used car dealer problems

dan88

MrCEO wrote: »

The problem here is if it had a fully stamped service book it did have a FSH and therefore short of proving the dealer fraudulently had it stamped he hasnt done much wrong.

It sounds to me like the servicing was done but the cambelt not changed; might be very hard to prove it wasnt a FSH now. The cambelt shouldnt have snapped if it had been changed unless it was damaged or fitted wrongly however where is the old cambelt now? very hard to prove it wasnt FSH and snapped due to user error/damage. Also the dealer will likely point to your use of the car prior to snapping as prove it didnt exist at the point of sale.

I dont think you have an open and shut SOGA case here and I think your ignoring of the issue has extremely compromised your chances of enforcing any consumer rights here.

so what does a warranty mean then?

it clearly stated covers all engine parts an labour..

the allegation of missuse should of been proved by the dealer before he decided to repair instead of waitin until it wos fixed.

hartcjhart

at 38k miles it is 'highly' unlikely that the cambelt would have been changed under normal service schedule
and I have never heard of a warranty that covers 'consumables' ie cambelt/clutch etc

neilmcl

OP, the word is WAS, and who the hell is Miss Use?

smcaul

Forget the warranty, that is just complicating the issue, use the Sale Of Goods Act, the goods were not durable and so did not conform to contract, seller is liable - end of.

dan88

MrCEO wrote: »

5 years or 72k for this car.

Dan - Warranties cover faults and abnormal breakages; not consumable and servicables like cam belts.

I suspect it wasnt done but with it stamped as being FSH I dont see how you prove otherwise now. At the time you would have the belt as proof or been able to present it damaged to a mechanic for a report.

the dealer never stated that the warranty did not cover the cambelt,, his only arguement was the miss use allegation.

Equaliser123

MrCEO wrote: »

The car was perfectly durable. Cars break and need serviced; it doesnt make them faulty. Are you suggesting next time I need a spark plug I reject it under SOGA.

With respect, a spark plug is somewhat different from a cambelt.

I would have no hesitation in advising the OP to head on to Court to enforce this.

Equaliser123

MrCEO wrote: »

He wouldnt need too. A warranty will have had terms and conditions attached which 100% will have excluded the cam belt and resultant damage.

Your only claim would be SOGA and I think you have little chance of enforcing it now as you havent done so sooner.

It is forgotten though that there are 2 issues here

1) The car repair costs
2) The finance situation - the one you asked about.

You certainly have no cause not to pay the finance I am afraid; your dispute with the dealer is entirely seperate and CCA protection would likely not extend too you not paying your finance commitments regardless.

Here we go again.

OP - please do not listen to this guy. I'm sure we've seen him before under previous names beginning with "anih..." and "jud..".

As smcaul has said, the 'warranty' is a red herring. The car was taken back and it is academic whether the expectation was that it would be repaired under "warranty" or under the obligations of SOGA. Either way, the OP was not liable. There is no timing issue with SOGA here - the OP is not trying to reject the goods.

Equaliser123

MrCEO wrote: »

I know this but are you really saying that because the cambelt snapped the dealer should be liable. In this case you are in essence saying anyone who buys a car should have an indefinite cambelt warranty?

If the dealer has lied about the condition of the cambelt then fair enough however the OP is going to find this very hard to prove.

The engine damage is all down to the cambelt snapping therefore for me any resultant repair comes down to whether by providing the car the dealer becomes liable for all servicable items for a period of time?

I feel the SOGA does not extend this far; on a car of this age it is the case that things will go wrong and the owner of the car should be regularly maintaining it and ensuring nothing is wrong.

What is a tyre had punctured and caused serious bodywork damage? Would you propose the dealer liable for that too simply because it happened shortly after.

If dealers were to cover for this the second hand car market would cease to exist as dealers would have to overhaul every car prior to sale.

The dealer is in business. Contracts he enters into have warranties implied by SOGA including s.14(2) "satisfactory quality".

he takes the business risk of selling a car that that car will fall foul of SOGA. If it didn't have FSH then he would also be liable under s.13 (sale by description). OP doesn't have to prove that the dealer "lied". It is strict liability - either there was FSH or not.

This is an absolutely open and shut case.

dan88

MrCEO wrote: »

He wouldnt need too. A warranty will have had terms and conditions attached which 100% will have excluded the cam belt and resultant damage.

Your only claim would be SOGA and I think you have little chance of enforcing it now as you havent done so sooner.

It is forgotten though that there are 2 issues here

1) The car repair costs
2) The finance situation - the one you asked about.

You certainly have no cause not to pay the finance I am afraid; your dispute with the dealer is entirely seperate and CCA protection would likely not extend too you not paying your finance commitments regardless.

nowhere in the warranty does it say anything about the cambelt not being covered

dan88

MrCEO wrote: »

No it is your opinion that it is open and shut. There is nothing at all which suggests the car wasnt of satisfactory quality. The cam belt could have snapped for a few reasons including damage during the OP's ownership.

The dealer says it had a FSH; the book says it has a FSH. Whilst I have no doubt in my mind it probably was old and snapped due to wear the dealer rejects this and has a service book to back his stance therefore I dont see any reason for genuinely stating the car was faulty or not of satisfactory quality or non durable.

I very much doubt we will agree but urge the OP who quite clearly knows little about cars or buying cars to ensure he has everything he needs before going to court as if he was to show up at court tomorrow and the seller fought the claim it wouldnt be open and shut. He would have to provide some basis for his claim.

ive been to a solictor who thinks i have a very good case after reading letters from dealer. and the reason why i havent gone to court yet is because car has been stood for over 2 years and dont have funds for tax mot and what ever else is wrong after being stood that long.