Damaged car

ontoit

My dad bought a 2yo car 8 months ago. 1 previous owner from a main dealer. He was getting serviced today by local mechanic. The mechanic said to my dad that it had been damaged on passenger side and that a new panel had been put on car. He noticed it only by the bolts that were used to replace it were not sprayed. My dad is mad because dealer didn't tell him. Has he any come back?

DylanII

ontoit wrote: »

My dad bought a 2yo car 8 months ago. 1 previous owner from a main dealer. He was getting serviced today by local mechanic. The mechanic said to my dad that it had been damaged on passenger side and that a new panel had been put on car. He noticed it only by the bolts that were used to replace it were not sprayed. My dad is mad because dealer didn't tell him. Has he any come back?

Is there any problem with the car? Or just the nuts aren't the same colour?

mathepac

ontoit wrote: »

... The mechanic said to my dad that it had been damaged on passenger side and that a new panel had been put on car. ... My dad is mad because dealer didn't tell him. Has he any come back?

Yes, the dealer has a duty to disclose if the car had been involved in an accident. Non-disclosure may effect the price / contract.

More information here - http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/motoring/advice_on_buying_a_used_car_in_ireland.html

djimi

Was the work carried out without your father consent? If so tell the mechanic to piss off with himself and either return it to its original state or he will get paid in your own time when you can afford it.

I can appreciate if additional work needs to be done but noone should ever carry out work on a car without the owners knowledge and permission.

h3000

djimi wrote: »

Was the work carried out without your father consent? If so tell the mechanic to piss off with himself and either return it to its original state or he will get paid in your own time when you can afford it.

I can appreciate if additional work needs to be done but noone should ever carry out work on a car without the owners knowledge and permission.

You might want to read the OP again

h3000

mathepac wrote: »

Yes, the dealer has a duty to disclose if the car had been involved in an accident. Non-disclosure may effect the price / contract.

More information here - http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/motoring/advice_on_buying_a_used_car_in_ireland.html

@OP did your dad ask the dealer was the car damaged? As far as I understand it the dealer is only obliged to answer questions they are asked.

djimi

h3000 wrote: »

You might want to read the OP again

Probably time to log off and go to bed...

RootX

h3000 wrote: »

@OP did your dad ask the dealer was the car damaged? As far as I understand it the dealer is only obliged to answer questions they are asked.

They're also supposed not to withhold information, according to the NCA
http://www.nca.ie/index.jsp?p=133&n=177&a=349

but then again they may not even be aware that the panel was replaced in the first place.

ontoit

My dad phoned dealership owner as he knows him to talk too. Dealer basically said he would look into and ring him back which he did 15 minutes ltr. Said that previous owner had said there was no damage to car on trade in forms. He asked my dad to call into the dealership next day he is in town so they caan examine car. He said there is not much use chasing previous owner and that will look after him with a goodwill jesture if there garage verifies panel has been replaced.My dad is happy with the car as it is only a side panel that was replaced so will probably accept this.

bucketybuck

ontoit wrote: »

My dad phoned dealership owner as he knows him to talk too. Dealer basically said he would look into and ring him back which he did 15 minutes ltr. Said that previous owner had said there was no damage to car on trade in forms. He asked my dad to call into the dealership next day he is in town so they caan examine car. He said there is not much use chasing previous owner and that will look after him with a goodwill jesture if there garage verifies panel has been replaced.My dad is happy with the car as it is only a side panel that was replaced so will probably accept this.

Why exactly does the dealer owe him anything?

Its just a panel? Probably just got a dint in it or something, got replaced, no harm done.

What exactly is your dad moaning about?

MuppetCheck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Why exactly does the dealer owe him anything?

Its just a panel? Probably just got a dint in it or something, got replaced, no harm done.

What exactly is your dad moaning about?

I'd definitely pay the same money for a car that has been repaired as opposed to one that hasn't:rolleyes:

No matter how small the damage, the car isn't original and anyone that knows what they're looking at will spot that. It could be used against the OP's father if he was trading into another garage in the future and he would have to disclose a repair if asked.

