Mr MZ & Mrs SG contacted us in connection with an Audi Q7 3.0 Diesel which they had purchased several months earlier. The vehicle had developed a serious engine fault and could not be driven. They had contacted the supplying dealer who were particularly difficult and evasive. Whilst they did not ultimately refuse assistance, they certainly did not make it easy for the couple to get their vehicle back for repair and as a result things got extremely complicated. For Mr MZ & Mrs SG English was not their first language and as a result communicating via the telephone was very difficult and frustrating for them. They contacted us for assistance, and we took time to understand them and realised that a face to face meeting would be better. Once we had established the facts of the case, we immediately offered our services on the usual No Win – No Fee basis. The couple had been looking for a suitable sensible family car for themselves and their 3 young children. They wanted something practical, economical, and reliable and searched the internet for several weeks. They found a family car online, enquired and went to view it over 150 miles away in Mansfield. When they arrived, they found that the vehicle had already been sold meaning they had a wasted trip, but the salesman there clearly wanted to sell them something else instead. He showed them the Audi Q7 which was in their price range, however we feel this was never a sensible vehicle to offer this family. It was too big for their driveway, expensive to insure and expensive on fuel, and with this mileage and being an Audi was always potentially going to incur expensive repairs. Mr MZ explained that the vendor was very persistent and persuasive and eventually he agreed to purchase the vehicle on finance from the salesman against his better judgement. Within a few weeks and less than 1000 miles the vehicle suffered engine failure whilst the family were out on a day trip. They were recovered after several hours on the roadside and the vehicle was returned to their home address. The recovery agent confirmed that the engine had failed, and it would probably need a replacement engine. Mr MZ and Mrs SG were very upset and contacted the vendor for assistance. They were very unhelpful and told Mr MZ that there was an RAC Warranty on the vehicle and that he should contact them for any assistance. Mr MZ contacted the RAC who informed him that the vendor had not put a warranty from them on the vehicle so they could not help. He then contacted the dealer who confirmed there had been and admin error and they would rectify it and get back to him. In the meantime, Mr MZ had contacted the finance company who were reluctant to assist but eventually agreed to send an engineer to inspect the vehicle at their home address. The engineers report however was inconclusive as the engine had not been stripped and therefore, he couldn’t confirm that the fault was apparent at time of sale (even though the vehicle had only travelled less than 1000 miles since purchase). The vehicle vendor was encouraged by the finance company to assist and to make sure that the RAC warranty was now correctly in place which they did. There was then a breakdown in communication, probably due to Mr MZ & Mrs SG difficulties in understanding English via telephone call. The vendor had instructed them to start a new warranty claim with RAC and had instructed the RAC to collect the vehicle and to return it to them for inspection. But they did not make this clear, and all of this by now had taken nearly 3 months to arrange. All of this time the couple were without the use of the vehicle and still paying the monthly payments on the finance agreement. When the RAC were finally contacted to return the vehicle to the vendor so that a claim could be made, they advised Mr MZ and Mrs SG that there was no need to return it to them. Instead, they recommended they take it to a local garage for inspection and for the warranty claim to be made which would be faster and easier. The couple took the RAC’s advice and delivered it to a local independent garage who stripped the engine and compiled the required report and estimate. This investigation cost the couple £420 which obviously they would be refunded if the warranty claim was approved which clearly should have been the case. However, this wasn’t the case, the garage reported that the timing chain had failed. Possibly due to wear and tear and there were numerous other fault codes in the engine management system relating to fuel pump issues and gearbox faults. The garage advised that the engine repairs would be circa £9000 but there would also potentially be additional costs afterwards if the fuel pump and gearbox needed to be repaired / replaced. As a result of this the RAC deemed that the faults detailed would have been most likely present / developing at the time of sale. This then excluded them from being covered under their warranty and they recommended they pursue the vendor for assistance. The vendor was not prepared to assist unless they delivered the vehicle to them at a cost of £400 which they could not afford, plus they already had a bill at the local garage of £420 which they also could not afford to pay. They contacted the finance company once more who were equally unhelpful. They were at a complete loss as to what to do next and needed somebody to help them, which is when they finally contacted us for our expert assistance. We immediately contacted the supplying dealer to give them the opportunity to repair the car for them free of charge. We explained that due to a misunderstanding by the RAC the vehicle had ended up in an independent garage incurring a £420 bill that they couldn’t afford to pay. We recommended the vendor to settle this bill and collect the vehicle for repair. The vendor refused and insisted it was Mr MZ & Mrs SG’s fault and it was their responsibility to pay for it. We then contacted the finance company who Mr MZ had informed us had been very rude to him on several occasions. He thought that it was because of his poor ability to communicate properly on the telephone that he was receiving this rude and unprofessional service and he asked us to speak with him on his behalf instead. He claimed the last conversation he had with the person at the finance company had resulted in him being verbally abused and shouted at in a very demeaning and aggressive fashion leaving him very upset. He did not