Reoccuring Minor Faults with Vehicle - Compensation

chillybags on 19/06/2020 - 10:41
Last edited 19/06/2020 - 10:41

Hi All,

Would love to get some thoughts about an issue that has been occurring with my vehicle. Purchased in NSW.

Facts:

  • Purchased demonstrator vehicle in October 2017 for $26.5k. Had less than 500km on the clock and was registered in April that year.

  • January 2019 -March 2019: Engine light came on, EGR sensor was replaced, light came on again, EGR valve was replaced. Vehicle was deemed roadworth and I keept driving it whilst waiting for parts.

  • February 2020 Engine light came on again same error code. EGR sensor was ordered in Feb and replaced in early March. Vehicle was deemed roadworthy and i continued to drive it whilst waiting for parts. Next day light came on again and vehicle dropped back to dealer.

  • March 2020 - April 2020: At this point i had enough, and just dropped the Vehicle at dealer and said deal with it. Vehicle was off the road for 6 weeks for diagnostics and fault finding, decided to order valve and sensor again and covid hit, so took longer to get parts. Total time off road was 6 weeks - hire car was provided. Asked for refund of vehicle as ACCC says multiple repeated minor failures that have not been fixed in a reasonable time constitute a major failure and I can ask for my choice of repair replacement or refund. They denied and said they would repair it. Case reported to fair trading, tribunal date set for July.

  • May 2020: Received car back and it was working fine for 3 weeks when engine light came on. Returned vehicle to dealer and they did further diagnostics, determined it was turbo that was issue. Ordered new turbo and replaced. Vehicle was off road for 3 weeks and a hire car was supplied for this period. I found out in this period that the turbo was replaced 1 month before i purchased vehicle and was never disclosed this information.

  • June 2020: After turbo was replaced had the vehicle for less than 24hrs when the engine light came on again, dropped car at dealer and hire vehicle supplied. Car still at dealer currently. They aren't really sure whats wrong with it

So I finally have an offer from the manufacturer. They wont replace the vehicle because it is not made anymore. They have offered me just under $20k buy back for the vehicle and claim that's market value because I have driven 83,000km since purchasing vehicle. Just wanted to know peoples thoughts on the matter. Should I be asking for more money and settle prior to going to tribunal, stick to my guns on a full refund, or take the matter to the tribunal? I imagine going to court for them is going to cost a significant amount in legal fees. Tribunal date is only 2 weeks away now, but it could theoretically drag on for a while.

Cheers.

Poll Options

  • 245
    Accept offer, and cut my losses.
  • 19
    Ask for more money and settle if it gets closer.
  • 9
    Ask for full refund and go to tribunal if they refuse.
Automotive

closed Comments

  • Hybroid on 19/06/2020 - 10:44
    +55

    Personally, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable offer if you've driven it 83,000 KM in <3 years.

    • wiipantz on 19/06/2020 - 10:55
      +1

      Sounds ok tbf

    • niksrulz on 20/06/2020 - 11:45
      +4

      That's a very fair offer in my opinion. Car value only goes down after purchase unless you bought a rare gem..

      Consider this : Even if it was perfect today and you try to sell it I can still guess won't be over 20k today ? that's just 20% in 3 years and 80 thousand k later

    • ribze1 on 20/06/2020 - 22:24
      +1

      Agree, a shtload of kms considering months off the road at the dealer.

    • factor on 21/06/2020 - 11:51

      Legal entitlement is full refund of purchase price. That is an anchor to "reasonable" settlement. Tribunal may have limits on the monetary settlement they can order (ie: without going to a higher court). Negotiate, but from that perspective. Obviously settle for something between what would leave you "whole" vs the maximum legal claim. That's presuming you want best outcome for you.

  • wiipantz on 19/06/2020 - 10:56
    +5

    I'm so curious of the make and model, could also assist with making pinpoint calculations whilst possibly shedding light on why it's a bit of a dud?

  • motiv8ion on 19/06/2020 - 10:57
    +14

    I think it is a reasonable offer, driving 83K KM for $6.5k is reasonable, even if you had issues along the way.