Del2005

MuppetCheck wrote: »

I'd definitely pay the same money for a car that has been repaired as opposed to one that hasn't:rolleyes:

No matter how small the damage, the car isn't original and anyone that knows what they're looking at will spot that. It could be used against the OP's father if he was trading into another garage in the future and he would have to disclose a repair if asked.

A lot of cars get damaged in transit when new. The owner is never informed if repairs are done.

bucketybuck

MuppetCheck wrote: »

I'd definitely pay the same money for a car that has been repaired as opposed to one that hasn't:rolleyes:

No matter how small the damage, the car isn't original and anyone that knows what they're looking at will spot that. It could be used against the OP's father if he was trading into another garage in the future and he would have to disclose a repair if asked.

Save your rollseyes and stop showing your ignorance.

There isn't a two year old car out there that hasn't been repaired at some stage, be it a leaking washer bottle, faulty injector, brake pads, or even a dented panel.

If all it is is a panel, then the car is no worse of than millions of other two year old cars on the road, so I ask again, why exactly does the OP's father feel he is owed compensation?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

MuppetCheck

Del2005 wrote: »

A lot of cars get damaged in transit when new. The owner is never informed if repairs are done.

What difference does that make to the OP's father? The damage was noticed and a trained eye would most likely see it again. Puts him in a position where he has to admit the car was damaged if asked and with a car that had some form of repair.

Personally panel damage wouldn't bother me if it was repaired properly but the fact remains that the car will be viewed as a slightly different light through no fault of the OP's father.

MuppetCheck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Save your rollseyes and stop showing your ignorance.

There isn't a two year old car out there that hasn't been repaired at some stage, be it a leaking washer bottle, faulty injector, brake pads, or even a dented panel.

If all it is is a panel, then the car is no worse of than millions of other two year old cars on the road, so I ask again, why exactly does the OP's father feel he is owed compensation?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Because the car was not as it was presented? The fact that many other cars have had body repairs means nothing to this case.

And when you were trying hard to press the rolleyes icon you may have missed the bit that, if asked, the OP's father has to acknowledge the repair to the car in the future. Might not matter to some people but it could be held against the car in the future.

MugMugs

bucketybuck wrote: »

Save your rollseyes and stop showing your ignorance.

There isn't a two year old car out there that hasn't been repaired at some stage, be it a leaking washer bottle, faulty injector, brake pads, or even a dented panel.

If all it is is a panel, then the car is no worse of than millions of other two year old cars on the road, so I ask again, why exactly does the OP's father feel he is owed compensation?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

How can you compare astethic damage on vehicle to wear and tear? Do you class brake pads and wing mirrors in the same "consimables" category?

MugMugs

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Because the car was not as it was presented? The fact that many other cars have had body repairs means nothing to this case.

And when you were trying hard to press the rolleyes icon you may have missed the bit that, if asked, the OP's father has to acknowledge the repair to the car in the future. Might not matter to some people but it could be held against the car in the future.

Isn't it asked on the SIMI form? Something like "has the vehicle undergone repair...."?

Begs the question, what's the point in asking the question if nothing can be done!

MuppetCheck

MugMugs wrote: »

Isn't it asked on the SIMI form? Something like "has the vehicle undergone repair...."?

Begs the question, what's the point in asking the question if nothing can be done!

I've been asked that question each and every time I have traded in/filled out the form if the garage was SIMI.

To be fair, and depending on the value of the car , the garage should realize this. I looked at a car last week and my own was taken away and put on a ramp for a look over.

bucketybuck

MugMugs wrote: »

Isn't it asked on the SIMI form? Something like "has the vehicle undergone repair...."?

Begs the question, what's the point in asking the question if nothing can be done!

Once again, what should be done? What exactly does the OP need here to compensate his loss?

The car is fine. As already noted, brand new cars often have panels replaced after getting scratched in transit, they are then sold as new with no mention of this. Wing mirrors were mentioned. If a wing mirror got clipped and replaced, is it vital that the new owner knows this? It affects the car just as much as a simple panel.

