Hopefully a bullet dodged I would second looking out for one on this forum, we are fussy and generally go overboard when we find issues rather than try and shy away from repair. My last L322 was such a lemon I would't advertise it here and would only sell it to webuyanycar because I couldn't bear to think if it going to an enthusiast. Good luck with your search  2021 P400 Silicon Silver AB
Gone 2011 Bournville TDV8 VSE
Gone 2008 Black Canadian HSE LUX

Thanks all for the replies and encouragement! I do wonder if I have returned a fundamentally sound car, but that’s just buyers remorse in reverse. I am not put off buying another, I will just be more thorough next time and perhaps as suggested just factor in some repairs to my budget. I think the dealer thought I would always be a PITA which is a shame, I really am not that person. It’s back up for sale already, I hope they will make the necessary repairs this time. I am on the hunt then for a late L322 with the 4.4 engine, Vogue SE or higher. Budget is say £15K less whatever proves necessary to be spent on it if that makes sense. I prefer the lighter interiors and dark exterior colours but I am open to suggestion. No rush, the episode cost me maybe £850 so not something I want to have to do again. Thanks all for your help so far.

To add, not adverse to a 405 if I can afford a decent one. Tax and mpg a bit easier to live with although I don’t do enough miles to worry too much about the latter.

Johnmann10 wrote:

Thanks all for the replies and encouragement! I do wonder if I have returned a fundamentally sound car, but that’s just buyers remorse in reverse. I am not put off buying another, I will just be more thorough next time and perhaps as suggested just factor in some repairs to my budget. I think the dealer thought I would always be a PITA which is a shame, I really am not that person. It’s back up for sale already, I hope they will make the necessary repairs this time. I am on the hunt then for a late L322 with the 4.4 engine, Vogue SE or higher. Budget is say £15K less whatever proves necessary to be spent on it if that makes sense. I prefer the lighter interiors and dark exterior colours but I am open to suggestion. No rush, the episode cost me maybe £850 so not something I want to have to do again. Thanks all for your help so far.

At that budget you’re well into L405 territory, but older models so just as likely to have age related issues.

Just giving my tuppence worth.

You are not buying a new car. You are buying a vehicle which is over 10 years old and has covered almost half the distance to the moon. The vehicle will be used, shouldn't be expected to be perfect, and you pay near 1/10th of its original purchase price in exchange. There will always be some form of maintenance needed on every used car at any time.

The CRA 2015 is primarily what applies to dealer-sold vehicles and is what is tested against by the Motor Ombudsman and the courts on such issues. A common misconception is that it's there solely for the buyer - it is there to protect both buyers and sellers of any goods, new and used.

For a vehicle to be rejected, it in essence, must have a major defect which wasn't reasonable to have noticed at point of sale. The legal test is that this defect must make the vehicle effectively unroadworthy and must be proven so with an accompanying independent report within 30 days of purchase. Not having this basically makes any case fall flat.

Having read your post, I don't see anything that wouldn't reasonably be expected on a vehicle of this age and mileage, and (I assume) you were given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle before purchase. Whether you chose a buyer report from a mechanic or not is ultimately a risk you take. The fact is, the Subaru dealer have fulfilled their obligations by allowing you to inspect and test drive the vehicle, to satisfy yourself of its quality and suitability prior to completion of the contract of sale. They're not obligated to check or perform any maintenance outside of their statutory obligation to supply a vehicle of satisfactory quality. They can of course put a vehicle through an inspection and perform some maintenance, but this is entirely optional and they are not obligated to do so (nor would most main dealers with their trade ins).

Brake pipe corrosion, a rubber jack mount, CV joints, a small piece of damaged heatshield, brake discs and pads are all service items which degrade over time and use, so none of these would constitute a serious defect with the vehicle. All of which would be noticeable before agreeing a price for the vehicle also.

Additionally, I'm surprised / would have expected the dealer to advertise the trade-in as a trade sale rather than a retail sale. You would have to sign a chit to say you purchased the vehicle as a trader or in connection with your occupation, in which the CRA does not apply.

