posted by
someone claiming to be Disillusioned and Disappointed 960 Owner
on
Sat Apr 12 04:09 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
Hi, we are having a VERY difficult time with a Toronto dealer and Volvo Canada , and need a bit of advice from everyone. We bought a used 1995 960 sedan from Robert Motors, a certified Toronto Volvo dealership. At length they spoke of the mechanical surety and service benefits of buying a used Volvo from a Volvo dealership. Given their self proclaimed extensive knowledge of a car within the ‘Volvo family,’ they offered a 30-day warranty, which we accepted. We submitted a letter of offer, specifying that as a condition of the sale, the air conditioning and brakes be fully repaired.
Here is what happened: The front brakes needed new rotors and discs two weeks later, the air conditioning died after three months, the included snow tires were of 3 different sizes - two failed the tread tests and had to be replaced, there was no air guide, and the radiator exploded ten months later, coming very close to seriously damaging the engine. Also within the first year, the shifter brake
lock, rad fan, and PNP switch failed, among multiple other, smaller problems.
We have attempted resolution with Robert Motors service manager, general manager, and finally the owner of the dealership, who did not respond to our registered letter. Most recently we wrote to the president of Volvo Canada with a summary of the unfortunate events. Last week we showed the car to the Volvo Canada dealer rep, and told our story, with little result. For the most part we have been blown off.
The dealer offers nothing, even with our repeated attempts to reach resolution of our concerns, the letter of offer citing conditions of the sale, and the subsequent repair receipts. Volvo Canada suggests that because the dealer is an independent business, they will not help us. The issue is not about general repairs on a then five year old Volvo. Rather, it is about a certified Volvo dealer offering mechanical assurances that were not true. I might expect this sort of behaviour from a manufacturer of low-end cars, but not the makers of luxury cars, not Volvo.
We need some precedents, help, and ideas on what to do. Please give us a hand and your thoughts! Thanks, Disillusioned and Disappointed 960 Owner
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Clayton
on
Sun Apr 13 03:44 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
I have read your post and I agree they screwed you around. I know of several Canadian legal precedents that have nearly identical circumstances: a dealer promised something before the sale and it was not completed. I am amazed they are not willing to work with you on this, it will cost them considerably more to pay the court and other costs than it would have to work with you, which tells us a lot about the integrity of the dealer. It does not have to be itimised in the sales contract given your oral discussions and letter of offer. The precedents I am aware of reach the Superior Court of Ontario, but there are multiple in small claims and the General Division Courts. If you do your research, you should win.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Volvo mechanic
on
Sat Apr 12 12:16 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
I see both sides. If they simply sold you a used car and it later had problems that is unfortunate, but not their fault. However, if you clearly specified the a/c, rad leak, and brakes were to be fixed as a part of the sale, then they are clearly at fault. I would try to talk to them as it sounds like you have some good points.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be obsever
on
Sat Apr 12 11:42 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
I am in complete agreement with you. It matters not a bit if the items tend to fail on your car, if you specifically mentioned these to the dealer to be repaired as part of the purchase. That's like saying most Volvos have black paint, so you should live with it, even if you had a legal agreement that the car was to be painted red. Good luck! Hope you win
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm very sorry to hear of your difficult experience with the dealer. It does sound like they were, at the very least, not thorough in their inspection and preparation of the car they sold you. Whether they KNOWINGLY ignored problems or made false promises, is another matter, perhaps for the courts to decide.
I don't doubt that there will be a few letters here complaining of general shabby treatment by shady dealers, and how they're all crooks, and you should get a lawyer and go after "these bastards" .... but I don't think you've got a case.
The problems you describe are ALL common to this model of car. It's a fancy car with a lot of luxury features. They can break. All cars can break. My simple 240's can break. IF you don't want a car that's going to break, you bite the bullet and buy a brand new car with a 50-to-100K mile warranty. You got and paid for a 30-day warranty. Once it's up, it's up. That's the rules, whether it feels good or not. I'd be mad too if the car I just spent a bunch of money for broke after a short period. The mechanical items particularly could have been caught in a good mechanical inspection. Probably. Items like A/C are really tough to predict- they can be perfectly good, and leak-free one day, and dead, discharged the next. No possible way to predict. A bit of exploration of the archives here would quickly yield 100's of questions and complaints about A/C repairs in ALL old Volvos. It's a fact of life and it's part of the reason that used cars lose value. Stuff wears out, fatigues, and fails. SOmetimes it's simply a matter of getting OLD - rubber seals, hoses and such fail and leak.
