Car dealer to pay recompense

Press, 16 August 1988, Page 9

Car dealer to pay recompense

By

NEIL CLARKSON

A Christchurch car dealer has been ordered to pay a woman $2OOO and take over hire-purchase payments of $llOO on a car deemed to be unroadworthy. The decision was made by the Christchurch Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal after a hearing last May. It ordered the return of the car to the dealer. The tribunal, chaired by Mr J. G. Matthews, said in its reserved decision: “We are in no doubt whatever that the car was not of merchantable quality nor fit for the purpose for which it was intended at the time that it was purchased.” The tribunal referred to an Automobile Association test of the 1969 Hillman Hunter in December last year, nine months after the woman bought the car. “It will be sufficient for us to say that the Automobile Association found substantial problems in the clutch, brakes, oil pressure, oil hoses, manifold, heater, battery, lights, indicators, bodywork, front and rear suspension, steering joints, wheel bearings, universal joints, exhaust system and engine mounts. “The report on the tyres stated that the canvas was showing on one of the tyres, which was dangerous, and the wheel alignment was unsatisfactory. "In a subsequent publication by the Automobile Association, which was also produced

in evidence, the association noted that although the car bore a recent warrant of fitness sticker it was not in roadworthy condition and it further noted that it was rare to find all the faults which had been found in one car.” The tribunal said the car had travelled 6000 miles between the time of purchase and the A.A. check. The tribunal said it received a letter from a director of the dealership arguing that the complaint was outside the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act because of a warranty with another company. This claim was rejected. “He outlined certain matters relating to the facts and concluded his letter with a statement to the effect that he would refuse to appear in person at any hearing where this woman may be.”

The dealer did not appear at the hearing.

The tribunal said within the first week of purchase a windscreen wiper fell off and the ignition key broke. Both were fixed by the dealer.

Soon after a door caused problems by not closing and an unusual noise started in the brakes which the dealer claimed was caused by dust having got into the brakes while the vehicle sat in his lot.

Problems developed affecting the wiring, gauges and clutch. The car continued to be driveable and in August she took it to a Motor Trade Association garage to be thoroughly checked

before its warrant needed renewing in September. “This check was produced in evidence and showed substantial problems with the steering, chassis (which was cracked), head, park and number plate lights, wipers, tyres, speedometer, exhaust, doors and seats.” The car was returned to the dealer who arranged for some remedial work on the chassis, the exhaust and in securing the seats. It bore a new warrant of fitness sticker when returned to the woman.

Since then numerous items of work had been done on the car by a friend of the woman, including repairs to the brakes, accelerator pedal, clutch plate, pressure plate and exhaust system. The woman had not been happy with the car after the remedial work organised by the dealer and took it for testing at a Ministry of Transport testing station. “The car was rejected on the grounds of the steering box, the pins, tie rod balls, suspension, exhaust and silencer, three of the tyres, outside door handles, the doors themselves, cracking in the chassis, insecure front bumber, insecure front seats, speedometer and headlights. “All this was found, notwithstanding that when the car was returned to the complainant by the dealer only a week or two before, it bore a new warrant of fitness sticker. We have grave reservations about the validity of that sticker.”