Rejecting a car, owned just under 2 months

[cirian75]

I bought my car from a large car supermarket chain.

When I bought it they provided the service history inc in a service by them at 20300 miles

The car has been getting more rattly.

So 2 weeks ago I told their 3rd party warranty people and I took it to the local Mazda dealer did their diagnostic checks who just said Skyactiv engines are naturally not quiet engines.

I was still wary, so this Saturday I took to a local garage and had them change the oil with good oil in the right spec, I supplied plus genuine Mazda oil filter.

The mechanic who did the change also collected a sample for me, when I told the oil that came out was 1000 miles old, he said no way, this oil totally cooked.

So I have ordered an oil test kit from Millers oils so I can have it analysed, I suspect this the old oil is way older than 1000 miles and 2 months, and they are shiny bits in it.

So we await the results

I am not an expert but looking at the oil it looks like it's borderline becoming sludge to me

Edited by cirian75 on Monday 11th August 08:06

[119]

cirian75 said:

I bought my car from a large car supermarket chain.

When I bought it they provided the service history inc in a service by them at 20300 miles

The car has been getting more rattly.

So 2 weeks ago I told their 3rd party warranty people and I took it to the local Mazda dealer did their diagnostic checks who just said Skyactiv engines are naturally not quiet engines.

I was still wary, so this Saturday I took to a local garage and had them change the oil with good oil in the right spec, I supplied plus genuine Mazda oil filter.

The mechanic who did the change also collected a sample for me, when I told the oil that came out was 1000 miles old, he said no way, this oil totally cooked.

So I have ordered an oil test kit from Millers oils so I can have it analysed, I suspect this the old oil is way older than 1000 miles and 2 months, and they are shiny bits in it.

So we await the results

Ok but is there anything actually wrong with the car?

Is it now less rattly?

[BertBert]

Presumably you aren't using it either if you suspect the motor is worked?

[cirian75]

119 said:

cirian75 said:

I bought my car from a large car supermarket chain.

When I bought it they provided the service history inc in a service by them at 20300 miles

The car has been getting more rattly.

So 2 weeks ago I told their 3rd party warranty people and I took it to the local Mazda dealer did their diagnostic checks who just said Skyactiv engines are naturally not quiet engines.

I was still wary, so this Saturday I took to a local garage and had them change the oil with good oil in the right spec, I supplied plus genuine Mazda oil filter.

The mechanic who did the change also collected a sample for me, when I told the oil that came out was 1000 miles old, he said no way, this oil totally cooked.

So I have ordered an oil test kit from Millers oils so I can have it analysed, I suspect this the old oil is way older than 1000 miles and 2 months, and they are shiny bits in it.

So we await the results

Ok but is there anything actually wrong with the car?

Is it now less rattly?

It is quieter and smoother.

[the-norseman]

So Mazda dealer have checked it over and say its fine?

[E-bmw]

cirian75 said:

I took it to the local Mazda dealer did their diagnostic checks who just said Skyactiv engines are naturally not quiet engines.

Perhaps the Mazda tech that made that astounding statement should get his head under the bonnet more often.

Mrs E has a 2018 Mazda 2 1.5 GT 115 & it is as quiet an engine as any other I have worked on.

[cirian75]

the-norseman said:

So Mazda dealer have checked it over and say its fine?

Yes, they were paid their standard £150.diagnostic fee and they didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with the noise the engine made.

But the fact that the engine is significantly quieter and smoother and almost rattler-free on known good brand new oil while suggests otherwise.

[Trevor555]

cirian75 said:

So 2 weeks ago I told their 3rd party warranty people and I took it to the local Mazda dealer did their diagnostic checks who just said Skyactiv engines are naturally not quiet engines.

The problem with some main dealers is they just don't want to get involved in other people's/dealer's warranty work, so they can simply turn you away, or worse, say "no fault" just to get rid of the car.

Dealing with these warranty companies, as a repairer, can be a nightmare.

You can be well into the job when they turn around and say they're only covering so much, and at only £50 labour rate.

Or often not authorising the job, so car in bits, and then telling customer they have to pay, whilst the car is stuck in the workshop.

So I'm not surprised the Mazda dealer simply fobbed you off, so annoying.

The only dealer warranty department I ever had good dealings with was Cinch.

[cirian75]

E-bmw said:

cirian75 said:

I took it to the local Mazda dealer did their diagnostic checks who just said Skyactiv engines are naturally not quiet engines.

Perhaps the Mazda tech that made that astounding statement should get his head under the bonnet more often.

Mrs E has a 2018 Mazda 2 1.5 GT 115 & it is as quiet an engine as any other I have worked on.

The engine is dramatically quieter on this brand new total 0w20 oil that the total oil selector told me is their recommended choice

[Johnnybee]

As an aside, the service staff at my local Mazda dealer are the most patronising people I have ever had the misfortune to deal with.

[vaud]

BertBert said:

Presumably you aren't using it either if you suspect the motor is worked?