Typical entitlement culture. No actual harm suffered, but he wants compensation anyway.

MugMugs

bucketybuck wrote: »

Once again, what should be done? What exactly does the OP need here to compensate his loss?

The car is fine. As already noted, brand new cars often have panels replaced after getting scratched in transit, they are then sold as new with no mention of this. Wing mirrors were mentioned. If a wing mirror got clipped and replaced, is it vital that the new owner knows this? It affects the car just as much as a simple panel.

Typical entitlement culture. No actual harm suffered, but he wants compensation anyway.

You've taken my quote out if context. I'll re quote it for you

MugMugs wrote: »

Begs the question, what's the point in asking the question if nothing can be done!

You've also not answered my question, do you rank aesthetic features or indeed structural elements in the same category as well know consumables such as for example, Brake pads? Where's the line drawn? Serious side impact repaired, does that rank with a timing belt change?

bucketybuck

MugMugs wrote: »

You've also not answered my question, do you rank aesthetic features or indeed structural elements in the same category as well know consumables such as for example, Brake pads? Where's the line drawn? Serious side impact repaired, does that rank with a timing belt change?

I didn't answer because it smacks of typical internet tactic of focusing on one irrelevant point and dragging it out as if it is important to the question.

The point was clear. All two year old cars have had repairs done. I listed a range of common repairs to illustrate the point. I in no way ranked those repairs in order of importance. Draw your line wherever you wish, its irrelevant to the discussion.

Do you think the OP should be compensated for his "loss" in this situation?

MuppetCheck

A mechanical failure can happen, parts wear out etc. but this is different to an accident surely? An accident means some form of abnormal damage to the vehicle. It could be a simple dent, it could be a hard hit on the side. Either way it's beyond the realms of wear and tear to say the panel was replaced.

I think if the OP's father bought the car in good faith he is entitled to something due to it being damaged at some point in the past. And it's good to see the seller stepping up in that regard. It wasn't sold to him as being damaged. The repair could be for something very small but he will (legally) have to mention it if asked.

wonski

bucketybuck wrote: »

Save your rollseyes and stop showing your ignorance.

There isn't a two year old car out there that hasn't been repaired at some stage, be it a leaking washer bottle, faulty injector, brake pads, or even a dented panel.

If all it is is a panel, then the car is no worse of than millions of other two year old cars on the road, so I ask again, why exactly does the OP's father feel he is owed compensation?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There is a difference between faulty injector replaced, and panel replaced...
Not to mention comparision of brakepads replaced and side panel shows your ignorance in the topic.
Panel could have been replaced for few reasons, one of them is being involved in accident previously.
Should have no bearing on the car itself if fixed properly, but definitely lower the value when trading in.
And it is only 2 years old, are you suggesting most of 2 years old cars have panels replaced? I don't think so.

Anan1

Being practical about it, the car was bought 8 months ago. Assuming that the damage was to the panel only, and that the new panel was properly painted and fitted, I don't see any point in pursuing it.

bucketybuck

wonski wrote: »

There is a difference between faulty injector replaced, and panel replaced...
Not to mention comparision of brakepads replaced and side panel shows your ignorance in the topic.
Panel could have been replaced for few reasons, one of them is being involved in accident previously.
Should have no bearing on the car itself if fixed properly, but definitely lower the value when trading in.
And it is only 2 years old, are you suggesting most of 2 years old cars have panels replaced? I don't think so.

Hi Wonski.

The 2 year old car in the OP has had a panel replaced. Do you have an opinion on what actual harm this has caused the OP and what compensation he should expect resulting from this actual harm?

wonski

bucketybuck wrote: »

Hi Wonski.

The 2 year old car in the OP has had a panel replaced. Do you have an opinion on what actual harm this has caused the OP and what compensation he should expect resulting from this actual harm?

Quote from OP:

He noticed it only by the bolts that were used to replace it were not sprayed.

It will be noticed when OP's father sells it/trades it in.
And he has no explanation for what happened, the trade in value/price will be reduced.

