KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - lemmy

I bought a Kia Cee'd in January last year with a 7 years Kia warranty. After 4 months paint started peeling off the front bumper. A local body shop advised me the paintwork was faulty.

Shelly Motors of Epsom have led me a merry dance for 8 months during which time I have been passed from employee to employee, learning that my 'claim has been Ok'd and the replacement bumper is on its way' to my 'claim is refused and I have been driving the car too fast'. Or, otherwise, that Kia cars should not be taken through a car wash and that the only machine in the UK that Kia has to measure paint thickness has been sold to an Italian company. You get the picture?

I am now faced with taking Shelly Motors to small claims court. What I can't seem to find out is whether I have to get the work done and then claim the cost back or whether (as I would prefer) I can get a couple of estimates and claim the money to get one of them carried out. Does anyone have experience or knowledge here?

I've put a picture of one of the 3 patches at

www.dthorpe.net/viewing/kia_3.jpg

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - skidpan

We need a bit more info.

If it was a new car you have a good case.

If it was used any Tom, Dick or Harry could have sprayed the bumper before you bought it and then the paint warranty for that part will be with them and not Kia.

But before you do anything speak to Kia Customer Services. They will help you get to the bottom of it.

But I find it difficult to believe any garage would suggest you had been driving to fast. Its not another wind up from the owner of a sporty Fiesta is it.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - RobJP

The garage named in the original post appears to be a Kia main agent, so that, along with the OP's assertion of a 7 year warranty, would seem to indicate a new car.

However, it's important for the OP to detail EXACTLY what sort of correspondence he has from the dealership, regarding the state of his warranty claim : are these letters, emails, or just telephone calls, and his recollection of what was said ?

Please note, I'm not calling the OP (or the dealer) liars. But relying on the content of an unrecorded phone call in a courtroom is one hell of a fast way to get laughed out of court.

Either that paintwork in the picture is due to poor workmanship, or it is due to a minor impact. If poor workmanship, then you'd expect it to be more than just one car suffering from it, and for here (and kia forums) to be covering the topic extensively. Do note if an impact, the impact could have been when the car was parked, in which case the OP wouldn't have even known about it. But also, in which case it wouldn't be anything to do with the garage, but an insurance matter - and getting a bumper resprayed is dead cheap, probably even better self-funded, not going through insurance.

In short, the OP needs to start again, from scratch. Get EVERYTHING in writing, and get in touch with Kia UK customer services, as Skidpan has suggested.

But shooting off to court before you can clearly show that all alternatives have been exhausted is not the way to go, unless you like gambling.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - gordonbennet

Could be someone's got too enthusiastic with a pressure washer, but as above i suspect it's the result of an impact...the broken off but otherwise perfect flake of paint being the clue.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - skidpan

Having read RobJP's reply and then the original post again I see that the OP is refering to the Kia 7 year warranty.

Kia only garantee paint for 5 years and not 7 years like the mechanical warranty. This is still generous by most standards but if the car is over 5 years old it would mean no paint warranty remains.

We need more info from the OP.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - RobJP

We may be reading things differently : I'm reading it as the car was new in Jan 2014 ?

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - skidpan

We may be reading things differently : I'm reading it as the car was new in Jan 2014 ?

Should have made myself clearer. The OP said in the original post "I bought a Kia Cee'd in January last year with a 7 years Kia warranty" but they never said it was a new car. Approved used Kia's have the 7 year warranty reset to run from the date of sale providing they have done fewer than 18,000 miles and are less than 18 months old.

That could mean that the OP's car was registered in July 2012. If it had done 18,000 miles at the time of purchase who can tell what minor accident damage had been repaired in the months/miles.

We need more info.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - slkfanboy

I like the idea that the car has been driven too fast, so exactly what speed does the paint peel off?

