Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • mlaf
    • By mlaf 10th Sep 17, 12:44 PM
    • 28Posts
    • 8Thanks
    mlaf
    Dealership warranty vs consumer rights act
    • #1
    • 10th Sep 17, 12:44 PM
    Dealership warranty vs consumer rights act 10th Sep 17 at 12:44 PM
    I'm researching what to expect when I purchase from a dealer and was glad to read of the consumer rights act 2015 allowing for a rejection within 30days, or after 6mo a rejection after 1 failed repair from the dealer.

    However I read this on lawgistics:
    This is your customers’ legal rights, not their warranty. In addition to having their legal rights a customer may be offered a warranty by the car dealer on a voluntary basis.

    Interestingly, if the first repair is conducted under the terms of a warranty, that will be a contractual repair, and so the customer does not become entitled to their final right to reject. At this stage a dealer can agree a further repair which will effectively defer the customer's rights under the Act meaning they still have the rights if they have further problems which can not be repaired under the terms of a warranty.

    So, strangely, it sounds as if taking out a warranty would protect the dealer in a way, allowing them more chances at a repair before you are entitled to ask for a refund...?

    Any thougths on this?

    Is it still worth taking out the dealer's warranty to cover smaller issues that wouldn't render the car unsatisfactory and therefore wouldn't be covered under the consumer rights act?
Page 1
    • Tarambor
    • By Tarambor 10th Sep 17, 1:26 PM
    • 1,570 Posts
    • 1,073 Thanks
    Tarambor
    • #2
    • 10th Sep 17, 1:26 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Sep 17, 1:26 PM
    Is it still worth taking out the dealer's warranty to cover smaller issues that wouldn't render the car unsatisfactory and therefore wouldn't be covered under the consumer rights act?
    Originally posted by mlaf
    Depends entirely on your appetite for risk. Personally I wouldn't bother. In 150,000 miles of motoring over a decade spread between two cars the sum total cost of non servicing repairs I've had comes to £700 or so;

    MK3 Mondeo, bought at 3 years old with 90k on, sold 4.5 years later at 165k:
    Rear Subframe Bushes (common fault) - £200
    Turbo intercooler pipe (common fault) £80
    Alternator £120.
    Rear exhaust section £60

    MK4 Mondeo, bought at 2 years old with 38k, now 5.5 years later on 123k
    N/S and O/S trailing arm bushes - £140.
    Weld new hanger bracket on rear tailpipe - £30.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 10th Sep 17, 1:43 PM
    • 15,662 Posts
    • 8,973 Thanks
    motorguy
    • #3
    • 10th Sep 17, 1:43 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Sep 17, 1:43 PM
    I'm researching what to expect when I purchase from a dealer and was glad to read of the consumer rights act 2015 allowing for a rejection within 30days, or after 6mo a rejection after 1 failed repair from the dealer.

    However I read this on lawgistics:
    This is your customers’ legal rights, not their warranty. In addition to having their legal rights a customer may be offered a warranty by the car dealer on a voluntary basis.

    Interestingly, if the first repair is conducted under the terms of a warranty, that will be a contractual repair, and so the customer does not become entitled to their final right to reject. At this stage a dealer can agree a further repair which will effectively defer the customer's rights under the Act meaning they still have the rights if they have further problems which can not be repaired under the terms of a warranty.

    So, strangely, it sounds as if taking out a warranty would protect the dealer in a way, allowing them more chances at a repair before you are entitled to ask for a refund...?

    Any thougths on this?

    Is it still worth taking out the dealer's warranty to cover smaller issues that wouldn't render the car unsatisfactory and therefore wouldn't be covered under the consumer rights act?
    Originally posted by mlaf
    Its not the taking out of the warranty, its the accepting of a repair under warranty.

    Also, the CRA 2015 doesnt just cover rejection, it covers your rights relating to repair.
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • missile
    • By missile 10th Sep 17, 1:52 PM
    • 8,991 Posts
    • 4,369 Thanks
    missile
    • #4
    • 10th Sep 17, 1:52 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Sep 17, 1:52 PM
    A warranty does not reduce your rights
    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Ride hard or stay home
    • david a
    • By david a 10th Sep 17, 9:15 PM
    • 119 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    david a
    • #5
    • 10th Sep 17, 9:15 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Sep 17, 9:15 PM
    The CRA 2015 relates to issues present at the time of sale. A warranty is for issues arising after the sale.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 10th Sep 17, 10:20 PM
    • 11,539 Posts
    • 8,668 Thanks
    unholyangel
    • #6
    • 10th Sep 17, 10:20 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Sep 17, 10:20 PM
    The CRA 2015 relates to issues present at the time of sale. A warranty is for issues arising after the sale.
    Originally posted by david a
    That depends what you mean by issue. For example. poor soldering or substandard components will obviously be present at time of sale but the issue itself may not arise until several years later.

    Typically, a guarantee/warranty only offers value if it gives rights beyond your statutory ones. A guarantee cannot be used to restrict or remove your statutory rights - its potential to mislead consumers is particularly high during the first 6 month when any lack of conformity is assumed to be inherent.


    Under the heading "Guarantees and warranties operating as exclusion clauses" in CMA's unfair term guidance:
    5.11.3 Certain fundamental legal rights are treated as included in all consumer
    contracts by Part 1 of the Act. In general, these statutory rights cannot be
    excluded by any form of contractual wording or notice – see above, in part
    4 of the guidance on blacklisted terms. But inappropriately restrictive
    guarantees may still be challenged as unfair, particularly if they could
    deprive consumers of other legal protections. Such wording is also likely to
    mislead consumers into assuming that it represents the full extent of their
    rights, and cause them to refrain from exercising their statutory rights,
    which may be actionable as a breach of the CPRs

    5.11.6 Any guarantee or warranty which gives consumers less protection than
    their ordinary rights is unlikely to be made fair merely by addition of a
    qualifying statement of any kind. In the CMA’s view, such a guarantee
    should be discontinued altogether, or its terms should be brought into line
    with the consumer’s legal rights
    Where it references qualifying statement, it means a statement such as "your statutory rights are unaffected" or similar.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,865Posts Today

9,183Users online

Martin's Twitter