    • afoveht on 19/06/2020 - 11:57
      +18

      For a new car, absolutely.

      Accept offer, and cut my losses.

      What losses? It's less than 10% / year, less than most depreciation.

      • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 13:06
        -4

        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/183558

        So you look for full refund/replacement for item out of warranty….an bit hypocritical

        • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 13:35
          +5

          Did you read that post? They (JB HiFi) offered a full refund. And @vofa was talking about reading the fine print of aftermarket/extended warranties, not about requirements under Australian Consumer Law. And comparing a $300 camera lens to a $28,000 car is a bit like comparing apples and elephants…

          • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 14:08
            +1

            @pegaxs: i once went to an animal park and fed an apple to an elephant….but seriously thought why does the cost of the item matter, either it's fit for purpose or not irrespective of price

            • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 14:52
              +1

              @Numpty21:

              but seriously thought why does the cost of the item matter

              Because a $200 part on a camera lens represents over 60% of its replacement cost. A $200 valve on a $28,000 car represents 0.7%…

              irrespective of price

              I am sure if @vofa had a $10,000+ Nikon D5 DSLR, JB HiFi might have chosen to honor the warranty another way. Apples… Elephants…

              The point is, you said what @vofa did was hypocritical, when the fact was that JB HiFi offered the replacement and the thread wasn't about seeking a refund, but about letting people know to read the terms and conditions of what they are signing up and paying for.

              Bad example is bad…

        • afoveht on 19/06/2020 - 17:38
          +2

          an bit hypocritical

          i once went to an animal park

          There's so much here I don't like but I'm not going there on a Friday night.

          Have a good one.

    • Archi on 19/06/2020 - 11:26
      +6

      except its a car and not a toaster

    • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 11:27
      +15

      Doesn't work like that. If you had a toaster that had a minor issue but you owned it for 3 years and still managed to cook 83,000 slices of toast in it, you're not getting your full refund.

      • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 11:56
        -2

        Doesn't sound like a minor issue to me

        • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 13:39

          Vehicle was deemed roadworth and I keept driving it
          Vehicle was deemed roadworthy and i continued to drive it

          Each time it sounds like OP was still able to drive it.

          Doesn't sound like a major issue to me

          • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 14:05
            -1

            @pegaxs: yeah but at what point does an reoccurring minor issue that can't be resolved become a major issue….it's a major inconvenience to OP
            Anyway looks like my opinion isn't shared by many on this issue

            • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 15:01

              @Numpty21: Car engine explodes into pieces; major.
              Little orange light on the dash; minor.

              I get that an ongoing minor issue can be a time consuming headache, but a string of minors does not automatically make it a major.

              • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 15:10
                +3

                @pegaxs: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees…

                What is a major problem?
                A product or good has a major problem when:

                it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it
                it is significantly different from the sample or description
                it is substantially unfit for its common purpose and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time
                it doesn’t do what you asked for and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time; or
                it is unsafe.

                2 of the 5 items listed by ACCC apply to OPs problem…..It's a major problem

                • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 15:28
                  -3

                  @Numpty21: a: Didn't have it when OP bought it. Showed up later.
                  b: It's not a difference from sample/description.
                  c: It's still able to be used. And quite possibly easily fixed if the mechanics were not 19yo 2nd year apprentices
                  d: Again, still able to be used for what OP wanted to do, which is "drive it".
                  e: Isn't unsafe.

                  Looks like a minor problem that is just causing a major inconvenience.

                  • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 15:31
                    +2

                    @pegaxs: it has a problem that would have stopped someone from buying it if they’d known about it
                    can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time

                    major problem

                    • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 15:38
                      -2

                      @Numpty21: a: It didnt have the problem when OP bought it. Irrelevant
                      b: You omitted the "substantially unfit" part… OP has admitted to continuing to drive it while the fault is active. Ergo, irrelevant.

                      Minor problem.

