Ask an expert

Hi
I have had a 2014 Subaru Outback diesel (HKR516) for sale. A prospective buyer viewed the vehicle on Saturday the 1st of September and agreed to purchase it for $20,000 subject to a satisfactory pre-purchase inspection at the local AA inspection facility which had been arranged for that morning.
The buyer took the vehicle away and returned to advise that the vehicle has successfully passed the inspection - however he had been advised by the AA mechanic that Subaru diesels were well known for crankshaft failure, which could cost $6-7000 to fix and he would be better off purchasing a petrol Subaru and staying away from the diesel motor.
The prospective buyer said that based on this advice he would have to reconsider the purchase and advised me the following day he would not proceed with the purchase. I have made inquiries to establish the validity of the AA mechanics claim with Subaru service personnel at Armstrong Motors (Wellington), Armstrong Motors (Christchurch) and Southern Auto (Dunedin). Their advice was that Subaru diesels from 2008 to 2010 did have issues with their crankshafts, however the problem was rectified by Subaru in 2011 and there had been no issues with Subaru diesel crankshafts since that time.
I note that in the AA terms and conditions for pre-purchase inspections there is a caveat which specifies the AA is not responsible for anything which might happen to the inspected vehicle post it's inspection - "Provided we have acted with reasonable care and skill, we will not be responsible for any defects or problems with the vehicle that are not identified or identifiable with an inspection of this kind" - given this clear statement how can the AA justify one of their staff giving unsolicited advice on a vehicle they have inspected based on both a hypothetical situation & demonstrably incorrect information ?
It is clear this totally unprofessional conduct by an AA employee cost me the sale of my motor vehicle and I would be interested in what remedy the AA would have available to recompense me for the lost sale.
I contacted the AA facility in question to discuss this matter but they declined to discuss it with me as it was subject to the 'Official Information Act' - which given the fact the AA is not a government agency is incorrect. My (Monday) message using the 'complaint' facility outlining this situation has still not been answered albeit the advice is a reply will be made in 3 days - it is now Friday !
I await your reply

Hi there,
The PPI inspection contract is between the report owner (whoevers name is on the report) and the Inspection centre who carried out the inspection, the centre is unable to discuss the nature of the report due to the Privacy Act.
Could you please email your contact details through to aatech@aa.co.nz and we'll be in touch.