Ford Will Not Honour Warranty!??

[suewilldo]

Hi,

I am not sure where to post this because I really could do with some help and advice so I have posted it here.

I bought a 2012 KA 10 months ago from a Ford garage for my daughter. It has just failed its first MOT on brakes, disks and suspension rods. Now breaks and discs yep I hold my hand up and expect to pay for these....but Ford are refusing to replace the suspension rods under the 3 year warranty claiming its fair wear and tear!

To top it all I have just seen a review on carbuyer.co.uk on common problems with the KA hatchback where Janet Lazell said she had had the suspension joint replaced under warranty within a year then the same fault in 2013 and again in March 2014...the key here being....warranty!

I contacted Ford head office who talked to the garage and agreed with them, it was not covered under warranty. Ford quoted over £556 to sort the problem out but a local garage charged just over £200. As the car is to get our daughter to and from Uni and she is on a very limited budget I had no choice but to get the work done..as cheaply as possible so opted for the cheaper option...how can I get this money refunded...any ideas? The thing is I have looked at the warranty and there is no way they can class a "non friction component" as fair wear and tear in less than 3 years surely. But what can I do? Any help or advice would be so much appreciated. With many thanks

[Ford_Man]

You would be hard pushed to get a refund now you have had the work carried out I'm sorry to say

[jeebowhite]

if head office have agreed the warranty is not applicable, then you will find it difficult.

What was the mileage of the vehicle at the time?

I would say you could take it to a small claims court, but for a couple of hundred quid you have already spent on it, I think its probably easier to just put this down to experience... If you have the old rods, you can have them independantly inspected and a report generated. You will have to pay for the inspection and if the report concludes fair wear and tear you are out of pocket. However, if it reports premature wear / failure, then you can use this report to have all your costs reimbursed...

[GrahamJC]

When you purchase a new or second hand car from someone 'acting in the course of a trade or business', any warranty you get

is ADDITIONAL to your rights under the Sale of Goods Act, not a substitute. On the basis that you could prove that the

suspension rods were not of 'satisfactory quality' and should not have needed to have been replaced when they were, you

should have sent the garage a letter before claim to the garage threatening to pursue the matter through the small claims

court if they did not put the matter right or at least meet you half way with the cost! As Ross says and from a practical

point of view, it may be a struggle to push for a refund at this point in time.

[jeebowhite]

Unfortunately your statuary rights are applicable for 6 months, but the vehicle was purchased 10 months ago. if the replacement was done in the last 4 months then the cover is exempt unfortunately...

[iantt]

Which suspension rods are you refering to?

[GrahamJC]

James, your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act etc are not limited to six months. The trader's responsibility can

last for up to SIX YEARS from the date of the contract. This of course does not mean that the goods must last for that periodof time.

[jeebowhite]

True but for used cars the six months window is one were law favours you always. Beyond that its a case of taking matters to court or solicitor involvement and that's when often just getting on is easier :-)

[suewilldo]

Hi and thanks everyone,

I have put a letter together and emailed it to Darren Sough at customer services head office. Tomorrow I will send an edited version to the warranty dept at the Head Office.

James,

The mileage when I purchased the car on 10/04/14 from Ford was 25,838

It failed on 17/02/15 and the milage was 36,832

The car has been used on mainly motorway driving to get my daughter from Bicester to Uni in Surrey.

Ian,

It's the lower suspension arms.

Graham,

Thank you..the Sale of Goods Act 1979 has been quoted in my letter

I am going to see if I get any joy from head office and their warranty dept anyway. £215 doesn't sound a lot I know in the overall scheme of things but when Ford tell you that on top of the 3 year service and MOT cost ...they want a further £780 to replace the discs, pads and lower suspension arms...its taking the pi** on a car that isnt even 3 yet (although I totally agree that the discs and pads are wear and tear items and are without doubt down to me to sort out)

My daughter is doing a degree in Criminology at Uni and is going to speak to her Law lecturer on Thursday....she's a barrister. It will be good practice for her if we take this to the Small Claims Court if Ford will not play ball. For £35 it will be worth every penny on principal.

It is shocking if a company are selling cars that cannot last 36000 miles without failing an mot on non friction items.

I guess we will have to wait and see what happens...but needless to say I have got the bit between my teeth now!

