Second-hand car buyer Karen Tilyard has been allowed to reject the $32,000 car and get her money back after major, and potentially dangerous flaws hidden in the vehicle were discovered days after she bought it. Photo / 123rf
A woman who bought a second-hand car after carrying out standard checks is now glad the serious problem lurking in the chassis was caught before her teenage son drove it.
Karen Tilyard wonders how much more she could have done to avoid what became a stressful - and dangerous situation when the vehicle was found to have a list of major faults.
She’s now relieved to have got her $32,000 back for the V8 Holden Commodore she bought from an Auckland second-hand dealer last year for her teenage son.
Tilyard said the experience had been hugely stressful, despite the successful outcome.
The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal allowed Tilyard’s application to reject the vehicle and therefore claim back what she had paid for it, plus $324 as a portion of the insurance policy she had also bought.
“It’s been a big ordeal as it was a lot of money,” she told NZME.
Tilyard bought the 2006 Holden Commodore SS from TCB Autos in Auckland last September.
She said it was among the lower-priced vehicles of its kind, and showed low mileage on the clock.
The 19-year-old vehicle had done just 39,000km, according to the odometer.
An AA vehicle inspection noted general wear and tear and minor cosmetic defects.
It also spotted trouble in the rear bumper which could have led to warrant of fitness problems, and a crack in the corner of the windscreen.
Tilyard said the dealer fixed these issues before she agreed to buy the vehicle.
She also purchased a CarJam report - an online service which provides detailed information about vehicles registered in New Zealand.
Tribunal adjudicator Crystal Euden said in a recent decision that it was relevant that the report noted no record of any damage to the vehicle.
However, a few days after driving off from the yard, Tilyard suddenly found it hard to engage the gears in the six-speed manual and had to “pump” the clutch repeatedly.
“I couldn’t get it into gear. That’s not normal,” she said.
Concerned, she took the vehicle to a nearby workshop, and the scale of the troubles was revealed, including evidence the car appeared to have been in a front-on collision.
Tilyard said that, in her view, the discovery of a “completely worn” hanger bearing, the critical support components in driveshafts causing driveshaft “whip”, was the most alarming.
Driveshaft whip is described online as a dangerous phenomenon leading to “potential catastrophic failure”, causing massive damage to the vehicle.
“The bearing was so loose it could have caused a major accident, and my 19-year-old son could have been driving it.”
Euden said in the decision that although attempts had been made to correct different measurements in the right and left wheelbase, the alignment remained out, indicating chassis distortion which was supported by photos showing “crinkle” in the chassis.
Rust staining was visible from radiator water leaks, with additional rust on the right front chassis rail. The exhaust system was touching the vehicle body, which was a condition that would fail a WOF inspection.
A faded recall sticker on the inner door pillar recorded 59,000km, which was inconsistent with the odometer reading of 39,000km.
The vehicle was advertised as having a new WOF but it was five months old when Tilyard collected it.
TCB Autos director Brock Duckmanton told the tribunal this was an oversight rather than a deliberate failure to comply.
CarJam chief executive Paul Osborne told NZME he had reviewed the data relevant to the vehicle and found the report was essentially “clean”.
He said they received information from a number of government sources and none indicated any damage history, or written-off status.
Osborne said the vehicle was New Zealand new and had not been flagged as re-registered by the NZTA.
“Even if it was re-registered as an insurance write-off, once re-registered NZTA do not provide the reason for the original de-registration.”
Osborne said in his view, such scenarios might, broadly speaking, be the result of “quiet repairs” somewhere in a vehicle’s history, without any compliance steps through official processes, leaving potentially a chain of people none the wiser.
When Tilyard approached the dealer to ask for her money back, it was declined so she hired a lawyer who wrote to TCB Autos, seeking to reject the vehicle, which was also declined.
The dealer disputed liability and asked to inspect and repair the vehicle.
The vehicle was collected and a WOF check sheet dated the same day, presented to the tribunal as evidence, showed the vehicle failed for a broken bearing on the mid driveshaft hanger, modification of the left front chassis (for which certification was required) and a park brake issue which required adjustment.
Evidence provided to the tribunal by TCB also included an invoice for $575 showing the hanger bearing had been replaced, plus an invoice for $11,408 for “substantial panelbeating work”.
Euden said Duckmanton advised at the hearing that the front of the vehicle was effectively “rebuilt to factory standard”.
A WOF check sheet dated November 6, 2025, showed the vehicle passed inspection.
Tilyard then filed her application in the tribunal to reject the vehicle.
Euden took into account its age, correspondingly “very low mileage”, and “significant price” of $32,000 when assessing if the vehicle was of an acceptable quality when sold.
“These factors raise the ordinary expectation that, despite its age, the vehicle would be mechanically sound and free from serious defects,” she said.
The vehicle’s chassis distortion meant it also failed to meet a threshold of “substantial character”, resulting in Euden’s end decision which granted Tilyard the right to reject the vehicle.
However, she was not satisfied that the faded recall sticker showing 59,000km proved the odometer reading was inaccurate, or that the vehicle’s mileage was misrepresented.
She said it was plausible that the sticker related to a replacement part rather than the vehicle’s actual distance travelled.
“Similarly, evidence of a prior frontal collision does not, by itself, amount to a failure of acceptable quality.”
Euden said a 19-year-old vehicle was likely to have a history of repairs, and the Consumer Guarantees Act did not require a vehicle to be free from historical damage, only that it met the standard of acceptable quality at the time of sale.
Tilyard’s claim of $2420 in legal costs was declined.
She said the experience had put her off buying second-hand vehicles, because despite all the checks and balances and having bought through a dealer, she still got caught.
Brock Duckmanton has been approached for comment.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.