Trader ordered to deal with diagnosis and repair of intermittent ‘juddering’

Background

Brenda Robertson purchased a 2013 Mazda Axela with an odometer reading of 116,916km on May 27, 2022, for $11,569 from 2 Cheap Cars.

She wanted to obtain a refund for what she had spent fixing its various faults and wanted the dealer to remedy a “juddering” issue, which had been ongoing.

2 Cheap Cars denied liability. It said it wasn’t given a reasonable opportunity to repair the Axela, so Robertson had no right to recover repair costs and any further faults were not its responsibility.

The case

After being unable to start the Axela on July 18 last year, Robertson phoned a 2 Cheap Cars salesperson and explained the problem.

She said she couldn’t fully understand what was said, but heard the word “battery” and arranged for a call-out to replace the one in her car for $224.

Robertson didn’t ask the dealer for reimbursement because the mechanic who replaced the battery told her the trader would be unlikely to pay for it.

On July 23, Robertson went to The Warehouse in Snells Beach with her 10-year-old grandson. On her return drive to Warkworth, she stopped because she heard a noise coming from under the car.

She saw a large piece of plastic on the Mazda’s underside, which was scraping on the road. She managed to push it back up into place.

Soon afterwards, as the Axela was idling at traffic lights, she said it started “juddering” as though it was going to stop.

From that point onwards, Robertson noticed the juddering was intermittent. At times she said it was “not too bad”. On other occasions, she felt as if the car was going to come to a halt.

On August 1, Robertson replaced the remote battery and had the guard tray fixed at a cost of $73, but didn’t contact the trader about those issues.

Seven days later, she spoke to the dealer about the juddering and was asked to get the vehicle diagnosed.

On August 17, Robertson had it assessed by Automotive Outdoor and Marine Ltd for $50. It removed and checked the coils and noted they were “okay”. It also removed the spark plugs and concluded that “most likely spark plugs causing the issue – look to be original plugs”.

Robertson emailed the assessment to 2 Cheap Cars on August 18. She received a reply from the trader on the same day asking for her vehicle to be booked into an approved mechanic.

On August 24, she had it assessed by Wellsford Motors. It recommended new spark plugs and a cabin filter at a cost of $421, and sent its report directly to the dealer.

The trader emailed Robertson advising: “After review, we have come to find out that the items listed for repair/replacement are service related and are caused due to old age”.

The buyer then had the spark plugs and cabin filter replaced.

After Robertson filed her application in September 2022, the tribunal asked her to have the car’s poor idle diagnosed.

This was done by Auto Services Wellsford, which found all four coil packs were overheating. It recommended they be replaced. Its diagnostic charge was $152.

Robertson paid $280 for the coils and $126 for labour. She didn’t contact 2 Cheap Cars about the coils before the repairs were done.

During the hearing, she said the vehicle didn’t judder as much as it used to, but she wanted more time to obtain further diagnostic evidence.

Robertson took it to North Harbour Ford & Mazda in Silverdale. It quoted $578 to replace the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve and gasket.

It based the quote on its knowledge that this component often caused issues and the fault it displayed was very similar to the problem that the buyer was experiencing.

The dealer submitted this was a different fault related to wear and tear, and it wasn’t a pre-existing issue with the car.

The finding

The adjudicator ruled the faulty battery, remote battery, guard tray, spark plugs and cabin filter –when combined – didn’t amount to a failure of the guarantee of acceptable quality in the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) when considering the car’s age, price and mileage.

A reasonable purchaser of an older vehicle would expect to encounter ongoing maintenance issues, sometimes of an unplanned and potentially expensive nature.

Therefore, Robertson wasn’t entitled to any remedy in respect to those issues, but the tribunal accepted her evidence that the car started to intermittently judder from July 2022.

The case: The buyer sought a refund from the dealer for various repairs to her 2013 Axela and also wanted it to fix the car’s ongoing “juddering”. The seller said it hadn’t been given an opportunity to repair the vehicle.

The decision: The tribunal ruled that some of the Mazda’s faults were maintenance matters. But it ordered the trader to resolve the car’s intermittent juddering issue, which had occurred soon after purchase.

At: The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, via video-link in Auckland.

That meant the Mazda wasn’t of acceptable quality at the time of purchase and hadn’t been as durable as a reasonable purchaser would expect.

The tribunal also reviewed Robertson’s report from North Harbour Ford & Mazda that the EGR valve assembly needed replacing. However, the adjudicator found the report lacked an actual diagnosis of the car’s performance.

Robertson was only entitled to a remedy under section 18 of the CGA with respect to the faulty coil packs if she could show she had asked the trader to remedy them within a reasonable time and it had failed to do so.

The evidence showed Robertson hadn’t contacted the dealer about replacing the coils before she undertook that work, so she wasn’t entitled to any remedy.

However, the tribunal did find the intermittent juddering amounted to a failure of acceptable quality and the trader had yet to be asked by the buyer to fix that.

The adjudicator noted 2 Cheap Cars had been unwilling to offer Robertson a courtesy car while it diagnosed and repaired the Mazda, but she might be able to bring a further claim for damages for the cost of hiring a vehicle while hers was being repaired.

Order

The trader had to remedy the Axela’s juddering issue.