Power to the little people!

[GrahamJC]

You may like to have a look at this link Sue!

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/consumer-law/warranties.htm

[suewilldo]

Thank you Graham....that was an awesome link!

I really appreciate the support I have received here...and thanks for letting me rant.

[suewilldo]

http://www.motorcodes.co.uk/garage/

Has anybody used or had any dealings with these guys before?

Maybe worth a try :)

[The Dark Knight]

Apologies for my late input, consumer law was a subject I enjoyed on my degree and I asked for this sub forum to be setup to help with problems like this but then I go and miss a topic, doh!

There is little point in me quoting chapter and verse about your statutory rights now that the work has been carried out, however I can summarise by saying similar to what others have posted.

Essentially your rights under SOGA are a separate entity to any warranty and you could have requested a repair in accordance with those rights. They can jump up and down about wear and tear all they like, it has no authority above your statutory rights.

You could try and sue them for the money paid out if you wish and I can advise further on the matters surrounding that if you definitely go down that route. In simple terms, with the small claims court, you pay to get the ball rolling so to speak and if you lose, thats it, no big legal bills. If you win, they will have to cough up what they owe you and I believe your costs to get to court.

They would wade into battle quite confident by boasting that it is wear and tear and that you paid up for the repair yourself so no case to answer so to speak. However, given the importance of having the vehicle on the road and the pressure placed on you by Ford dismissing any claims out of hand, you could argue that they are in breach of regulation 7 of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

That regulation refers to an aggressive commercial practice but what concerns me slightly is that you went elsewhere rather than to the dealer who dismissed the warranty claim. In the absence of further research, I am not suggesting that would dismiss the argument completely but it may not have the same clout. Here are some relevant extracts from it:

A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—

a: it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and

b: it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—

the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;

Hope that helps somewhat and keep us posted.

[suewilldo]

Thanks Dave.

The car belongs to our daughter who is at Uni so costing is important here,living on grants she had no choice but to opt for the lower amount. £215 as opposed to £556...you understand having gone to Uni I am sure.

On the MOT the break pads were metal on metal too 99% worn too. Now this car was purchased 10 months ago and used for motorway driving to and from Holloway Uni in Surrey...hence no bumps to wear the suspension rods. Surely 36,000 miles on a three year old car parts like this should not be worn out?? This should have been picked up when it was serviced in April when we bought the car. It makes you wonder if it was actually serviced prior to purchase because we had to chase the garage for the dealer stamp as it had not been stamped. We are lucky the kid didnt have a serious accident!

The customer services we received at this garage was shocking too it has to be said. The car was booked in for Monday ..I was ill with a serious chest infection but still managed to get the car in for 8:30 only to receive a call at 16:50 saying it would not be ready until the following day. There was absolutely no acknowledgement of the fact that we had been waiting around all day to pick it up and my daughter did not have transport for the following day because of their lack of planning, even though the car had been booked in 10 days in advance!

I will take this to court and will go to the local press to give the garage as much bad press as possible. To think...we support our local dealers with all the good intentions but the bad publicity if things go wrong will potentially have serious implications on their business!

When it subsequently failed its Mot the following day, the receptionist was exceptionally rude and short with me when I asked to speak to the service department. So much so, that when the service dept guy called back he explained that she was under a huge amount of stress as she was on her own because the warranty lady was off and I quote "Because her father had died the previous day" Ok thats unfortunate but it is no excuse for speaking to customers rudely.

[jeebowhite]

Unless your daughter Continue usually rides the brakes or the pistons where stuck applying the brakes all the time there is little reason for that failure, however if the garage cut corners they wouldn't pick up on the brakes. For example, rather than searching for the lock nut key they probably bypassed it under a high work load, as they couldn't get to the brake window on the caliper, they couldn't advise the brake wear and tear.

It's no excuse but if that was the case they should have told you at the time,or the previous owner, but then why would the previous owner tell you or the garage on part ex when it could knock the value down...

I have had this happen before to me and it's a pain but buying a used car you always inherit this risk I guess.

Either way, hopefully it sorts out soon for you.

[suewilldo]

Sorry the last two paragraphs are the wrong way around. Editing on this tablet is a nightmare...so I have left them :)