                      • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 16:24
                        +1

                        @pegaxs: a: It didnt have the problem when OP bought it…..have you even read OPs entire post?? Turbo was changed before he bought it. Very Relevant.
                        it is substantially unfit for its common purpose and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time….again very relevant. Having a engine light constantly on while driving in IMO is unfit for common purpose, that being able to drive your new car with having to worry

                        Major problem

                        • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 17:11

                          @Numpty21: Do you know what the turbo was replaced for? Irrelevant. Do you know what was replaced on your last vehicle before you purchased it?
                          OP has mentioned several times that the vehicle is still able to be driven normally, so it is not "unfit for purpose".

                          While it is annoying that the light is on and is certainly an "inconvenience", it does not stop the vehicle from operating. And the reason it isn't easily fixed has more to do with the people working on it than the issue itself.

                          Minor problem

        • Gnosh on 21/06/2020 - 09:16
          +2

          This is better than watching tennis.

    • chillybags on 19/06/2020 - 11:04
      -6

      My first point when receiving the offer was that the market value should have been backdated to when the issue first came up in January 2019. At that point it was just over a year old and had about 40,000km on it. I would have thought at that point in time a full refund would be on the cards. They claimed that they would only backdate it to once it became a major fault and the issue was reoccurring, i.e March this year.

      • wiipantz on 19/06/2020 - 11:08
        -3

        Seriously need a TL;DR
        But without more info we can't glean what market value may or may not be. Also the fall in depreciation in 1 year can be 25% on your initial info that supports even more the offer is fair and you are indeed entitled

      • gromit on 20/06/2020 - 12:48
        +3

        even at a year old and 40,000k's you would not be getting much more for it. The largest depreciation is in the first year.

  • mreddie on 19/06/2020 - 11:08
    +1

    Take the offer.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 19/06/2020 - 11:16
    +5

    Take the offer $20k; getting close to 80% of the car price back, even after having it for 2.5years and 83,000kms

    I highly doubt a full refund after 12 months would have been possible, even if a Tribunal adjudicated on the matter. The key points are that even though the engine light came / "problem" started 12 months after ownership, the car continued to be driveable until around March 2020. Take into account there were extended periods without issues like March 2019 to March 2020 when there were no issues.

  • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 11:21
    +2

    Wow, 3 years and 83,000km later and you're only losing $6,500. You're not going to get a full refund under ACL because there is also a clause in there about usage, and I would say 83,000km in 3 years is pretty good usage.

    Take the car down the road to another dealer and just get them to do a wholesale/trade in price on it. I dont think you are going to get a better deal than $20,000.

    • resubaehtgnolhcs on 19/06/2020 - 11:28
      +1

      I am not sure about the ACL clause, but had a mate who last year got a full refund on a 2yr old VW GTI (YMMV)

      • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 11:38
        +1

        Not saying that a full refund isn't possible, but unless we know about your mate's circumstances, it's hard to compare the two. But there is a section in ACL that allows for an adjustment for usage. While they cant lowball OP, they would have to at least offer the current market value to replace the vehicle with a like for like replacement.

        It would even be hard for OP to go them for loss of use of the vehicle considering they seemed to have supplied a loan car each time the vehicle was in for work to be done.

    • factor on 21/06/2020 - 12:11

      What's this "usage" thing you refer to in the law? Reference to legislation please!

      • pegaxs on 21/06/2020 - 18:01

        From the ACCC A guide for Warranties and Refunds

        Other types of remedies

        If a good does not meet a statutory condition or statutory warranty after a consumer has owned it for some time or used it a lot, it is still a breach of contract. However, the consumer may not be entitled to rely upon the right under the Act to cancel or rescind the contract and claim a full refund.

        In these cases, the consumer may still be entitled to another form of remedy from the seller for the breach of contract, such as:
        • the replacement of the goods, or the supply of equivalent goods
        • repair of the goods, or paying for the cost of repair.

        It is up to the consumer and seller to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to each party. If the consumer and seller cannot negotiate a remedy, a court or tribunal may decide what is reasonable in the circumstances in accordance with the law.