wish to be spoken to like that again. We agreed and when we finally got through to the finance company, we immediately understood what Mr MZ meant. The person handling his complaint was probably one of the rudest and arrogant people we had ever encountered. He refused to escalate the matter to a manager and made things as difficult as he possibly could. We questioned him as to why he was so aggressive towards Mr MZ and he denied he had been. We requested copies of the recorded telephone conversations and transcripts so that we could take the matter further. To our amazement he then became extremely aggressive toward us. We reminded him that the calls were being recorded and that he had now confirmed to us that he was acting in an aggressive and bullying manner which nowadays should not be expected or tolerated. After we had reminded him of his obligations to the customer and guidance from the FCA code of practice guidance https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/APER.pdf he calmed down and the aggressive manner stopped. Later he must have reflected on our comments as he sent Mr MZ an email apologizing for his aggressive, threatening manner previously displayed. The matter was eventually escalated to a higher disputes team within the finance company where we finally started to make some progress. The person assigned to deal with us had a good understanding of vehicles, and in particular engine faults. He was willing to assist us and the customers if possible, and he instructed their engineer to come and inspect the vehicle once more now it was in a stripped state. The engineers report confirmed that of the independent garages report and it was agreed that the vehicle was beyond economical repair. This process by now had taken in excess of 12 months to progress to this stage. All this time Mr NZ & Mrs SG had been making the finance payments, paying for tax and insurance on a vehicle that they could not use. We had requested that repayments be suspended whilst the account was in dispute due to the vehicle’s faults. They did this for 3 months but then reinstated the need to pay, and when the couple missed a payment, they immediately issued a default notice which had a dramatic effect on their credit rating. With this being recorded against them they would struggle to get affordable credit for at least 6 years. It was a very unfair response from one of the biggest finance companies in the UK and we requested they address the matter but they would not accommodate. Even with the evidence provided, the engineers reports and the plight of the customers made well aware to them they did not react with a positive response. Because of this we had no choice other than to escalate this to the next level and sought assistance for the Financial Ombudsman Service. We contacted the Financial Ombudsman and supplied all of the relevant information. We were aware that due to the Covid Pandemic the FSO had a huge backlog to get through and they were quoting up to 6 months before a case could be reviewed and ruled upon. This in fact turned out to be 8 months and all of this time the finance company were aware that storage charges were being charged by the garage for holding the vehicle on site. Eventually the Ombudsman came back to us with its initial ruling which found in favour of Mr MZ & Mrs SG against the finance company. They ruled that the vehicle should be returned to the vendor, a full refund including costs incurred and reinstatement of an unblemished credit file with the default notices and late payment references removed. We were very happy with the result and arranged with the finance company to arrange for collection of the vehicle. We were convinced that we had secured another success for a family that really needed our help and the case was now closed. However, we were shocked to find out that wasn’t the case. During the next conversation with the finance company, we enquired as to when Mr MZ & Mrs SG would receive their refund payment as they were obviously in a difficult financial situation and were in desperate need of finding a replacement vehicle. It was at this point the finance companies’ representative said something that gave us cause for concern. Initially he came across as being very genuine and happy that the matter was resolved and apologised for the unnecessary delays in getting things resolved. But then he made a comment about the storage charges which gave us cause for concern. His comment led us to believe that they actually intended to hold the customer liable for these charges which were totalling £2400. When we questioned him if this was the case, he became very evasive and said he ‘didn’t think so’ but we weren’t convinced. Our instinct proved to be correct and when we contacted the Ombudsman, they confirmed that the finance company had since disputed the Ombudsman’s ruling and wanted them to hold the customers liable for the storage charges which clearly were not their fault. With this information we immediately contacted Mr MZ & Mrs SG and recommended they did not authorise release of the vehicle from the garage to the finance company. The reason being that with the vehicle out of their possession they would have no lien, and they would be in a much weaker position to hold the finance company liable for the entirety of all costs incurred. We were shocked that the finance company had employed these tactics after messing about these innocent customers with a faulty vehicle and a finance agreement that shouldn’t have been in place for over 12 months. As a result, the case had to be escalated to the most senior department of the Financial Ombudsman’s Service which took a further 3 months for a ruling to be issued. But to everyone’s delight it was upheld and once again ruled against the finance company, and this decision was final and could not be appealed. They agreed for the vehicle to be rejected and returned to the dealer, for a full refund of all monthly payments including the deposit paid plus interest, and the credit file of both parties to be repaired with all adverse information removed. In addition, there was an amount awarded as compensation and a descriptive account of how the Ombudsman had come to their decision, and how badly they thought that the dealer and finance company had acted towards Mr MZ & Mrs SG. Overall, an excellent result for the customers and another winning case for Motor Claims Helpline.