You are acting like OP is expecting thousands in compensations, when he only asked if he had any comeback. Buying from dealer is supposed to give you peace of mind, and ensure the car you buy is genuine. Dealer did not check the car through, but should.

MuppetCheck

Anan1 wrote: »

Being practical about it, the car was bought 8 months ago. Assuming that the damage was to the panel only, and that the new panel was properly painted and fitted, I don't see any point in pursuing it.

True enough, but I would still voice my concern. And it seems like he might get something from them so may as well go with it and see what he can get!

Anan1

MuppetCheck wrote: »

True enough, but I would still voice my concern. And it seems like he might get something from them so may as well go with it and see what he can get!

It's worth a try, I suppose. Whilst I agree that the main dealer was at fault, I wouldn't get too upset about it at the same time.

oregano

Anan1 wrote: »

It's worth a try, I suppose. Whilst I agree that the main dealer was at fault, I wouldn't get too upset about it at the same time.

Have to agree with this. The op concern is more to do with resale value. It shouldn't matter in the future.

As a valuer, I'd value a, lets say, 10 focus with 60km in good nick as just that. A repair in the past wouldn't matter, as its only cosmetic. Most cars that come in as trade ins need a scuff, scrape or dent repaired. Sometimes a wing is cheaper to buy than to repair.

It's nice of the garage owner to offer some goodwill. I'd accept it and move on.

Topper Harley

bucketybuck wrote: »

The 2 year old car in the OP has had a panel replaced. Do you have an opinion on what actual harm this has caused the OP and what compensation he should expect resulting from this actual harm?

The car seems to have had one panel replaced that he knows of and no explanation why. What's so wrong with letting the dealer inspect it and making a decision himself.

For all we know, the car could have been involved in more than just a minor tip and have had a few panels replaced or even have some structural damage. The dealer sounds reasonable so let him have a look and make amends to the OP's father if he feels that's right.

bucketybuck

Topper Harley wrote: »

The car seems to have had one panel replaced that he knows of and no explanation why. What's so wrong with letting the dealer inspect it and making a decision himself.

For all we know, the car could have been involved in more than just a minor tip and have had a few panels replaced or even have some structural damage. The dealer sounds reasonable so let him have a look and make amends to the OP's father if he feels that's right.

The OP stated that his local mechanic had inspected the vehicle and noted the panel. I feel safe in assuming that he also would have then checked for any evidence of welding or major structural repairs, and that the panel was the only thing changed, else the OP would have said so.

MugMugs

bucketybuck wrote: »

I didn't answer because it smacks of typical internet tactic of focusing on one irrelevant point and dragging it out as if it is important to the question.

The point was clear. All two year old cars have had repairs done. I listed a range of common repairs to illustrate the point. I in no way ranked those repairs in order of importance. Draw your line wherever you wish, its irrelevant to the discussion.

Do you think the OP should be compensated for his "loss" in this situation?

But you see I'm not focusing on one point. I'm focusing on points you've made and which are critical to your argument here.

To answer your question, I believe that if the OP's father was going to be out of pocket if he traded the vehicle in then he should be facilitated with that amount if he so desired.

Your argument is heavily flawed as pointed out now by a number of posters.

Topper Harley

bucketybuck wrote: »

The OP stated that his local mechanic had inspected the vehicle and noted the panel. I feel safe in assuming that he also would have then checked for any evidence of welding or major structural repairs, and that the panel was the only thing changed, else the OP would have said so.

I wouldn't assume anything. The dealer seems to think the complaint has merit and I'm sure he'll have it inspected thoroughly and come to his own conclusion. So what's the problem?

Tea drinker

I've had a few dings on wings repaired (not replaced) but I always took a before and after photo to show why the repair was carried out.
There could be no issue apart from panel got caught on something and was too badly damaged to be worthy of repair IMHO.
If more has taken place it will likely be evident.

ontoit

Ok here is the story. My dad went to the dealer an hour ago. They looked at the car and accepted that the passenger's front panel was replaced at some stage. They deny it was by them and it must have been the previous owner who didn't declare it to them when trading in. No other damage to car so they suspect it was a car park prang more than likely. As the warranty is out on the car in April they have offered my dad one extra years warranty on the car as a goodwill jesture and peace of mind as he has been a loyal customer for 23 years buying his cars from them although he never services the car with them lol. He is happy with that.