Also if you have had work done on it by a third party, without the dealer/stealer consenting then they may not be interested any more… (not saying you are wrong to do it practically but there is a risk they just say ok talk to our legal dept)

[ADJimbo]

I’m unclear on what basis you intend to reject this motorcar on?

The vehicle still functions, has not failed to function and gives no evidence it may not function in the future. At best, you’re unhappy with the Car Supermarkets choice of oil for the vehicle and dispute whether the vehicle was actually serviced by them prior to handover. The vehicle has been into a franchised Mazda dealer who returned a NFF.

There is also the small matter that you have prescribed and supplied your own lubricants for the vehicle which may, or may not, meet the Mazda specifications. This is a significant weakness in any further argument.

I cannot see how you would have a viable and credible rejection claim should you threaten litigation or the matter progresses to litigation.

[cirian75]

ADJimbo said:

I’m unclear on what basis you intend to reject this motorcar on?

The vehicle still functions, has not failed to function and gives no evidence it may not function in the future. At best, you’re unhappy with the Car Supermarkets choice of oil for the vehicle and dispute whether the vehicle was actually serviced by them prior to handover. The vehicle has been into a franchised Mazda dealer who returned a NFF.

There is also the small matter that you have prescribed and supplied your own lubricants for the vehicle which may, or may not, meet the Mazda specifications. This is a significant weakness in any further argument.

I cannot see how you would have a viable and credible rejection claim should you threaten litigation or the matter progresses to litigation.

So if I had gotten Mazda to do the oil change, and collect the sample, I would have had a much better case?

But fact I've had a 3rd party change the oil, even though it meets Mazda's spec damages my case, if not ruins it?.

[MustangGT]

cirian75 said:

ADJimbo said:

I’m unclear on what basis you intend to reject this motorcar on?

The vehicle still functions, has not failed to function and gives no evidence it may not function in the future. At best, you’re unhappy with the Car Supermarkets choice of oil for the vehicle and dispute whether the vehicle was actually serviced by them prior to handover. The vehicle has been into a franchised Mazda dealer who returned a NFF.

There is also the small matter that you have prescribed and supplied your own lubricants for the vehicle which may, or may not, meet the Mazda specifications. This is a significant weakness in any further argument.

I cannot see how you would have a viable and credible rejection claim should you threaten litigation or the matter progresses to litigation.

So if I had gotten Mazda to do the oil change, and collect the sample, I would have had a much better case?

But fact I've had a 3rd party change the oil, even though it meets Mazda's spec damages my case, if not ruins it?.

Correct. At this time I would suggest all you can do is go back and negotiate a discount on the price you paid based on the service not being done, provided you can prove it. I cannot see grounds for rejection, you have not stated any faults present.

[Sixsixtysix]

cirian75 said:

ADJimbo said:

I’m unclear on what basis you intend to reject this motorcar on?

The vehicle still functions, has not failed to function and gives no evidence it may not function in the future. At best, you’re unhappy with the Car Supermarkets choice of oil for the vehicle and dispute whether the vehicle was actually serviced by them prior to handover. The vehicle has been into a franchised Mazda dealer who returned a NFF.

There is also the small matter that you have prescribed and supplied your own lubricants for the vehicle which may, or may not, meet the Mazda specifications. This is a significant weakness in any further argument.

I cannot see how you would have a viable and credible rejection claim should you threaten litigation or the matter progresses to litigation.

So if I had gotten Mazda to do the oil change, and collect the sample, I would have had a much better case?

But fact I've had a 3rd party change the oil, even though it meets Mazda's spec damages my case, if not ruins it?.

You have changed fundemental elements of the car - the supplying dealer will most likely say you caused issues by having a third party working on it and/or changing the oil caused the issues. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but if you are looking to reject, you should never have anyone else work on the car or change anything about it.

I'd say you are stuffed.

[irc]

Surely if the test in the oil sample proves it was not serviced at 20k as alleged by the selling dealer that is grounds for a claim there? Mis-description of the car. Especially as they were not just going on third party service history but claimed they had serviced it.

Similar case. Consumer awarded £750 for being sold a car with "full service history" which was missing a service.


https://www.themotorombudsman.org/case-studies/mis...

[paul_c123]

Until the oil analysis is done, and whether it can definitively prove how old the oil is, there's nothing to go on except the OP's description of the car "getting progressively more rattly". Which is incredibly vague.

If you don't like a car and want to reject it because you've found a fault with it, first thing to do is to contact the seller and let them inspect it. Until this is done, they don't have to do anything as a next step.

Even if you get your own diagnosis done on it, they don't have to accept that. If it gets to stalemate, an independent inspection could be done but then since its been worked on since, the chain of responsibility is no longer solely with the seller.

Edited by paul_c123 on Monday 11th August 12:01

[miniman]

What is actually wrong with the car?

Are you looking to reject it on the basis that you don’t think it was maintained as well in the past as you were led to believe?