We had a customer contact us in connection with a BMW 3 series that he had recently purchased from a motor dealer. Since the purchase he had covered less than 6000 miles when he had significant engine problems. He took the vehicle to his local BMW dealer Where they confirmed that it would need a replacement engine at a cost of over £18,000. He contacted the dealer that he purchased the vehicle from, and they refused to help, saying that it had been four months since he purchased the vehicle, and it only had a three-month warranty. The customer reported that the dealer was very unhelpful and at one point even quite abusive. They point blank refused to assist him and he was convinced that he didn't have any legal rights. The customer then booked his vehicle into a BMW specialist for repair because they were approximately half the price of the BMW main dealer. He then contacted us for advice having been informed that we were specialists in dealing with this type of legal dispute between a customer and car dealer. The customers who we will refer to as Mr PH, explained all of the faults he had received since he purchased the vehicle. There were several minor faults which he had already paid to have repaired but obviously an engine replacement and the cost involved was a very big shock and one he could not afford. We requested all of the information surrounding the purchase from Mr PH and concluded he definitely had a case against the supplying dealer. We therefore agreed to represent him on a no win no fee basis and immediately set to work on gathering the necessary information required to pursue the matter. We had an independent inspection done on the vehicle which confirmed that there was damage to the vehicles cylinder head and block that could not be repaired. The bottom end of the engine had experienced oil starvation and also evidence of a previous overheating episode. The report also revealed that's a recent repair had been undertaken on this engine to a very poor standard. The engine block been damaged to such an extent that the extreme heat had corroded the liners between cylinders 2 & 3. The only way the only way to repair this correctly would be to replace the entire cylinder block but we discovered it had been merely patched up with a chemical metal compound, which had subsequently failed. This repair was never going to last, and we suspected the supplying dealer had in fact instructed for this substandard repair to be undertaken prior to selling the vehicle to Mr PH. The vehicle in question was a limited-edition BMW 320 Si petrol with a very rare engine. In fact, BMW only manufactured a small quantity of these vehicles for the UK market, leaving replacement engines in very short supply and at a premium price. We however managed to locate a specialist that could supply and fit a replacement reconditioned engine into the vehicle for considerably less than the BMW main dealer. We contacted the supplying dealer and explained the situation of Mr PH’s engine failure. The dealer was very aggressive towards us and refused to assist in any way. They informed us that they had opened a dispute with trading standards in connection with the faulty vehicle and went on to explain because the customer that had the vehicle for more than four months, they were under the impression that they were not obliged to repair it for him and told us not to contact them again. We explained the customers legal rights quoting the sale of goods act 1979 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54 , along with distance selling regulations 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/contents/made , and the section 75 consumer credit act 1974 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75 in relation to credit card purchases as the customer had paid part of the vehicle via credit card. The dealer reiterated that they would not assist in any event, and when we threatened legal action against them, they said they would just close the company and open up a new one so that we would not be able to pursue them through the courts. It turned out they were telling the truth, and one week later we checked with Companies House to find the company had been put into liquidation. Undeterred by this we then pursued the credit card company who initially we're reluctant to help. We furnished them with the information that we gathered, along with evidence of the stripped engine and an independent engineer’s report that we had requested. The credit card company then instructed their own independent engineer to inspect and report on the vehicle and submit their conclusion. Their engineers report corroborated our findings and the damage sustained to the engine was correct. They agreed that a replacement engine would be required, and that the customer was not in any way at fault as the fault was most likely apparent at the time of sale. At this point the credit card company agreed that they were mutually liable for the cost of repairs to the vehicle under the regulations contained in the section 75 consumer credit act and their attituded then changed dramatically. They became much more accommodating and agreed for us to liaise directly with Mr PH to discuss the options available to him for resolution of the matter. The independent report that we had undertaken for Mr HPH had also identified several other areas of concern and a potential mileage discrepancy on the vehicle. The engineer was under the impression the vehicle may have done more miles than we're showing on the odometer. Due to this we recommended to Mr PH that instead of repair it would be better for him to reject the vehicle and get a full refund which would enable him to buy a different and potentially more reliable car with the funds received. Mr PH appreciated our expert advice and instructed us to contact his credit card company for a full refund instead. Mr PH had paid a considerable amount for this vehicle and had incurred costs prior to the engine failure of several hundred pounds. The credit card company refunded him in full for the purchase of the vehicle and our costs for pursuing the matter to the point of resolution. They also paid in full all the bills from the garage that had stripped and inspected the engine and stored the vehicle for several months whilst discussions took place. When the case was finally resolved they also arranged for the vehicle to be collected and disposed of all at no cost to Mr PH. Mr PH could not believe what we had delivered for him. Prior to him instructing us he was convinced that he had no chance of getting anywhere and that he was going to be looking at a repair bill of at least 7000. Thanks to our determination, expert knowledge and the methods employed we succeeded in getting the result for Mr PH that we were confident of from the very beginning. Justice was carried out and another successful win for the Motor Claims Helpline Team.

Updating