are a different kettle of fish.

 

You cannot apply or rely on precident in every case, as every case is different.

 

In this particular case I believe I could throw enough engineering and scientific expertise to pour scourn on the arguments you quote.

 

The problem is that some people expect a car to last for ever with no faults. When they buy it used they expect it to be a new car.

 

Whilst it is true it should be of merchantable quality there is no clear direction as to what this is and it's impossible to do so.

[Last Of The Time Lords]

You are preaching to the converted. I am more than aware of SOGA and that each case is judged on its own merits but it helps to see how the law has developed in this area. I don't doubt you could throw engineering expertise into the fray with regard my arguments about the quality of the car in itself as I am going on what I have read here and have no engineering and scientific expertise. What I do have though, are a very particular set of skills lol.

 

My degree in law and the often referred to 'real world' experience that I have means that the original poster can at least take on board my advice about SOGA.

 

Instead of opposing each other however, think of how we could help the original poster together. From now on if he asks any questions about the attributes of the car and what is reasonable to expect etc, you field it with your expertise. If he wishes to ask about any case law in this area or SOGA specifics, I can field it.

 

I am more than happy to accept your engineering expertise here so please offer some to the original poster. I will then wait and see if he wants to ask any legal questions. Join me in smoking the pipe of peace:-)

[Kiki1]

Hold on....car purchased April 2012 or is this a typo?

 

This means car was 6 years old when purchased. It could be successfully argued that it is expected that the performance of the seals is commensurate with the age and mileage of the car.

 

With the car being a cabriolet it would be impossible to determine how the roof seals have failed, which would be a combination of standard component wear and tear, previous owner use/abuse, or adverse weather conditions some time in the past.

 

Replacing seals will be no good if the fabric has stretched in the six years on the road, fitting a whole new roof structure would be about the only way the vehicle might be given security against water ingress.

[infojunkie]

I think based on blatant lies alone we have a good case, they told us all seals had been replaced - Renault have said they havnt. Thats surely a tad naughty helios?

Why would stoneacre offer us a 'go away' offer of £500 cash and surrender of warranty if they are not guilty? And regardless of the age of car, at point of sale we were not made aware that the roof had a leak or the knocking noise from steering was going to cost 650 to fix. If we had been we surely would not have bought the car.

 

However, you do expect them to have carried out basic checks on the car though, pre-sale, to make sure its fit for purpose? Nothing has been done on this car, I couldnt bet my Granny on it but I think the documentation and job receipt numbers for work carried out may be 'missing', as I am going to request everything to aid our case.

 

If we lose, we lose, but am going to try, its an awful feeling when you know you have been screwed over and they are laughing all the way to the bank knowing they just got rid of a knacker (for want of a better word)

[infojunkie]

PS I am not expecting a 6 year old car to be perfect, and you do have to expect to take repairs on board at that age, but not when they were already there when you bought it!!! Thats wrong in my book, if someone sold you a a ham sandwich and you paid in good faith for ham, only to open the packaging and find bread and butter you would be peeved as well!! Thats how we feel. Cheated.

[heliosuk]

What I am saying here info and time lord is that you have to be realistic. As Kiki points out, convertibles be they fabric or the metal roof type are notoriously difficult to seal when they are new let alone after 6 years old . It's hard enough to seal a full monocoque let alone a car with the top cut off.

 

Convertibles should come with a health warning in that they deteriorate in time. Seals work harden, material stretches and is not as resilient as it used to be. EPDM as used in the seals does have a useable life, is good at what it does but only for a period of time. Hence a certain degree of problems can be guaranteed to be found on a six year old convertible.

 

The body will also move as it works which is worse on the lower end market convertibles as it moves. A way to test for this is the amount of scuttle shake experienced. A lot of scuttle shake will indicate future issues with sealing. It's also very difficult to check exactly what seals have been replaced. I wouldn't trust any dealer at this moment in time especially franchised ones.

 

The top mount and CV joints though...... well frankly what do you expect?

 

I think you might be stirring up a lot of grief here which will not be easy to sort out. On the one hand you have a used car on the other you seem to expect it to perform like new. It just doesn't work.

[infojunkie]

I know this thread is kind of old but i just wanted to update on account of receiving the newsletter about taking companies to court, - we did win our case in the end and they settled out of court, they first offered us £1,200 which we refused on advice from our solicitor, they then offered £1,750 which we gladly accepted, they didnt however admit in writing that they had sold us a dud car and they prohibited us from naming them in any way on social media as part of the deal. The money did put the car right like it should have been in the first place, so people stick to your guns and fight for whats right!

[Conniff]

You didn't win because you settled out of court, so they won by not having a report in the papers and it all being hushed up. Never be afraid to name and shame a company that treats it's customers with contempt.

 

Congratulations that all is fixed now though. Thanks so much for coming back and updating and I will mark your thread as settled.