• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

GLC structural corrosion?

I've bought two Approved Used that required work before handover.

My approved used CLS was "good to go" from the forecourt , once it had went to the bodyshop to have an obvious scratch repaired and a sunscreen handprint removed from the rear quarter.

FWIW a 2016 vehicle should possibly have minimal underbody corrosion , depending on where it has lived for seven years , let alone enough for it to be rejected at point of sale.

K
 
Unfortunately there is nothing op can do in this situation, can’t force them to sell it, IF they have possibly had a better offer.

For curiosity I would keep tabs on the car, by checking when it gets mot’d, or if it does pop up for sale again.
 
I've bought two Approved Used that required work before handover, so I agree they don't always fully prep cars before sale. Did the OP see this car at the dealership before paying a deposit though? If not and it was effectively sold direct from group stock the dealer might not even have laid eyes on it by that point.
This has been the same as every used car i have got.

They put out junk on the forecourt and then it's up to the prospective buyer to ask for things such as wheel refurbs etc.

They basically get a trade in. Throw a bucket of water over it and stick it on the lot.

Which does annoy me
 
My approved used CLS was "good to go" from the forecourt , once it had went to the bodyshop to have an obvious scratch repaired and a sunscreen handprint removed from the rear quarter.

FWIW a 2016 vehicle should possibly have minimal underbody corrosion , depending on where it has lived for seven years , let alone enough for it to be rejected at point of sale.

K
Ideally yes but a friend's late and low mileage (43,000 miles) E Class Coupe had a spilt subframe due to corrosion..
 
I've bought two Approved Used that required work before handover, so I agree they don't always fully prep cars before sale. Did the OP see this car at the dealership before paying a deposit though? If not and it was effectively sold direct from group stock the dealer might not even have laid eyes on it by that point.
Yes, I test-drove it for around 10 miles on mixed roads was pretty good, some suspension knocks from the rear but sounded nothing more than bushes. The car had spent its life in Edinburgh. On the other point regarding cars not being prepped this has become common practice both during and post covid, they tend to do it once there is a deal in place. Bought a couple of MBs from Sytner never had a problem, one needed a normal amount of work for a trade-in, and the other needed quite a bit doing, but once the deal was agreed they honoured it on the basis, you win some you lose some but it balances out.
 
Sounds like BS to me as said above they probably got a better deal elsewhere
My advice forget and move on to the next
I think that is where I am at. I was more interested in seeing if there was a genuine issue with the rear subframe (no one on here has indicated that there is a known problem with the GLC), if that had been the case I would be tempted to swerve the GLC and maybe look at a Q5/higher spec Tiguan, or even a X3.
 
This has been the same as every used car i have got.

They put out junk on the forecourt and then it's up to the prospective buyer to ask for things such as wheel refurbs etc.

They basically get a trade in. Throw a bucket of water over it and stick it on the lot.

Which does annoy me
That's how many dealers work....all big paint damage sorted and a basic clean before it goes out for sale .....but any bits the customer wants done, or the dealer knows will need doing, will be done between sale and delivery. Usually the workshop could only just keep up with servicing cars and preparing sold cars to go out....it needed to be very quiet before we worried about unsold cars. Plus the customer might want extras like extra security, dealer fit options....so it would most likely need to go back in the workshop anyway....at the very least it will need it's full valet....so why not just do it all at once when it's sold. It would be lovely to have all the cars prepped and clean to go straight out (not that they would stay clean)......but we live in the real world....not an ideal one!.Same with the caravans in my current job.....it's so busy at the moment they will be lucky to get washed before sales...let alone prepped for dispatch.....but most customers understand and accept that.
 
Another reason why work - such as MOT, servicing and minor repairs - only gets done after sale is that (pre-COVID) it would not be uncommon for cars to be moved on without being sold to an end customer, to other dealerships within the group, sold to local independent traders, or even sent to auction in some cases.

If a car must be moved on because it’s unsold for an extended period or a large repair is identified which means that it’s not viable to sell to an end customer, then there’s already an increased risk of making a loss. Performing work before it’s sold almost makes that loss a dead cert, and is avoidable, hence it’s only done once a deal has been agreed with an end customer.
 
Unfortunately there is nothing op can do in this situation, can’t force them to sell it, IF they have possibly had a better offer.

For curiosity I would keep tabs on the car, by checking when it gets mot’d, or if it does pop up for sale again.
True. There's not much else that can be done... and the discussion regarding 'what actually happened' will remain academic.
Presumably the fact that the dealer agreed the sale and took a deposit will mean that technically they have entered into a legally binding contract with you to supply.
Therefore you would not have the option to take legal action against them ?
Not an approach that I personally would relish, but presumably may reward you with more funds to put towards the purchase of an alternative vehicle.??
 
Presumably the fact that the dealer agreed the sale and took a deposit will mean that technically they have entered into a legally binding contract with you to supply.
Therefore you would not have the option to take legal action against them ?
Not an approach that I personally would relish, but presumably may reward you with more funds to put towards the purchase of an alternative vehicle.??
Legal action is rarely inexpensive, and I would be surprised if the T&Cs don’t allow the dealer to back out of the deal after the contract. Anything signed will be using the dealer’s own T&Cs after all, and large dealer groups will have enough experience to ensure that they protect their own interests. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s even provision for the buyer to do the same subject to conditions.
 
There is a clear breach of contract and proving it would not be difficult, notwithstanding that Bobby Dazzler is correct in that there are terms and conditions that allow both parties to exit from a deal. Having read them in detail I am of the view that they have not fully complied with them. But, the time and legal cost involved to in effect prove a point is not worth the effort. I will move on, but would still be very interested to find out if there is a known issue with the GLC in relation to corrosion.
 
The rear subframe corrosion is (becoming) well documented - unofficially, mainly via forums like this one - W204 C class seems top of the list but I think this is the first time i have heard a GLC being mentioned.

Could be wrong .
 
There is a clear breach of contract and proving it would not be difficult, notwithstanding that Bobby Dazzler is correct in that there are terms and conditions that allow both parties to exit from a deal. Having read them in detail I am of the view that they have not fully complied with them. But, the time and legal cost involved to in effect prove a point is not worth the effort. I will move on, but would still be very interested to find out if there is a known issue with the GLC in relation to corrosion.
Yep not worth the hassle and your time to be honest. I’m sure that there will be other GLC out there which would meet your requirements.
 
There’s a lot of outrage here and even suggestions of legal action. Isn’t it just possible that the dealer has done the right thing and saved you a mountain of inconvenience, problems and expense? You state yourself that there were noises from the rear end, could that tie in with the dealers actions? Have you found the first reported case of rear subframe corrosion on this model?
Be thankful they’ve protected you and move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
There is a clear breach of contract and proving it would not be difficult, notwithstanding that Bobby Dazzler is correct in that there are terms and conditions that allow both parties to exit from a deal. Having read them in detail I am of the view that they have not fully complied with them. But, the time and legal cost involved to in effect prove a point is not worth the effort. I will move on, but would still be very interested to find out if there is a known issue with the GLC in relation to corrosion.
I've never seen a car sales contract (or caravan come to that) that did not allow the dealer to back out under certain circumstances....and if the car is found to be faulty, rusty or accident damaged that obviously will be one of them. You cant have a contract where a dealer is obliged to sell a sub standard car!!....
.....but whether the car really was sub standard or rusty will be nearly impossible to prove. Life's to short....move on.
 
As you have paid a significant deposit. Maybe someone else is going full pcp or hp which is more lucrative.

However usually as soon as they are sold they are taken off the market
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom