Please find attached the details I am about to send to the garage detailing the issues I have had. I am considering rejecting a nearly new vehicl bought with only 3,600 miles YE12GCY. Would your advice be to reject the vehicle as I am feeling worried something has happened in its short life which is not surfacing?

MINI COOPER S COUPE YE12GCY

This letter is to complain about service I have received from Mini Crewe following the purchase of a nearly new Mini Cooper S Coupe and to explain that I expect Mini Crewe to provide appropriate redress under the SoGA 1994 and the SoGC regulations 2002 under which you are legally obliged to sort out the problems due to the vehicle being of unsatisfactory quality. All faults excluding the malfunction engine light appearing were present at the time of sale and I am within a reasonable period to allow the vehicle to be rejected with a total refund.

Details:

On seeing the vehicle in the original dealership I was concerned that a low mileage vehicle should be without the parcel shelf in the boot, the vehicle was brought back to Mini Crewe and when I asked if this vehicle was ok I was assured that it was and that it had been a Mini UK vehicle and just driven ‘around the block’.

On the test drive the concern regarding noise from the brakes was highlighted to the sales person who stated it will be due to the vehicle standing for a time.

Agreement was reached to purchase this vehicle but when it was due to be picked up (Friday 18 th October) I was alerted to the fact that under the bonnet the battery catches were broken. This also rang alarm bells as to how and why this had happened on a relatively new vehicle and after consideration I rejected the vehicle and asked that a similar vehicle was sourced. This also meant that that I had to cancel my insurance which had been set up etc.

Another vehicle was quickly sourced and I was invited to view both vehicles (the original one having been repaired). On viewing I made the decision that I would purchase the original vehicle having been assured that it was all ok.

When taking the vehicle out on the day of purchasing (24 th October), the brakes were still noisy but I was assured it would subside.

When I got home, 19 miles, there was still the noise and also the stop start feature was not working properly and when checking again internally there was damage to the area behind the headrests. I ran the car for a little longer and then decided to go to the garage to ask their opinion and to highlight all of the issues. On the 29 th October I took the car out and was concerned about the brakes again so went to Mini Crewe. I spent considerable time at the garage and was being told that the stop start will not work for various reasons – non of which applied to my situation – I stated that I was not convinced. You drove the vehicle, heard the brake noise and I was again told the brakes would resolve themselves even though the mini had covered many more miles and that there was sufficient depth on the pads. I draw to your attention that it is not sufficient that the vehicle is merely roadworthy and safe the requirement extends to other matters besides safety and roadworthiness. I was then asked to book the car in for its oil service and to have the items looked at which I agreed for the 2 nd December.

I was now becoming more suspicious of where this vehicle had been and how it had been used as I now had the V5 form in my possession which did NOT state that the vehicle had come from Mini UK. I asked you to research the provenance which was done.

During the week ending 24 th November the service light came up along with the engine malfunction light. On the Monday I contacted the garage and it was booked in for the Wednesday 27 th November, I took the car in the previous day so that it would sit overnight and the brakes would be heard at their worst. Unfortunately the vehicle was taken in and started work on that afternoon.

When I picked up the vehicle I was shocked when I asked if all was repaired to be told that the brakes were not done as they are not under warranty. This is not a warranty issue it is unsatisfactory quality from day one. I stated I will not take the vehicle home especially as now it was highlighted that there had also been an oil leak. I am totally not happy regarding the conversations which followed with yourself especially now that it has been confirmed by the technician that the corrosion on the front brake discs have had so much rust that they have impregnated the pads and so if we wait until another service it will be at our expense. So all discs and brake pads effectively should be changed. I do not concur that this is acceptable as it is a ‘second hand vehicle’ as you keep saying. You felt that the cosmetic repair was good and on inspection you could see that it was just the same. I left the garage with the folder containing the details of the service from the service person. On inspection I find that you have retained the detailed invoice which is normally supplied. Having driven a BMW Mini Cooper S for 5 years and a BMW Z4 for 5 years I have never had that situation. I am not sure how many more situations this garage can set up to create more suspicion.

I do not accept your responses to the situation and need to make you aware that if you fail to fulfill your obligations under the SoGA you may be be in breach of contract and I will be entitled to a number of remedies against you bearing in mind that if we decide to retain the vehicle we will still have future rights.