        Which is exactly what is/has happened to OP.

        OP used the vehicle for 3 years and 83,000km. They are not entitled to a full refund, but are entitled to a remedy that would put them in a position where they would be at the same point if the goods did not have this fault. OP wants a full refund, dealer wants to give $20,000 (initial cost of the vehicle - fair use). They cannot agree, thus this dispute goes to mediation/arbitration/tribunal/court/etc.

        You can go combing through the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 at your leisure…

  • resubaehtgnolhcs on 19/06/2020 - 11:26
    +6

    If they re offering you $20k now (which is a good offer as has been pointed out), then they are not confident of winning the case at the tribunal and may be up for a full refund. Push for more money - this is the start of your negotiation period (2 weeks before tribunal). You'd be crazy to accept their first offer … it's a negotiation, so negotiate - you can get a bit more out of them and not go to tribunal!

    • FrugalDealHunter on 20/06/2020 - 21:11

      This.

      Try negotiate a higher payout. If they don’t play ball, Accept $20k

    • praga on 21/06/2020 - 10:11

      Second this.

  • Randxyz123 on 19/06/2020 - 11:54
    +5

    Take the $20K and run. Sounds like it probably needs a full engine rebuild or major works done. It’s a good outcome IMO.

    They’ve also provided a hire car for each of the times you have had a issue.

    What sort of car out of interest?

    • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 12:15
      +13

      I'm guessing possibly a "Nissan Qashqai" by the looks of things…

      • Numpty21 on 19/06/2020 - 12:24
        +1

        good work

      • brendanm on 19/06/2020 - 13:21
        +1

        If it's a qasqhai, it must be a diesel. In that case the intake manifold is probably blocked with crap, causing the codes. Dealership does what they do best, and continues to replace the same part with the same result over and over.

        • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 13:28

          Had a similar issue a few years ago on a LR Defender. Been at the dealership umpteen times and had multiple turbos replaced because boost just kept falling off and because "computer says so".

          Ended up finding the issue for the customer in about 3 mins. The intercooler hose had de-laminated internally and boost was causing the hose to collapse internally under boost… A $50 part and 30 mins work in total.

          But I agree. If they keep replacing the same part and it comes back with the same issue, that part is not the issue, something else is.

          • brendanm on 19/06/2020 - 16:15

            @pegaxs: Maybe they'll put an internal diameter sensor in the hose on the next model so the dealer techs can fix that themselves next time ;)

          • netjock on 20/06/2020 - 11:12
            +1

            @pegaxs:

            A $50 part and 30 mins work in total.

            The difference between a real mechanic and a person who got trained to read the mechanic's handbook.

      • kahn on 19/06/2020 - 13:38
        +3

        Very happy with it so far but only 3yr 100k warranty if that’s a concern.

        Oh, it's definitely become a concern :-P

        • pegaxs on 19/06/2020 - 13:40

          Don't make them any more because replacing the turbos and EGR valves got too expensive… :D

  • oscargamer on 19/06/2020 - 11:55
    +4

    Take the offer, but do not cancel the hearing until the money is in your bank. Tell the dealer this, it may well hurry them along.

  • nomoneynoproblems on 19/06/2020 - 12:33
    +1

    Take the offer and run.

    • bazingaa on 19/06/2020 - 12:49
      +1

      I second it

  • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2020 - 12:51
    +6

    $6.5k for the use of a vehicle for 83,000km over 3 years is not bad. It's quite cheap really.

  • Seraphin7 on 19/06/2020 - 13:54

    As ever, see if you can extract a bit more from them. Whatever you do, do not "reject" their offer or allow it to terminate … you don't want a nasty surprise at the tribunal.

    When all else fails, take the $20k and run. Yes, there's probably an argument for a full refund on the basis of goodwill, but from an economic perspective their offer is probably fair.

  • p1 ama on 19/06/2020 - 14:10

    So I finally have an offer from the manufacturer. They wont replace the vehicle because it is not made anymore. They have offered me just under $20k buy back for the vehicle and claim that's market value because I have driven 83,000km since purchasing vehicle.