Del2005

wonski wrote: »

. Buying from dealer is supposed to give you peace of mind, and ensure the car you buy is genuine. Dealer did not check the car through, but should.

Buying from a dealer is as risky as buying private. If the OPs father had done the correct thing and got the car inspected before purchase he could have queried it then.

IMO it's up to the buyer to thoroughly inspect the car not the dealer/seller.

Topper Harley wrote: »

I wouldn't assume anything. The dealer seems to think the complaint has merit and I'm sure he'll have it inspected thoroughly and come to his own conclusion. So what's the problem?

Dealer is being nice. He properly reads Boards and is afraid of getting lambasted for a simple mistake, which neither party noticed.

ontoit

It seems people don't say that their car has been damaged when trading in or do they?

h3000

ontoit wrote: »

Ok here is the story. My dad went to the dealer an hour ago. They looked at the car and accepted that the passenger's front panel was replaced at some stage. They deny it was by them and it must have been the previous owner who didn't declare it to them when trading in. No other damage to car so they suspect it was a car park prang more than likely. As the warranty is out on the car in April they have offered my dad one extra years warranty on the car as a goodwill jesture and peace of mind as he has been a loyal customer for 23 years buying his cars from them although he never services the car with them lol. He is happy with that.

That's extremely decent of the dealer.

bucketybuck

ontoit wrote: »

Ok here is the story. My dad went to the dealer an hour ago. They looked at the car and accepted that the passenger's front panel was replaced at some stage. They deny it was by them and it must have been the previous owner who didn't declare it to them when trading in. No other damage to car so they suspect it was a car park prang more than likely. As the warranty is out on the car in April they have offered my dad one extra years warranty on the car as a goodwill jesture and peace of mind as he has been a loyal customer for 23 years buying his cars from them although he never services the car with them lol. He is happy with that.

That is an extremely generous offer from the dealer.

MuppetCheck

ontoit wrote: »

Ok here is the story. My dad went to the dealer an hour ago. They looked at the car and accepted that the passenger's front panel was replaced at some stage. They deny it was by them and it must have been the previous owner who didn't declare it to them when trading in. No other damage to car so they suspect it was a car park prang more than likely. As the warranty is out on the car in April they have offered my dad one extra years warranty on the car as a goodwill jesture and peace of mind as he has been a loyal customer for 23 years buying his cars from them although he never services the car with them lol. He is happy with that.

Excellent result for your dad there. Obviously the dealer noted that your father was out of pocket in some way and remedied it. Good to see.

Anan1

Del2005 wrote: »

He properly reads Boards and is afraid of getting lambasted for a simple mistake, which neither party noticed.

I'm no fan of the average Irish main dealer, but in this case I say credit where credit's due.

Del2005

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm no fan of the average Irish main dealer, but in this case I say credit where credit's due.

I was writing at the same time as the OP. Fair play to the dealer, it's appears some do have morals.

mathepac

Del2005 wrote: »

Buying from a dealer is as risky as buying private. ...

The actual evidence in this case seems to suggest otherwise, or had you missed that?

Del2005 wrote: »

... If the OPs father had done the correct thing and got the car inspected before purchase he could have queried it then. ...

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle; she doesn't so she's not. "If this", "if that", "if the other" - pointless contribution.

Del2005 wrote: »

... IMO it's up to the buyer to thoroughly inspect the car not the dealer/seller. ... .

Each needs to protect their own interests.

Del2005 wrote: »

... Dealer is being nice. He properly reads Boards and is afraid of getting lambasted for a simple mistake, which neither party noticed.

Dealer is being a smart businessman, not wishing to destroy a 23-year long business relationship, as well as being one of the motor-trades good guys IMHO. I like it when there are good outcomes for stories like this. Is your choice of user-name reflective of your attitude and cynicism? Delighted with the outcome OP. Well done that dealer.