I'd put this down to a lesson. On such complex vehicles where parts and labour can be expensive, it is best to thoroughly examine the vehicle, take your time, make sure everything works, and consider enlisting a mechanic to perform a pre-purchsse inspection, so you can have all the facts at hand before committing to purchase. 2015 Range Rover Autobiography 4.4 SDV8

I’d have to agree with Gary here with one possible exception.

I think something that is classed as an MOT failure shouldn’t really be present at the time of sale, ideally the dealer would have prepared it to a standard whereby passing an MOT is a given.

Having said all that, sounds like the dealer has done the decent and sensible thing and taken the car back but don’t be under any illusions that they had to, I think it’s a good outcome for you.

Best of luck finding the right car, as pointed out above, they come with problems at these sorts of ages and you have to build that into your annual budget.

Good luck.

J

The same applies legally. Yes, i would agree anything which is an MOT fail makes a vehicle unroadworthy. You must however have evidence that said item is an MOT failure and was present at the point of sale, back to the point about needing an independent report. Understandably, you can't just claim something is an MOT failure without something in writing from a Ministry of Transport tester. Depending on whether it is a serious defect or not, the dealer has the right to repair or refund. For example, a cut in the wall of a tyre would fail an MOT but is not a serious defect, and can be replaced in a matter of minutes. Without something independent, there isn't any evidence to say that cut appeared before or after the sale of the vehicle, and some buyers would be perfectly happy to accept the condition of the tyre as-is. 2015 Range Rover Autobiography 4.4 SDV8

This is very good from a consumer point of view;



And this is what that looks like if you are a trader and someone has arguably abused the rights within that law;



You might say two sides of the same coin.

Even though the law technicaly applies the OP was buying a trade in from a non RR specialist at a price that was designed to just shift it off the forecourt. A car that old and at that price would in the past have been labeled 'sold as seen' which dealers are not allowed to do anymore and hence why most trade-in's like this go to the auctions. If you want a trouble free RR where it's been thorougjly inspected and all faults rectified buy from a specialist like Fullfat4x4 but you won't be paying anywher e near this price for a sub 100k mile example. 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

JayGee wrote:

Even though the law technically applies the OP was buying a trade in from a non RR specialist at a price that was designed to just shift it off the forecourt.

JayGee wrote:

If you want a trouble free RR where it's been thoroughly inspected and all faults rectified buy from a specialist like Fullfat4x4

If I was the dealer I'd do what they did ( and roll my eyes )
Some surface corrosion on a brake pipe would not neccesarily warrant replacing with new and further corrosion can be prevented or delayed with waxoil or Lanoguard product - i.e a non issue. 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

Spot on JayGee.

I have a Mercedes that is driven a couple of thousand miles a year and wants for nothing ever, the money that been spent on it is stupid, but the last MOT had that exact comment "brake line corroded or covered in ..... blah blah" - The guys who look after it said its because they coat the pipes in an "anti rust" preventative (often grease) to stop them corroding and the tester therefore claims that they cannot see the "actual" condition - a bit of a f***d up system but I suppose its there to protect people from unscrupulous types that do the same to simply hide problems.

Still annoying for those owners that are doing it for the right reasons.

Interesting conversation this and in particular the two sides of the problem.

Hey ho!!

Johnmann10 wrote:

Thanks all for the replies and encouragement! I do wonder if I have returned a fundamentally sound car, but that’s just buyers remorse in reverse. I am not put off buying another, I will just be more thorough next time and perhaps as suggested just factor in some repairs to my budget. I think the dealer thought I would always be a PITA which is a shame, I really am not that person. It’s back up for sale already, I hope they will make the necessary repairs this time. I am on the hunt then for a late L322 with the 4.4 engine, Vogue SE or higher. Budget is say £15K less whatever proves necessary to be spent on it if that makes sense. I prefer the lighter interiors and dark exterior colours but I am open to suggestion. No rush, the episode cost me maybe £850 so not something I want to have to do again. Thanks all for your help so far.

Johnmann10 wrote:

I bought from local garage, a Subaru main dealer.