Whereas the rest of us are from moral backgrounds.

4 hours ago, J.R. said:

Whereas the rest of us are from moral backgrounds.

Moral backgrounds have no bearing on the legal responsibility of garages. So you buy a TV and it goes wrong after 3 months. Do you get it repaired yourself or contact the shop you purchased it from?  A car is nothing different and is a product. That is what the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is all about. It gives buyers protection from dodgy dealers who absolve themselves of any responsibility.

In this instance the OP negotiated an £800 reduction on the price after having used VCDS to check the DPF readings and the back pressure, all the indications were the DPF was blocked which has indeed proved to be the case.

 

The OP was no doubt hoping to get lucky and resolve the problem by a sensor change or DPF cleaning, the latter may still reward him.

 

Under those circumstances despite the law being on his side and your exhortations in my  opinion it would be morally wrong to now expect the garage to replace the DPF at their cost.

 

To the OP's credit he has not shown any indication of going down that route.

 

To answer your question regarding the TV or whatever, actually yes I do in fact, most purchases are on line and at the least I would have to pay the cost or return transport, also I live in France where customer service is an oxymoron, when something fails I can usually repair it and reinforce the weak part very quickly usually at no cost, I would much prefer that to driving an 80km round trip to be given the run around, told it has to go back to the manufacturers and then never see the product or my money again. Or send it back to the seller at my cost for them to say they did not recieve it.

 

For the same reason I would never buy a new car or from a dealer except on a trade sale sold as seen basis if the price was right.

Also, imagine buying a used TV with a known potential problem which was given a discount based on said problem. Would you then expect the seller to repair/refund/whatever if the TV failed due to that problem. I would see it as a risk (sometimes worth it) and would expect to either repair or replace it myself. If you want a non-problematic product, either buy new or don't negotiate a discount. Both those situations would offer you more moral and legal grounding for any subsequent failures.

This is old school train of thought with car purchases. Everyone treats garages like what they say is gospel and cannot be challenged. Well morales dont come into it. It is business and the garages are the ones who are laughing. But each to their own. Guess all those people who have purchased new cars in the past have never taken a car back for something to be fixed under warranty.  Same thing with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is a law the garages have to abide by in business. Like we all have to abide by laws in public. I do not see why people protect garages as much as the garage were happy enough to take his money and sell a car with a known fault. How morally right is that? Yes they reduced the price like you can with ex TV demonstration models etc. But the same rights still stand in law new or used to the produxt. People just dont bother using them as usually they have no idea how to.

9 hours ago, Ecomatt said:

This is old school train of thought with car purchases. Everyone treats garages like what they say is gospel and cannot be challenged. Well morales dont come into it. It is business and the garages are the ones who are laughing. But each to their own. Guess all those people who have purchased new cars in the past have never taken a car back for something to be fixed under warranty.  Same thing with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It is a law the garages have to abide by in business. Like we all have to abide by laws in public. I do not see why people protect garages as much as the garage were happy enough to take his money and sell a car with a known fault. How morally right is that? Yes they reduced the price like you can with ex TV demonstration models etc. But the same rights still stand in law new or used to the produxt. People just dont bother using them as usually they have no idea how to.

So in this case, if you were the OP, you would negotiate a deal on a car knowing it had a faulty DPF but the price you paid reflected this. After purchase would you then expect the garage to replace the DPF at their expense and if not use the Consumer Rights Act?

1 hour ago, ords said:

So in this case, if you were the OP, you would negotiate a deal on a car knowing it had a faulty DPF but the price you paid reflected this. After purchase would you then expect the garage to replace the DPF at their expense and if not use the Consumer Rights Act?

He did not know it was faulty but suspected it to be. Two very different things. We can argue about it till the cows come home but the Government made the law not me. I am just pointing that out.

The garage should have checked the car was running correctly before the sale unless they specifically wrote it in to the deal. Buying private you have no protection and garaged count om the fact that people dont complain about faults on cars after purchase and site our used car warranty does not cover it etc.

Edited 10 June, 20223 yr by Ecomatt

11 hours ago, Ecomatt said:

Well morales dont come into it

 

Clearly with yourself that is the case but I hope what I expressed earlier is true for the majority of the site contributors, thankfully it does seem to be the case with the OP despite your exhortations.

2 hours ago, Ecomatt said:

He did not know it was faulty but suspected it to be. Two very different things. 

 

Not at all "very different". Quite similar in fact. Had the sale been made with a generic £800 discount to get the business then yes I would agree with you. But the discount was offered on the basis that the dpf was a potential issue and covered the cost of repairs if needed.

 

Noone is arguing about the law involved, just that in this scenario the deal had been made as a side step to that law and both parties were in agreement.

Edited 10 June, 20223 yr by MarkyG82

11 minutes ago, MarkyG82 said:

 

Not at all "very different". Quite similar in fact. Had the sale been made with a generic £800 discount to get the business then yes I would agree with you. But the discount was offered on the basis that the dpf was a potential issue and covered the cost of repairs if needed.

In legal terms they are, as I said if it was written into the contract then it is legally binding. I have a lot of experience with these matters and my opinion is based on legal knowledge. I am not commenting anymore on the matter as I am going round in circles explaining the law to people who know my job better than me.

I for one have not disputed your knowledge of the law nor have needed any explanation of it and I think that goes for all the other contributors, I commented on the morality of the course of action you recommend the OP follows given the circumstances.

On 06/06/2022 at 00:30, J.R. said:

You said that it goes like stink when not regenning, you could try siphoning the tank down to less than 1/4 full which should stop the regens, however if the calculated or measured soot load goes above 55% the warning light will come on, if it reaches 75% it will go into limited operating strategy and you will have to force a regen using VCDS.

So if one wanted to sell such a car, just make sure fuel is low and the problem won't be evident until after it's sold. 😞 Sounds like Skoda are aiding unscrupulous sellers😒

@dowding- Hi, what have you ended up doing with the DPF (or the car altogether)? I'm wondering, as I happen to be in your shoes right now 😞. You can PM me if you wish. Thanks.