I did not do the homework

Paragraphs. Please use paragraphs.

Tom

 

It wouldn't let me thank you twice Tom... I tried.

 

It relates like this. If a post is difficult to read because of poor formatting, etc., etc. most people will not take the trouble to read it which wastes their time and the time you spent creating and posting it.

The story sounds very interesting but I have to admit I grew frustrated trying to follow it due to the lack of formatting since it was fairly long.

 

Exactly. I like to help, but I won't wade through a post like that. For the OP, think of it like this: When you post on a site like this, you either want help or you have something to say to others. Either way, no one is getting paid to read your post. If you want people to read it, make it easy to read.

As a suggestion, there is an edit button which works perfectly.

Tom

 

Wow.... that is very unfortunate. I feel for you but have to say that if you were a 20 year old, first time car owner, I might feel more sympathy. However you appear to be a mature adult and should have learned long ago that auto dealerships and repair facilities are generally not to be trusted. Toyota or not, they all have a desire to make money and that usually means at the expense of the public.

From the very start you exercised poor judgment when you learned the car had been in an accident in CA and did not implement the proper inspection measures to try to identify any issues which might become problematic.

I also have a question about the car apparently leaking all of the coolant out of the system and you being unaware of it. I would think you could smell that or see the steam as you drive it or perhaps a puddle if it leaked out while parked.

Well, I wish you the best and hope you experience no future problems with your car.

 

I have sympathy. And we all agree that dealers are not to be trusted. So in that sense we are on your side.

You got a second hand 2007 car in 2007, so I hope you got a good deal. Whenever you get something like that (a 2nd hand car less than a year old) you probably should be highly suspect that there is a reason for the sale. I am not surprised that there is a hidden problem - otherwise, why would the other party sell it.

You got big warning lights blimping off your dashboard but you drove 170 km or 2 hours from Haliburton to Oshawa. A two hour drive. 4 hours round trip. The mechanic should not have told you to drive. You should have towed the car as soon as the lights came on. You were probably thinking that the dealer will take responsibility for their advice. But now you know that the court does not uphold free advices.

Next time, if you have trouble like that, don't drive the car. Realize it is a big investment and you should not risk it with warning lights blinking. Tow trucks are expensive but sometimes it is even more expensive not to use them.

 

It does seem to me that the dealership would at least share in some partial liability for damage especially if you specifically asked if your vehicle was okay to drive, and they specifically told you that yes it was.

Concievably you take automobiles to dealership mechanics with the reasonable expectation that they know about the vehicle. If they saw codes they had never seen before and really had no idea what was going on, advising you that the vehicle was alright to drive seems careless at best, negligent at worst. Even if it was immediately inconvienent to you, the correct answer at the time was "We don't really know what is going on with your vehicle yet, we can't recommend you drive it".

Of course The Dealership is going to argue that you originally drove it in with the icon and that the bulk of the damage probably occured then, but my reply to that assertion would be if that is the case then why didn't they immediately diagnose the problem? A coolant pipe disconnected from the Thermos bottle that had the engine so depleted of coolant that it was on the verge of warping and seizing doesn't seem like a problem that should "sneak" past any competent technician.

I think you have shared liabilty. Hard to argue that your best choice would of been to immediately stop driving the automobile the moment you saw the icon and have it towed. But beyond the decision to limp it to a dealership (this does happen all the time) once they advised you it was alright to drive, then they are responsible at least for offering you advice that was damaging to the vehicle.

Plus I would also argue that if they specifically had you leave the dealership with the instructions to "leave the warning icon on" and not reset, then the system designed to instruct you that you had a problem was rendered useless. In other words, if you had enough coolant for the engine to work but it slowly or rapidly leaked out at some point, since the warning triangle is already on, you aren't going to see it come on again...which would become a new warning that you might have a problem.

I can't believe a judge would actually say, "You should of left it there, even if They told you it was okay to drive"...huh? You trusted the technicians?

Out of curiosity, what is the dealership saying? Do they admit they told you it was okay to drive? If they are denying this, then it becomes You Say, They Say. Much harder to win.

There are a lot of things you probably could of, and should of done to change the outcome. Tow-Trucks, Rental Cars, erroring on the side of being conservative. But if I was driving off the lot with a car that was showing me a whole lot of codes and icons communicating that there was a problem AND I had the admission from at least one technician that it was showing "Codes they had never seen before", I would of wanted an service invoice, or something in writing from the service departement saying that they thought the vehicle was safe to drive and that I could bring it back for further investigation.

Basicly, you had a problem that the automobile system tried to inform you about in the form of Icons and Codes. You then had a problem that on a Saturday, right before a long weekend at least one technician admitted they had no idea about. It was bad customer service to advise you to drive off the lot with a car showing codes and without a diagnosis of the problem. It was bad car ownership to to go ahead and drive it off the lot.

 

I always consider it this way:

Whenever you are buying a used car (or anything used) there is a reason that the previous owner decided to part with it. It might have been that it was the wrong color or they didn't like seats or it could be a major mechanical problem or prior damage. You always should try to determine exactly what you are getting. You cannot trust the seller to tell you the truth.

 

The OP says that the dealership did not diagnose the car fully, but ok'd driving it. Say what ?

Either the dealership were towering idiots, or OP remembers his version of events that well may be different than the dealerships. Without something in writing I'm not surprised the judge decided to ignore the hearsay.

The entire episode stinks of bad luck, and I am sorry for OP. That said, IF the dealership actually did a good repair for $5000 that sounds like a very fair price. I have trouble reconciling a good repair with horrible advice.

 

John,

I find this interesting for a number of reasons and I need some clarification.

But first, I want to make it perfectly clear there are some bad eggs out there who tarnish everyone's image. There are many perfectly competent dealers out there who are to be trusted. I work at one of them.

Now, back to topic.

Should the dealership have allowed you to leave with an undiagnosed vehicle? Not in my opinion.

Having said that, who authorized engine replacement? At least in the United Litigators of America, I have to provide an estimate for repairs and am not allowed to exceed that estimate by more than 10% (excepting taxes and other fees) without authorization from the customer first. If you had authorized engine replacement, then the $5600 bill should not have come as a surprise to you. If you had not authorized it, then the onus for the cost of repairs should be borne by the dealership.

Either way, if I understand you correctly, the final result was the vehicle was repaired by replacing the engine and you incurred a net total of $650. If that's correct, I'd say you did pretty damn well.

 

John, after reading your original post I have the same question as Chris. Did you end up paying $5206 plus the $650 court cost or just the $650? Do you have the car back now and how is it running?

You also mentioned the car had been in an accident before you owned it, was it a front end accident? could that be what cause the failure of the thermos pipe?

 

This is why I always buy a new car.

 

He wouldn't be here if the total bill was $600

 

Good point, an expensive used car then.