    Hahahahahahahahaha just $20,000. You drove it for 3 years and 83,000km. This offer is generous.

    Just wanted to know peoples thoughts on the matter. Should I be asking for more money and settle prior to going to tribunal, stick to my guns on a full refund, or take the matter to the tribunal?

    HahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaha. Driving a car for 3 years and 83,000km and now wanting a full refund? Hahahahahahahahaha

    • bloom on 19/06/2020 - 18:55
      +2

      Should be full refund plus cOmPeNsAtIOnZ!

    • smpantsonfire on 20/06/2020 - 10:31
      +4

      It's not that generous considering all the hassle there was.

      • 91rs on 20/06/2020 - 13:51

        What 5 dealership visits in just over a year with a loan vehicle provided (free I expect) at each issue.
        Far better than many dealerships. It's a good deal.
        Curious as to how the payout figure compares to the insured value however, can't believe they held any sort of value as a car.

      • p1 ama on 21/06/2020 - 15:00

        It's not that generous considering all the hassle there was.

        If I could buy a car for $26.5k, drive it for 3 years and 83,000km and then get 20k afterwards (without having to f around with selling it on the private market), I'd take it. Would you?

    • itstuan on 20/06/2020 - 14:51

      Dealer has been reasonable & generous with the offer. Some other car manufacturers won’t give a dice about you. My neighbour had a Kia brand new and had some electrical issue from day 1. Keep bringing back and forth cos they can’t fix it. They won’t buy it back or offer any solution. In the end he had to sell it private to get rid of it. Poor guy whoever bought it after though.

      • itstuan on 21/06/2020 - 18:25

        You can call it lemon or whatever fruit, I’m not gonna argue the car doesn’t have problems. But unfortunate but you would find the dealer has made the fair call based in the mileage over the 3 years. Its twice as much average. You would be dreaming to ask for full refund, not to mention the time and energy (and money) you spend in court. In the end I believe you would have better off accepting their first offer. If the OP decides to go that way, good luck to him though.

    • BestofOZB on 20/06/2020 - 22:31

      Just under 20k means like 19,990 smh

  • pjcook on 20/06/2020 - 09:36

    Under normal circumstances you lose 15% of value the minute you drive a new car of the lot…. I guarantee if you one t to trade it in you would not get anywhere near 20K. Take the money and run

  • Bob Svargis on 20/06/2020 - 09:42

    That’s an excellent offer for 83,000km! Take it.

  • r3volt on 20/06/2020 - 11:03
    +2

    I love how you dont mention the 80k+ you have driven it until the very end.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2020 - 11:18
    +2

    $20k is a ridiculously good offer, try not to skip in the waiting room

  • OzHunterNSW on 20/06/2020 - 12:06
    -1

    Welcome to the world of motoring. Things do happen. You should expect to pay for things that wear and tear.
    Oils, tyres, timing belts, oil filters, and the like…

    Welcome

  • adn on 20/06/2020 - 12:44

    Never hurts to ask for more. So ask to split the difference between new car and this offer.
    If not, then 20k for them to take the lemon is reasonable. Since you got some years out of it.

    • itstuan on 20/06/2020 - 14:54

      Its not really a lemon when you have driven 83,000kms & 3 years after.

      • picket23 on 20/06/2020 - 23:19
        +1

        A 3 yr old car that can't be repaired by the manufacturer is most def a lemon.

        • itstuan on 21/06/2020 - 00:02

          According to ACCC (Australia Competition & Consumer Commission) a car is deemed lemon when defective occurs after its purchase with numerous severe defects. Not after 1.5 years and 40.000kms later. He had a fair run when it started happen. Maybe how he drove the car had something to do with it?

          • picket23 on 21/06/2020 - 00:35

            @itstuan: That's possible. He could have driven it under water. Or used the wrong oil. Maybe it was sabotaged repeatedly by an ex lover.

            Pretty sure the manufacturer wouldn't have been offering him 20k then though. Either way, given the context of this thread we might as well assume the car was looked after OK.