Further jet wash damage does not look like this. Looks to me like poor paint. Before going to the small claims your are going to need to get a prof. inspection and report.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - lemmy

The Kia garage sent a paint expert to look at the car. His opinion was that in cases like mine it was impossibe to ascertain causes but since the same effect had occurred in 3 different places on the bumper and that there were other examples in the pipeline, he was inclined to think it was a fault in a batch. I don't know what he put in the report, of course.

The other thing from the garage was that paint is water based now and it does just peel off sometimes. I said that in that case it was hardly worth getting it done - 'that's up to you' was the reply. :-)

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - lemmy

The car was one year old when I bought it, 12,000 miles and one of Kia's own cars. The paint is still stripping off the front bumper but it couldn't be the case that anyone could have resprayed it since it was Kia's own and sold with their warranty. If any respray had been done, it would have been done by Kia.

Also, if I had any thought that the damage was caused by me, I'd have paid for it myself. Anyway, interestingly, the problem has been solved without any need to go the last resort of a court claim.

I have recordings of phone calls and details and dates of all communications plus emails as original, of course.

As I said, this has been going on for months. I have emails from September telling me my claim has been Ok'd and the bumper is on its way to be sprayed and fitted. It then a/ got lost b/ didn't have the right paint and c/ was ready and I should bring the car in. That morning, I was told the bumper wasn't yet ready.

What was frustrating that no-one would call me back or reply to emails.

I wrote to the CEO of Kia cars three weeks ago, recorded delivery and was told by Kia's head office that the garage would call me. They did not (as I told Kia they would not).

I called Kia again and they did not seem best pleased. The garage called me next day to say my claim had been OK'd and they would pick up the car next week and deliver it back to me with the work done.

It was the same person who called to tell me this who had told me eight months ago that my claim was Ok'd and in January that it had been refused.

So, no court action necessary and I have the result that could have saved me, Kia and the garage 8 months of aggravation. I've been buying new or year old cars for forty years now and never had a warranty claim refused simply because if I'm in doubt I pay for it myself.

I thought the best excuses I was given were that the only machine Kia had that could measure the thickness of paintwork had been sold to a garage in Italy and that I could not be given a reason for refusing my claim because the details were in an attachment to an email and they were not allowed to open it. I've been dining out on those much to friends and colleagues amausement so at least Ihave something to show for a load of aggravation!

I'll sell the car in a couple of years but no more Kias for me. Excellent car for my three return trips to the south of France per annum but you do like to feel you'll be treated fairly if something goes wrong.

I have had my own business and used the court a few times in pursuit of unpaid bills so I'm familiar with how to present my evidence and I had no doubt I'd win this. I still don't know if I could just present estimates, though, or if I needed to get the work done and then claim, which was my orginal question.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - skidpan

The car was one year old when I bought it, 12,000 miles and one of Kia's own cars. The paint is still stripping off the front bumper but it couldn't be the case that anyone could have resprayed it since it was Kia's own and sold with their warranty. If any respray had been done, it would have been done by Kia.

Kia, like all manufacturers register cars to themselves which are then used by rental companies. From the moment they leave Kia to the moment they return Kia have no idea whatsoever has been done to them. Accident damage would most likely be repaired by the rental company before the car was returned, they would use whoever was cheapest and since they would never see the car again quality does not venture into it.

The cars may go through a multipoint inspection before being given the "Kia Appoved" status but most garages will give them a tick in all the boxes since it costs them nothing and allows them to give the car a 7 year Kia warranty.

KIA Cee'd - Kia Dealer to Small Claims Court - lemmy

If Kia, as you say, have no idea what has happened to the cars, they should not give a 7 years warranty.

Having given a 7 year warranty surely you are not saying it should not be honoured?

I am a photographer. If I sell on to you a camera I bought second hand but provide you with a guarantee from me, are you saying that if something had happened to damage the camera when the previous owner had it, my guarantee doesn not cover it?

That would make any warranty on any second hand car worthless. Surely the fact that Kia have now decided to do the necessary work means what you say is not so?

I have a strong feeling that you are wrong and I am pretty certain I would have succeded in a court action if it had been necessary.