SANDAL BMW Huddersfield - AVOID

[peddy]

wheelie, Sorry, no offence, but you're such a pushover.... What they have done is ILLEGAL!! Go back to them and throw in trading standards, lawyers and court. Get your lawyer to even send them a letter if you have to. Don't stop until you get a FULL £1K refund!

 

[Mr Whippy]

wheelie, Sorry, no offence, but you're such a pushover.... What they have done is ILLEGAL!! Go back to them and throw in trading standards, lawyers and court. Get your lawyer to even send them a letter if you have to. Don't stop until you get a FULL £1K refund!

I'm sure they would argue that if they had sold the car with brand new tyres on it, which is what he now has, that the car would have cost £1000 more from them in the first place.

Buy car with low tyre tread, tyres will need replacing soon anyway.

That need to replace the tyres has just come around sooner than expected.

You can't now say that BMW now owe the full cost of the tyres.

The actual cost to the owner beyond what they expected is just a few extra months of wear on the fronts that they expected would be there until they were worn dry anyway... maybe a few hundred quid tops!

Dave

 

[lacroupade]

lacroupade - I think your comments are not reasonable, anyone should be able to buy an AUC from any BMW dealer without being done, we are paying a good premium for what should be a good sound car with no faults. It proves that people are either not doing the checks/jobs they are paid to do and in the process are getting away with it and leaving a trusting customer to pick up the expense. Dealers should be investigating why cars are being sold with problems and stop insisting that it can't happen with the 120 point checks carried out before sale.

Uh...its a second hand car...... :| Anyone who goes round thinking that ANY dealers "approved used" scheme is foolproof and watertight and guarantees a good-as-new car is asking for trouble.

Why do you think the Romans invented the term 'caveat emptor'?

 

[AlanJ]

If it were me I'd be pursuing the point raised on the thread about AUC requirements regarding tyres BUT.....

Don't get too het up about the whole thing because you've learned a valuable lesson.....this is NOT picking holes in the way you handled it but just as a pointer to others who might face the same issues.

1. I hear what you say about it raining etc.., but from what you say it was the front tyres that were the issue as regards excessive wear....turning the steering wheel would have allowed a full inspection in seconds? A good lesson in what not to do when you take delivery of a second hand car. Did you not get the opportunity to give it a good look over when you tested and paid for it?

2. Why did you take the car to a 'dealer' (what sort?) for a tyre problem? Surely you'd go to a tyre depot and, once you'd established the issues, you leave the tyres on and drive back to the supplying dealer surely? Call me naive but not only have you allowed this 'dealer', whoever they are, to replace two very expensive tyres because they didn't think they were up to scratch, but you've denied the supplying dealer the opportunity to inspect them. And for all they know, during that three weeks/1600 miles you could have been on any number of track days or other 'outings' and simply run the tyres ragged .... how are they to know otherwise?

But anyway, lifes too short, you've got four decent tyres now, so just go and enjoy the car and forget about it.

Spot on for me and well put

 

[CJK]

Wheelie, it seems to me like your (theoretical) legal rights are pretty clear - you can either reject the goods or claim damages. You're obviously interested in damages (and may have lost the right to reject anyway). I say 'theoretical' rights because the real sticking point here is an evidential one, as lacroupade mentions. You'll need to prove, first, that the excessive wear was sufficiently serious to render the car not of a "satisfactory quality" and, second, that it was in that state *prior* to your purchasing it. That's all pretty hard to do if you don't have the tyres any more! Is there any chance of getting a statement from the dealer who replaced the tyres, saying what kind of state they were in? I bet they'd be reluctant to do so that but, if they would do it, then you might have a credible starting point for ramping up the pressure against the seller and threatening legal action.

As for BMW UK, I think it's probably helpful to involve them. Like PVR, I contacted them (and the dealer concurrently in my case) in relation to a recent problem I had, and I'm convinced that it influenced the dealer's response. I just think that a franchisee is going to work harder at dealing with the problem if the franchisor is looking over its shoulder...

The thing that gets my goat is that you pay a premium for AUC, and part of that should be the confidence that basic stuff like this just isn't a problem. Caveat emptor and all that, but a lot of people aren't as clued up as the guys/girls on this forum: someone who doesn't know a lot about cars may pay a premium for an AUC precisely because they're not confident and want some extra assurance, so it's a shame if the scheme doesn't always fulfil that basic function.

 

[lacroupade]

Maybe the 'dealer' that replaced the tyres, whoever they were, could provide some kind of statement for the supplying dealer about the state they found the tyres in?

 

[wheelie]

UPDATE:

2 weeks later and nothing from either the dealer or BMW UK. The letter was received according to my recorded delivery check. I would have least have expected to receive a letter of correspondence from BMW but guess not. :thumbsdown:

So I need another dealer in the Wakefield/Bradford/Leeds area? any good dealings with BMW dealers in this region chaps or are they all cut from the same flea bitten mottled cloth?

Taz:

I believe you're not that far from me? Who have you used mate?

Pete