            If the car is 3 years old and has faults that can't be repaired, it's a lemon. ACCC would probably agree with that. Even if they don't, they didn't coin the term "lemon" and certainly don't dictate how it should be used in general conversation.

  • Heaps for Cheaps on 20/06/2020 - 12:52

    I would accept that offer tbh. Even if it was sold second-hand without issues I'm sure you couldn't get close to 20k, especially with the milage on it now… Your 100k service was coming up so getting a new car now with that 20k would be awesome.

  • Derrick Crane on 20/06/2020 - 12:58
    +3

    Many people have pointed out the OP has driven the car for over 83,000 klms. I wonder how many extra klms he has driven with the hire cars provided. I think the dealer offer is pretty good assuming it is in cash and he can purchase anywhere he chooses.

  • Cluster on 20/06/2020 - 18:04
    +1

    I think the offer is great. Take it ASAP. 83000km for $6500 is 7.8c/km. That's quite good depreciation, and you had a free hire car for 6 weeks too.

    Nissan and Renault are in serious financial strife world wide. Nissan announced a major factory closure in Spain that will cost them US$1.7 billion.
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/02/business/corpor…

    Take the money and buy a Hyundai/KIA/Mazda/Toyota. Much safer bet.

    • itstuan on 20/06/2020 - 18:36

      Have you owned a Kia or Hyundai before?

  • lhou021 on 20/06/2020 - 19:21
    +1

    +1 good offer, just take it and get a new car.
    that 83k km is a lot of use, twice as much as normal usage, standard usage is ~15k km per year?
    private resell value is probably much less than 20k.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2020 - 20:12
      +1

      best deal imo, whose gonna pay you 20k for a car used 83km in 3 years. thats 4k for 3 years.

  • t_c on 20/06/2020 - 19:31

    So whos gonna dig up the redbook value on this thing and check the market value on carsales, i cbf.

    • pegaxs on 20/06/2020 - 19:40

      Red book: $20,600 to $22,900 (45~75,000 avg kms)
      Carsales: $19,990 to $26,000 for similar km, same year and engine/trans

  • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2020 - 20:10
    +1

    thatsthe best deal i have never heard of. 83k for $20k. thats 4k for 3 years. I would take it in a heart beat.

  • Ahbal on 20/06/2020 - 21:36
    +5

    Youve had no "losses" considering how much cars depreciate. 6k down isnt a loss. Take the 20k easy choice.

    • ribze1 on 20/06/2020 - 22:27

      It's a 'meh' car too

  • BoomTetrisForJeff on 20/06/2020 - 21:53
    +5

    if you don't take this offer, you'd better hand in your Ozbargain licence.

  • picket23 on 21/06/2020 - 02:22

    If it was me I'd just take the 20k. Seems more than reasonable to me if the car cost 6.5k more than that several years and 80k kms ago.

    I don't know what the deal is if this ended up gong to court. If the court or tribunal felt you should have accepted the 20k as a reasonable offer then in not sure how things would play out.

    On the other hand, Nissan surely wouldn't have led with their best deal

  • StalkingIbis on 21/06/2020 - 06:46

    It's great that the have offered to buy it back! Remember all those stories about keeps?

    You won't be able to still it in the future no matter what, so even losing money now is best case scenario in that regard.

    If you really want to push hard, go for market value + compensation for the inconveniences you've suffered at the haha if not having your car for long periods of time.

    Please update on final outcome. Loss of people here have taken time to comment. We'd like done closure haha

  • Ridiculous Panda on 21/06/2020 - 08:12

    Name and fame?

  • fozzie on 21/06/2020 - 09:16

    Take the money, it’s a shitty car so pretty good you can buy another one (hopefully with no faults). Going to court is risky imo, also a lot of stress. What brand is it?

  • superuser on 21/06/2020 - 10:45

    20k easy money

  • Moderatorhamza23 on 22/06/2020 - 12:37

    OP has resolved the issue and thanks users for their helpful feedback, comments are closed.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join