You have to understand the way the law and the industry view this situation before deciding to pursue it further: You bought an EIGHT YEAR OLD car. It's well out of any factory warranty. It's beyond any EXTENDED warranty you could get from Volvo. The price for third-party warranties is quite high ($1000's)for the very good reason that you're LIKELY to use it, because something is LIKELY to fail. Those companies aren't in the business of fixing cars, they'er in the business of making money. The Volvo dealer can say "Certified Used Cars" all they want, but they're talking about cars under 5 years old, and under 70K miles. That's their idea of a used car. The Dealer's Association will concur- the NADA books only go back 7 or 8 years because beyond that, it's an "old" car and only worth wholesale prices, even if it was a $40,000 luxury car to begin with. You're taking a chance by buying it that it's going to be OK. The track record of these cars as they age is not terrible, but certainly NOT OK, and certainly NOT CHEAP to repair. Every one of the items you mention has been discussed to death here by discouraged 960 owners. I'm sorry you've had all these troubles, but you bought an old used car. Period. No one can expect a car to be a perfect machine forever, despite Volvo's reputation for longevity.
This Board, at least, can offer you some hope of finding the most economic methods of repairing what you've got. However, I don't think anything can be done about your legal situation nor can a case be made successfully that the dealer or Volvo Canada did anything wrong.
--
Rob Bareiss, New London CT ::: '86 244DL- 215K, 87 244DL- 230K, 88 744GLE- 198K, 91 244 180K
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Disillusioned and Disappointed 960 Owner
on
Sat Apr 12 08:46 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
Hi, thanks for the post. I bought it as a five year old car. Notwithstanding that these problems may be common Volvo problems, the important point is that because the dealership made clear representations as to quality - in some detail - and asserted that the brakes, air, and coolant leak had been completely repiared prior to purchase, and because the letter of offer was a condition of sale, these supercede the 30 day warranty and become a part of the sales contract.
There is a duty of care, and fiduciary responsibility dealer to customer. This means that because of the expert skills to repair a car, if an express or implied promise is made to the mechanical soundnedss of the car, and if such items fail, they are to be held to improperly preparing the car at the time of sale. This is particularly if the items were to be repaired as a condition of the sale. We have sought cousnsel, and this is what we have discovered based on research so far.
However, had they been accommodating when we approached them multiple times about the extent of the problems as we became aware of them, we would have been willing to work toward a compromise. Instead, by stonewalling a customer with very valid complaints, they aggravate the situation which leads toward escalation. Eventually, I expect we will have our concerns effectively addressed.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I have to agree with Aye. Rotors and pads (not discs), electric fans and old radiators are wear out items. Especially 10 months later on the radiator. Nothing the dealer could forsee or replace preventively. The AC is hard to insure forever. All the things you mention are a couple of weekends and a couple of $100 for a dedicated Brickster (with a 240 or 740 say) and none are really major flaws although I sympathize that the potential for dealer profit is huge in these repairs. This is kind of a typical used car list of things that go wrong, and the 960 is another bird altogether. I just don't think this is a case of outright consumer abuse. There are plenty worse around. Boy, if I listed all the things I have had to straighten out on family Bricks over the last 5 years it would look monumental, but the cars do restore to reliable fine rides in the end. But I kind of enjoy auto repair on a shoestring (say 5 cents on the dealer-dollar) with good salvage parts. Lots of elbow grease but no dealer interactions at all. Pick one way or the other.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Disillusioned and Disappointed 960 Owner
on
Sat Apr 12 11:33 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
I am mechanically inclined, as my father and his two brothers are all professional engineers in the automotive industry. I do most basic maintenance myself. Re the rad, I noticed there was a coolant leak, refrigerant (rf134A)leak, and the brakes were rough when I test drove the car. That's why I specified these items in the letter of offer, and paid express attention to these items. Problem is, the dealer topped up the fluids rather than pressure test the systems to find the cause of the leaks. The rad had a crack in the upper neck, which seeped vapour under pressure, and is what eventually blew. There was dye oozing out the three ports in the condensor, and I did not put any dye in. So yes, I noted each issue prior to purchase, asked and received confirmation that each had been fixed, only to find that a sloppy patch rather than repair had been implemented. There is a big difference between items that fail, and items that were part of an agreement to be fixed prior to purchase and were not, and failed afterward. Hope this makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
