Ask an expert

Hi AA,

I recently purchased a second hand vehicle (Toyota Townace 1995) in a private sale. Both the seller and I were not well versed mechanically and while they gave me the service records they had, knowing it was an old vehicle I decided to take it for a Pre-Purchase Inspection with an MTA Mechanic so that I could make an informed decision about the purchase.

The mechanic outlined some issues (a few light bulbs to be replaced, front tyres worn, an engine misfire (verbally quoted a few hundred dollars to fix) and the air conditioning not working). All other items of concern were ticked and no further comments were made on the report (in particular 'engine', 'exterior body', 'under body', 'water system' etc). I negotiated the purchase price according to the items outlined in the inspection and purchased the vehicle for $3,000.

Since purchasing the vehicle I have had numerous additional issues with it:

- Carburettor: the carburettor required repair as it was consuming huge amounts of fuel (20L/100km), idling extremely high, shuddering when I turned it off and intermittently failing to start. Fortunately, a carburettor specialist was able to undertake a temporary fix that he advised should last about a year, but for a full repair he advised I'd need a new part in the carburettor and that with labour this would be quite expensive ($500+). The temporary fix done by the carburettor specialist fortunately sorted out the engine misfire as well and I haven't had issues with fuel consumption since. However, the idle was turned down and now it often stalls when I'm stationary which is not good.
- Overheating: I noticed on one trip from Auckland to Tauranga that it began to overheat (went to 3/4 mark on temp gauge). An AA Roadside Assistance Person attended and advised that the radiator cap was coated with thick rust, there was no coolant in the system and it was full of rusty water, indicating that it had a history of overheating and the radiator was likely clogged. Furthermore, he noted that the viscous fan hub had been fused (suspected to be intentional), further indicating that the vehicle had issues with overheating. He advised to get a full radiator service/flush and the viscous fan hub replaced which I subsequently arranged through a radiator specialist. The vehicle was running fine for the few days after this (no overheating, had been at the 1/4 mark on temp gauge even when on the motorway) until I took it for a long drive three days after the service out of town and 45 minutes into the trip it overheated (into the red) and an AA Roadside Assistance Service person confirmed the head gasket had blown (the AA Auto Service Centre diagnosed a cracked cylinder head as well). This will now cost me approximately $1,700 to repair.
- I also got under the vehicle and noticed that the front part of the chassis appeared to be significantly rusted.

I have booked the vehicle for another Pre-Purchase Inspection, this time through the AA, to confirm whether there are any other defects with the vehicle that were not picked up in the original inspection before spending any more money on repairs.

I intend to request compensation from the mechanic who undertook the PPI as I believe he did not provide the service that he was engaged for and I have subsequently suffered damages as a result. To assist with this claim, I need some expert advice/opinion on a few matters. In particular, can you please advise:

- would it be reasonable to expect the mechanic to bring to my attention the high idle/revving? (I took the vehicle for a test drive too and as I had read online that vans were typically quite noisy, I assumed that most vans drove like that and that if there were obvious issues, this would be picked up in the PPI).
- I'm unsure whether the van was shuddering when turned off/failing to start when the PPI was done as these issues appeared to be less consistent, but if it was, would it be reasonable to expect that this would be noted and brought to my attention?
- the item on the PPI that I understand to refer to the Coolant System was 'Water System Test'. Would that be a reasonable assumption and can these terms be used interchangeably? If not, what would a water system test likely entail?
- if they can be assumed to be the same, would it be reasonable to expect that the radiator cap and coolant reservoir would be visually checked for signs of rust/corrosion as part of that assessment?
- if the mechanic observed thick rust on the radiator cap and rusty water in the coolant reservoir (no coolant) would it be reasonable to expect that this would be noted and brought to my attention?
- would it be reasonable for him to have the knowledge that this may indicate that the vehicle most likely has had an issue with overheating/internal corrosion and rusting within the coolant system and/or damage to the engine block and/or seals and would that could potentially have issues with the engine in the near future? I would have certainly enquired further if it had been noted but would it be reasonable to expect him to advise me of these risks, given his mechanical knowledge and experience?
- is it possible that even though the coolant system was serviced/flushed, that the damage may have already been done and the vehicle was already vulnerable to overheating, a blown head gasket, engine failure etc.
- it was my initial understanding that a compression test was part of the initial scope of the PPI but when I received the report it had been crossed out (i.e. not done). Can you confirm whether a compression test would have identified/diagnosed more accurately the issues with the vehicle that I subsequently experienced?
- would it be reasonable to expect that the mechanic would have been able to identify the fused viscous coupling fan hub and brought this to my attention in the PPI? (as part of the PPI he took it for a test drive and would have noticed the sound the fan made - I hadn't driven many vans and assumed that they were all equally noisy. As he didn't make special mention of that I didn't know it was an issue and a potential indicator of a history of overheating or at least was in need of repair/replacement).
- I'm a bit concerned about ongoing repairs/engine failure if I do have it fixed. Can you confirm if the repairs are undertaken by the AA Auto Centre, is it likely that the vehicle will continue to have issues with overheating given it's current state?
- if the AA PPI (which I will have done in the next few days), confirms that there is significant rust on the chassis and any other structural rust/corrosion issues on the body of the vehicle would it be reasonable to assume that he would have brought this to my attention as condition of the body was included in the scope of the PPI?
- Furthermore, I have owned the vehicle now for approximately 6 weeks. The carburettor issues were identified in the first few weeks, the coolant issues within the first four weeks and the potential structural rust within six weeks. In your expert opinion, can these problems described develop (from being absent/non-detectable to detectable by a mechanically trained person) in this short period of time?

Many thanks,

Amy

Hello I believe I spoke to you about this unfortunate incident over the phone.
From memory the original owners are now overseas it is difficult to ask them of the vehicles history and vans like this do tend to change hands regularly from tourist to tourist, It is also hard to dispute the vehicles faults with them as the usually have only owned these vehicles briefly.

You wisely chose to do a Pre-Purchase inspection on this older vehicle to assess its condition and base you purchase on, many of the items you have mentioned would be picked up on our PPI but it’s difficult to know what the inspection report you had done did cover, perhaps give us a call back to discuss this once your second inspection has been completed.

One key item which you can’t really argue with would be the condition of the coolant, the condition of the fluid / rustiness would be hard to dispute as it wouldn't suddenly degrade. At the very least a water system test should involve checking the condition of the water and removing the radiation cap to complete a visual inspection.

If you have approached the garage and have had no luck you could try to mediate a solution with the MTA.

The other alternative would be to have a second assessment as you have mentioned to compare it to the one you received; you could then take the garage to the dispute tribunal and dispute, and dispute the care and skill of the inspection.

The Consumer guarantees act states that when you hire a tradesperson, you are covered by the guarantees for services and materials under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA). Generally you can expect that:

•the work is done with reasonable care and skill
•any materials used are new, of acceptable quality and fit for purpose
•the work is completed in a timely way.

Hi,

Thank you for the response. I'll make contact again once I've had the second inspection done.

Many thanks,

Amy